Claim: French President Macron’s Climate Change “Mini Steps” Are Not Good Enough

President Emmanuel Macron

President Emmanuel Macron. By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

French President Macron, arguably the greenest French President ever, appears to be in serious trouble. Radical French greens are accusing him of being in thrall to big business, of not doing enough to combat climate change.

Emmanuel Macron under attack over climate change

French president accused of doing too little, as he appoints new environment minister

French environment campaigners have warned Emmanuel Macron is doing too little to combat climate change and must radically rethink his environment policy if he is to honour his promise to “make this planet great again”.

Renewed criticism of the centrist French president’s approach to green issues came as Macron replaced his former environment minister, the TV personality Nicolas Hulot, who quit last week saying the government was in thrall to powerful lobby groups and taking only “mini-steps” that were insufficient to deal with climate change.

Macron insists he has gone further on green issues than any other French government, but Jean-François Julliard, the director general of Greenpeace France, said it was clear “the environment is not a priority for Emmanuel Macron and [the prime minister] Édouard Philippe who just use it as window dressing without any real will to engage on environmental transition”. He said he feared De Rugy would simply be “his master’s voice” and added: “Macron must at last take measure of the huge responsibility on his shoulders.”

Karima Delli, a Green member of the European parliament, said people wanted “a new pact for ecology”.

Pascal Canfin, the head of the World Wildlife Fund in France, who was a development minister in the last leftwing government, said a 21st-century shift was needed on clean energy “but the state is still set up as if it’s the 20th – or even 19th – century”.

In recent weeks, Macron’s approval ratings have dropped to the lowest since he came to power, as he faces slower economic growth, and struggles to shake off the label “president of the rich”. Over the summer, he faced the first major political scandal of his presidency when a senior security aide was filmed violently assaulting a young man and woman at the edge of a Paris demonstration.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/04/emmanuel-macron-under-attack-over-climate-change

President Macron has been a real try hard on climate issues. He attacked President Trump’s climate views when invited by President Trump to address the US Congress, he offered seven figure grants to US climate scientists to entice them to move to France, he even picking fights with other members of the European Union over their lack of commitment to European principles, including climate change.

But no matter what President Macron does, it is still not good enough.

Nobody, not even President Macron, can keep climate zealots happy. They always want more.

Advertisements

66 thoughts on “Claim: French President Macron’s Climate Change “Mini Steps” Are Not Good Enough

    • Those 2 x $500 million USD payments by Obama were impeachable offenses.

      $1Billion from the US Treasury without specific authorization from Congress. A High crime if there ever was one.

      • Bush and Obama with a comatose Congress outdid themselves with at least two 700 billion bailouts for Wall Street, taken from tax. With that addictive habit, 1 billion was just waved through.
        The corporate debt bubble about to blow will use that example for the mother of all robberies, unless Trump acts now on such bailout-antics.

        • Took 10 years from 1929 to the outbreak of WW2, whats your bet on the timeline from a crash to a war?

          • Hillary was not going to wait for the crash. Trump is massively attacked for talking to Russia and China – a very good thing. Some forget a war would last approx 60 minutes, be very hot – 100million degrees, but only for milliseconds at a time.
            The old British geopolitical recipe from Napoleon, to Hitler, to Blair, Bush, Obama, is toast. The USA, Russia, China and India acting for once together will handle the crash and dump geopolitics forever.

  1. Almost all French presidents have been a “president of the rich”.
    Just what exactly do the French think socialism is about?
    If one wants to look at the epitome of a Frenchman, look no further than their rugby team.
    And too true, you can never be green enough.
    There’s always someone greener than you (the socialist’s play book) . . .

    • François Hollande famously said
      “j’aime pas les riches” I don’t like rich people
      “rich means 4000 € per month”

      Of course anyone in Hollande’s orbit is richer than that.

    • They can bring Microns mum to tuck them in……

      It was weird Trump young wife, Micron and old wife when they all met up for a chat,….

      Old Alpha young Beta couldn’t have been clearer.

    • “Able was I ere I saw Elba” – should be the Elbe, the river too-far of Napoleon’s flight forward. That twosome, the leader of peoplekind, and self-declared Jupiter, are going the same way unless they come to their senses.

  2. WHAT DO THE GREENIES WANT MACRON TO ACTUALLY DO? Close up all the nuclear power plants which provide 76 % of the electricity in France?

    The way I figure it , maximizing your hydro dams and geothermal with the rest going nuclear to provide 100% of your electricity and going 100% electric vehicles will result in your fossil fuel use to drop to as low as 28.6%.

    Don’t forget that of total fuel use, about 40% is residential and commercial consumption. That can all be from nuclear sources. Assuming that of the 28% that goes to transportation , if we went to 100% electric cars ,SUV ,and small trucks , only about 3% would have to be reserved for fossil fuels. Ex: Commercial planes wont be electric for a long long time. That leaves industry use which is the remaining 32%. Since industry uses 3.2 % electricity, that could be easily doubled if the country went massively nuclear. So you would have the remaining 25.6% of economy that is fossil fuel use of industry plus the 3% for transportation fossil fuel. That gives you the bottom line fossil fuel use of 28.6%. I can’t see how you could ever get to zero unless you banned fossil fuels by law. Any attempt to lessen the nuclear portion will simply increase the % of fossil fuels or increase the solar and wind ( with much higher costs than fossil fuels).

    The startling thing here is there is no place for country grid wide installation of wind and solar. Of course individual usage of wind and solar simply takes those customers off the grid. Once the subsidies come off of solar and wind , and massive building of nuclear power plants come on stream; wind and solar will die except for individual use as shown above. Going nuclear will cause electricity prices to stabilize at about 2/3 of the top prices that Australia, Germany and Denmark pay now. I calculated that from the cost of nuclear in France which generates 76% of it’s electricity which is the highest in the world. France for once did something correct. Wind and solar in France are about 6%. I can’t see that increasing much ( despite what the French are saying to appease the IPCC) and only if the massive subsidies are kept on.

    However with nuclear, they have shown the way to the future of energy. Will the rest of the world follow?

    PS: I just read the following in the Guardian article

    “The French government announced in November that France’s long-held goal of bringing its reliance on nuclear energy down to 50% by 2025 was not feasible and was likely to take a decade longer.”

    Are they nuts? Why would anyone want to reduce their nuclear generating capacity?

    • It’s amazing, isn’t it? I can’t help thinking there must be some spectacular corruption somewhere in order for the French to be attempting to reverse what seems like a sensible energy policy for the country.

    • On 2nd thought you actually need backups for the nukes even with a national grid. Sometimes they are down long periods for repairs. So revise my figure. Add another 1.4 % of fossil fuel backup to give you a minimum of 30% fossil fuels. You can’t include solar and wind as backups because they need backups. If you make your grid truly national and can switch electricity as needed then you can do it with nuclear and fossil fuels. So I challenge the greenies to get that 30% any lower. It perhaps is higher.

      • On 3rd thought with France having 19 nuclear plants and 65 million people, let us say 1 nuke for 3 million people. So in the US you would need 110 nukes. In either case you have to plan for 10% of them being down at any one time so you need another 10% of 70%(electricity penetration of economy) which means another 7% backup, So add 7% to 28.6%.
        In the end you need 35-36% of the economy consuming fossil fuels. So your energy penetration can never be any more than 65% with no matter what fuel you go with. Fossil fuels will always be at least 1/3 of your economy. And anybody that tries to do green energy without going the nuclear route will never get close to the above figures. Don’t forget that Germany is leading the world with green energy and so far they are still at 80% fossil fuels. Germany has made a big mistake getting rid of most of their nuclear.

        • “Alan Tomalty

          On 3rd thought with France having 19 nuclear plants…”

          To service 65 MILLION people!! Is that right? Well the “solution” to “carbon pollution” *IS* nuclear!

        • Japan has 48 operable, 8 running nuclear reactors for a population of 127 million. Germany’s Great Coalition used Fukoshima to turn off nuclear, but the deal was on paper 4 months beforehand. You just would never know when a 45 meter tsunami could flood Bavaria.

        • France has 58 active (on line or regular maintenance) pressurized light water Westinghouse-style reactors:

          Fessenheim: 2* REP-900/CP0
          Bugey: 4* REP-900/CP0
          Blayais: 4* REP-900/CP1
          Dampierre: 4* REP-900/CP1
          Gravelines: 6* REP-900/CP1
          Tricastin: 4* REP-900/CP1
          Chinon: 4* REP-900/CP2
          Cruas: 4* REP-900/CP2
          Saint-Laurent-des Eaux: 2* REP-900/CP2
          Belleville: 2* REP-1300
          Flamanville: 2* REP-1300/P4 (and one EPR is being built)
          Paluel: 4* REP-1300/P4
          Saint-Alban: 2* REP-1300/P4
          Cattenom: 4* REP-1300/P’4
          Golfech: 2* REP-1300/P4’
          Nogent-sur-Seine: 2* REP-1300/P’4
          Penly: 2* REP-1300/P’4
          Chooz: 2* N4 (N4 has electric power = 1450 MW)
          Civaux: 2* N4

          The variants have:

          – different confinement structures,
          – different number of loops,
          – type of control system (primitive or modern, computerized),
          – ability to operate at variable power (most reactors don’t operate at full power all the time),
          – “gray bars”,
          – possible rate of change of power (limited by temperature change),
          – ability to go back to full power rapidly,
          – ability to do frequency control (not the same thing as ability to operate at variable power),
          – reactor and control system qualified for the more demanding properties of MOx (hotter)
          – for the EPR: ability to change reactor power without changing reactor temperature

    • The need a few Californians, they are good at shutting nuclear plants. Aussies like to dynamite coal fired power stations. With a little help they can reach pre industrial nirvana.

  3. It’s difficult to feel sympathy for a politician who promises the impossible. Political “impossibilities” are one thing, but promising what is physically impossible deserves only ridicule.

    Unfortunately UK politicians haven’t yet cottoned-on to the idea that the greensharks always want more, especially when there is blood in the water. Currently they are just banning things like free plastic bags and plastic drinking straws, and probably something else recently I haven’t yet seen reported. But they have now given an inch to these people on several occasions. They keep coming back for more and will continue to do so until the BBC is sold off and forced to fund their environmental activism from private sources.

    • No, that won’t happen. The BBC is funded from taxpayer sources. Taxpayers pay . Good
      More Government . Good More regulation. Good Solar. Good Wind. Good Free stuff .Good

      Capitalists Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Fossil fuels and CO2 Baaaaaaaaaaaaaad

      Are you beginning to get with the program. Karl Marx wrote it all down.

      • “Alan Tomalty

        No, that won’t happen. The BBC is funded from taxpayer sources.”

        Not really. It is funded by the TV license fee, which is not income related. You don’t have to work to own and, therefore, pay the fee. But I get your point. Approx 200,000 people in the UK are prosecuted each year for non-payment and approx 200 go to jail! How much does that cost actual taxpayers is anyone’s guess.

        • What a waste of government money trying to collect money for a public service which everywhere else in the world is free.

          • Yes, and talking of stupid and waste, since June 2016, in Australia not having “enough credit” on your Opal card (Public transport ticketing system, like Hong Kong etc) for a trip is, now, a criminal offense.

          • France 2
            France 3
            France 4
            France 5
            France O (for “outre mer”)
            (collectively France Television)

            Arte (French-German)

            TV5Monde (the one hacked by alleged false flag “soldat of caliphate”)

            France TV Info (TV/radio info)

            France 24 French
            France 24 English
            France 24 Arab
            (equivalent of BBC World)

            Those are only the French tax payer financed (with also ads) and state controlled channels. We have many “private” channels controlled by groups making a lot of money with state contract (like construction and sanitation) that provide the same collectivist pro-state soup.

        • Are you sure about those figures Patrick? Could that be fake news scare tactics? I know plenty of people who have never in their lives handed over a single penny in Al Beeb propaganda license fees – myself included – and none of us have ever been so much as visited let alone prosecuted. If they ever did decide to visit they would need to do so with battering rams and a full police presence with warrant because that would be the only way they were gaining access to my property.

          The postal demands for money with menaces go in trite little cycles beginning with “We notice that there has been no payment from this address …” and escalating rapidly in strident threat level to “If you do not pay us immediately we will send the boys round and you won’t like that one little bit!!” sort of stuff. Followed by a gap and return to “We notice …” Quite funny really and a handy source of firelighters. I must have had literally thousands over the years which once the pattern was established I never even open but put straight into the firelighter box. On the day those far left wing vendors of lunatic extreme racist propaganda extract money from me Satan will be skating to work.

        • No, that won’t happen. The BBC is funded from taxpayer sources.”

          Not really. It is funded by the TV license fee, which is not income related.
          __________________________________________________

          Not only.

          It’s BBC + ABC + CBC + NBC + …

          Just look at their dokumentary mediathek and you won’t believe this belongs to ONE tv station.

  4. “French President Macron, arguably the greenest French President ever, appears to be in serious trouble.”
    Just the thought of eating frog’s legs and snails turns me green!

  5. With all of Frances Nuclear power stations putting out the greenest electricity bar Hydro, he can afford to make all the usual Green noises that politicians love to do. But of course the Greens hate both Nuclcear and Hydro. So what do Greens want , to close down all the Nuclear power station I guess.
    MJE

  6. I expected to find that Macron was desperately clinging to power and needed the support of a green party to support his minority government. Imagine my shock and horror when I discovered the reality of French politics. link

    In the Superman comics there was a world where things were the opposite of Earth and didn’t work right. Htrae That’s what I though of when I read the Wiki article on the 2017 French election.

  7. It’s ironic to see the very green President Emmanuel Macron hoist with his own petard. No matter how leftist or green you are, there is always a group further to the left or greener who will attack you for lack of correctness.

  8. Mr Macron, you should be more active in the destruction of the French economy. Take your lead from Germany, Canada and Australia. Then, in the ensuing chaos, the fascists can take power like they did in ’33.

  9. Macron has a global responsibility to demonstrate to the rest of the world, what can be achieved by a large nuclear generation effort. The basic test bed structure is already in place and performing economically and efficiently.
    M. Macron, take pride in showing the world what can be achieved. Geoff

    • I always respect the French for their nuclear power infrastructure. One reason for their success is their plant designs are well proven and almost all plants are identical. That is the secret to their success with nuclear IMO!

    • Don’t use an engineering term in vain, it’s wasted on the purty frog. Some V8 engines are being built to +/- 8 microns in America right now…that’s a massive improvement on previous manf techniques. I worked to within +/- 2 microns in industry back in the early 80’s.

  10. French President Macron is perceived to be taking ‘mini-steps’ because unlike really good lefty leader he has not made a proposal for a huge ‘virtue signalling’ gesture. To this end I humbly recommend that Macron announces plans to convert the Eiffel Tower into a giant wind generator, and within the proposal ensure that virtual ‘carbon’ calculations show a massive saving for France.

    • When I visited the tower in the early 80’s, authorities were stripping out about 1000 tonnes from the structure because it was sinking. I just recall seeing arcade machines on every level.

  11. The planet “was never that great”; Cuomo would say.

    The planet “has always been great, it doesn’t need to be be made great again”; McCain’s daughter would say.

    To John McCain: I salute your military service.

    • Macron has long had bigger problems than global warming or the green blob. He only has 31 percent approval and his party and coalition partners as well. That’s the crux of Macron, as I had predicted a year ago. Was not difficult, I live just 15 kilometers from France and know the French Pappenheimer exactly.
      They let the king live up and at the same time build the machine to make him a head shorter. Macron’s balancing act was doomed to failure. Especially because he wanted to get the money for his policies from other EU members. France first in the EU. But France is too small for that.

  12. The eco-greens are interested only in outcome, not effort or opportunity. But the outcome they want – their image of planetary social justice, of which fossil fuels is only a part – is a utopian dream (and practical nightmre). There is no happy ending for them, ever.

  13. Gosh, the French gets more imbalanced as time goes on. How many ‘Climate Scientists’ sought asylum in France after Trump got into office? We just need to get rid of this government where stupid people can elect people who don’t agree with the agenda to replace that government with leftist Marxist. I think that’s what President Moron is saying… Maybe he’s hoping there will be a revolution where the masses will storm the White House and demand a new government to save us all from ‘Climate Change’.
    The masses will only riot if they don’t get an increase in their ‘government assistance’. Or a perceived political figure (Trump) might threaten it in some way.

Comments are closed.