Should we tax carbon emissions?

It was trumpeted as a pioneering gesture to save the environment, but France’s planned tax on fossil fuels was ditched shortly after Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP party suffered poor results in the regional elections. Was the taxe carbone a missed opportunity or a tax too far?

Charles Farreny, Deputy mayor, Montcuq

You have to admit the carbon tax proposal was flawed. But it opened the door to the idea of a greener form of taxation, to make companies, unions and the man in the street more aware of their impact on the environment. It wasn’t dropped as a result of pressure from those who thought it too mild; it was abandoned because of pressure from the powerful economic interests who cite international competitiveness as a reason for not accepting any sacrifice as a matter of principle. This short term view seems irresponsible to me. The case for an ecological tax should be reopened and the sooner the better.

Hugues Soude, Retired banker

This tax wasn’t thought through. Either it’s a European-wide initiative or the whole thing is meaningless if polluters abroad are free to bring their goods into our market. Rather than looking to taxpayers, the government should first tackle the root problem and pressure Europe into taxing goods from abroad where they don’t comply with the same rules. It should apply to those who are primarily responsible otherwise it’s unfair. Increase the tax on fossil fuels and on large cars, and then help manufacturers and individuals to readjust by making it compulsory to use new energy sources once this is technically possible.

Béatrice Peyret-Vignals, Book editor

I’m still fuming about the abandonment of the carbon tax by the government which was one of the most important results of the grenelle forum on environmental issues – and this simply for electoral reasons so as not to upset the industrialists. Polluters should pay, it’s fairly simple isn’t it? No one wants increased taxes, but this measure seemed fair to the extent that it was offset by help for less well-off households. Invoking Europe to get yourself off the hook and renege on your undertakings is too easy and the people won’t be duped, far from it. There’s no choice – we’ve got to change our behaviour, and just getting on our bikes won’t be enough unfortunately. We French only understand how to change our ways when it hits us in the pocket – nothing new there.

René Teyssandie, Shopkeeper

It’s just another tax isn’t it? They are going to abandon the taxe professionnelle so they needed to find the cash another way. The trouble is for it to work they need to get everyone to pay up. Unless everyone signs up, and especially the rest of the world, it isn’t going to be effective and it isn’t going to be fair. They clearly didn’t reckon they could do that. That’s why they’ve dropped it.

Maurice Carrez, Professor of contemporary history in Strasbourg.

The big problem with this tax was that it was going to be paid by individuals; the manufacturers and big polluters wouldn’t cough up.
Apparently in Sweden the tax is much higher. I reckon most of us would be in favour of a tax that would help reduce dangerous pollution levels, but not if the big polluters don’t contribute. Also those who live in the countryside, drive old cars and travel the most to get to work would be asked to pay the most – the poorest sector of the community.