Answers to the main objections...
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that slow down the earth's natural heat emissions, like the glass panes in our greenhouses, resulting in abnormal warming. We're also being asked what CO2 equivalent means: carbon dioxide isn't the only one responsible for global warming, methane, nitrous oxide and 3 refrigerant gases are also feared. The Kyoto Protocol defines their equivalence. To put it simply, if global emissions are 42 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, we are suffering from 54 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, generally noted as CO2e and "billion tonnes" noted as Gt for gigatonnes.
Examples of carbon content?
168 kg CO2 for a 60-liter tank of gasoline, 516 kg for a 2,000-km plane trip or 3,096 kg for the 12,000-km Paris-New York round trip, 3,250 kg CO2 for 1,000 liters of heating oil or 114 kg for 1,000 kg of wood logs.
1kg CO2 for 2.4 kg of wheat, 300g of rice, 12 kg of potatoes, 450g of greenhouse tomatoes, 66g of beef, 150g of veal, 500g of chicken, 1 liter of milk(note that the values for food products have an uncertainty of +/- 50%, and will be refined when invoices are tracked throughout the supply chain).
100kg CO2 for a bicycle, 170 for an electric bike and 90 for an electric scooter, 150kg for a computer and 15 to 30 for a smartphone, depending on its characteristics.
23kg CO2 for a pair of jeans, 11 for a cotton shirt and 10 for a viscose shirt, 53 kg for a wool sweater... (All values certified by Ademe, to be made more precise through the use of carbon accounting)
Other examples can be found in the carbon footprint calculator (free):
The aim of the carbon account is for consumers to push companies to decarbonize, because as citizens, they will manage their egalitarian carbon budget downwards. The aim is to ensure that France's carbon footprint is reduced
by five before 2050.
It seems necessary not to decide this without a national vote, which should be preceded by a Citizens' Convention on Decarbonation, as explained in the memorandum submitted to the French Ministry of Ecological Transition. This precondition will define the governance (rules of the game), which will naturally need to be robust to resist the rebellious spirits so dear to our culture.
After a few months, if you have less than 1,000 points or kg remaining on your account, you will receive a message to restrict yourself and buy a few kilos from the regional adjusters. The possibility of buying back quota is essential to respect our constitutional rules prohibiting the deprivation of freedoms.
Effect for low-wage earners, for example: a sober family of 5 with 31,500 points in 2026 and consuming 16,000 could sell 15,000 at 20ct (if 200€/t of eqCO2) to generate a sobriety bonus of
3,000 over the year. If (due to its scarcity) carbon rises to 400€/tonne, that's 6000€... a kind of universal sobriety income.
As some sober people (activists) won't want to sell their surplus, it's estimated that the buy-back price will rise rapidly. A price of €1/kg is envisaged for 2040. Some activists would like to see not be entirely free, to prevent the mechanism from leaving high-income earners too free to waste carbon. In any case, they would be limited to buying back no more than 94% more than they did the previous year.
Surplus carbon points could be blocked on food, for example (to avoid starvation).
Yes, the problem is global, and therefore of course European, but there are major disparities between countries in Europe. Germany's carbon footprint is twice that of Romania or Slovakia.
each country (within the scope of its national accounting system) develop its own carbon agency and system.
Provide for European coordination, as on www.CEQuiC.eu proposed at the Future of Europe Conference.
atlas of reduction rates provides an indication of the percentages needed to reduce emissions in each country. In the 72 countries with the highest emissions, these rates range from 2% to 10%.
The war in Ukraine is reshuffling the cards, and Pierre Calame is proposing the "
appel de Nantes pour une Europe 2.0", which also proposes the coordination of carbon accounts.
They will probably be managed on the parents' account. It will be up to the scheme's sponsors to decide whether to grant the same 9,000 points to children (at the risk of encouraging too many children), or whether a half-fare will suffice to cover their emissions, which are effectively reduced, as is the case for tax shares.
Campaigners are also proposing that, in future, future children should not earn a quota from their parents until they reach the age of majority, encouraging parents to choose their sobriety efforts.
Yes, some people fear that the rich won't be forced to do so, but the opposite is true: the carbon quota is a form of free slice for all, and only the rich will be "embarrassed" by having to buy back so little. People on minimum wage are sober (average 6t/p/year), often out of obligation. They will be able to sell carbon points to the adhoc authority.
The value of carbon points will increase with scarcity. And every year, it's getting scarcer, since we're being asked to reduce by 40% in 10 years. So it's getting harder and harder for the rich!
In addition, it is possible to establish a mark-up rule for the rich: if the carbon price is 200€/t (2028 valuation), surplus purchases could be made at this price for 50% of the quota, but increased to 300€/t for the additional 50% tranche, to 400€/t for the tranche from +100 to +150% and to 800€/t (80ct/kg) for the maximum tranche from +150 to +200% of the quota (prohibited beyond that). The disadvantage of this complexity is that it increases the risk of
of the black market.
Carbon points don't earn any tax, and taxes on capital and high incomes need to be maintained, or even increased, in order to provide government services.
For low-income earners with commuting obligations, for example, an extreme commute of 100km/d generating up to 30,000 km/year with an old car consuming 10l of diesel per cent, generates 9480 kg of CO2. We need to make the company more responsible, by charging it half of the carbon content of commuting.
If carbon is counted as surplus at €0.20/kg (2028 estimate), the surplus purchase would be €80 per month, justifying a switch to a low-carbon car (on the order of €150 monthly repayment for a second-hand car).
It is the suppliers who are automatically accountable for the carbon flow, thus avoiding cheating. And everyone will choose the most frugal suppliers, so as to be less imputed by their supply.
Companies receive carbon points from their customers in order to purchase from their suppliers. The only obligation imposed on companies is carbon balance, i.e. to charge customers for all the carbon points used. This must be checked by the chartered accountant and verified by the statutory auditor. Every company (and legal entity) must set up a carbon register in addition to its accounts. A company that cheats (by allocating too little to customers) could find itself carbon bankrupt (due to insufficient capacities for suppliers).
Investments are allocated using a simple spreading mechanism shown at
If companies import raw materials or any other purchases, they must pay carbon points to the national Carbon Agency, which has defined a scale in conjunction with ADEME... This will disappear when all countries have their own carbon agency, enabling exchanges validated by several parties. The reference system will be the Customs Nomenclature, already managed by the European Commission, with its 18,000 international items and local variants.
On the contrary, following the precepts of the commons clarified by Elinor Ostrom, the two concerns are intrinsically linked: treating only one would quickly get it into trouble.
How the carbon agency will take care of biodiversity: if a billionaire wants to generate a carbon sink by planting 10 hectares of forest, the 5 t CO2/year are only valid if the forest meets the standards of NGOs such as Forêts et Campagnes d'Avenir: the investor may be redirected towards planting 10 km of hedgerows guaranteeing the 5t to be credited towards his carbon points.
Any allocation of carbon points will be conditional on biodiversity effects. Consumption of carbon points that affects biodiversity will be penalized.
Assises du climat concluded that it was ineffective, as summarized in the article in the
DRENCHE article of September 2021. Above all, its implementation in Sweden since 1991, with the best possible rules, has not led to any reduction in its carbon footprint. In addition to being anti-social, the carbon tax is ineffective, and no longer has much support. It is described as the incentive route, whereas the carbon account represents the route to guaranteed results.
The Auvergne-based hosting company O2Switch.fr was chosen for its
energy choices . The two key point videos were compressed to the extreme and taken from Youtube. We limit the impact of the pages as much as possible, but we're always on the lookout for new ways to reduce impact.
No animals were harmed in the creation of this site. According to the
www.carbometre.com, if you consult a website for 10 minutes, you generate 40g of CO2 in a non-optimized context; here you're at 10g. This page is at 1.8g CO2e, according to https://ecoindex.fr . We could reduce
content by using new methods such as grav.cms, which we'll be developing shortly.
"Could a sober household store its points for subsequent years, when the endowment will be reduced?"
It seems to us that the counters should be reset to zero at the end of each financial year, to avoid any future upsurge.
We are aiming for a rapid reduction in greenhouse gases: it would be abnormal to allow forward enrichment games on a value that we must drastically reduce: in concrete terms, Agence Carbone reallocates a quota of 94% of the previous year's quota on each anniversary date, which has the advantage of smoothing out flows and work over the year, and above all avoiding games of high demand on the last days of the year. On January 1 of year 0 all citizens receive 9,000 points at the same time, then I, who am from July 22, my quota is extended pro rata (750 kg/month) and will be reset to 8,460 on the following July 22 (happy birthday).
But how can we reward those who have been more sober than average, and whose accounts will be zeroed out at the end of the year? We propose the creation of an emergency fund into which surpluses would be paid to cover future contingencies and help poor countries. Donors would be listed as members of the carbon emergency fund. To ensure that the carbon agency is not reproached for cancelling
the year-end remainder by surprise, a memo will be sent to each surplus citizen 2 weeks before the end of the fiscal year to remind them that the remainder will be cancelled to accelerate the descent of carbon, but that they can still resell it if necessary.
The main reason for not storing carbon for future years is to avoid speculation, which would attract all kinds of companies.
Unlike the European Eu-ETS system, this is not a market: while the endowment may give rise to a carbon currency, the operation is organized so as not to allow the laws of the market to operate (invisible hand):
- Speculation is prevented by the fact that carbon points are reset to zero with each new year by allocating the new year's value (i.e. 94%),
- Hand-to-hand sales are prohibited, as the carbon agency does not recognize surplus carbon credits that are not authorized (either regional adjusters or the carbon agency itself)
- No carbon point value for companies that have to keep a carbon register, where points have no monetary equivalence (the carbon point value is used only for the purchase of surplus by those in deficit, or the sale of surplus by those in surplus to the authorized adjuster).
Our movement advocates the power to live by better distributing capacities between rich and poor (possible resale of sobriety surpluses), by making decarbonization work more profitable, which bankers will better finance (profitability improved by the economy this will generate), by deploying new decarbonized luxuries that companies will hasten to offer to all, such as music, gastronomy and socializing... The carbon account prevents the rich from monopolizing the resources needed to balance the climate; free CO2 for the rich is a thing of the past. It was Indian ecologist Anil Agarwal who asked: "Who owns the world's carbon sinks? Let's stop the rich grabbing them!"
These are the 4.8 million homes classified as F and G in the national diagnosis.
We can distinguish between two cases: for the one million owner-occupied dwellings, zero-interest bank loans should be taxed over the long repayment period.
In the case of the 4 million rental properties, this is the responsibility of private landlords, who until now have had no incentive to repair their properties. It would be proposed that the carbon burden of these heating systems be shared 50/50 between tenant and landlord (for homes rated above class D).
If the owner is an individual, his personal quota is at stake, and he is encouraged to decarbonize.
If the landlord is a legal entity, who therefore passes on his carbon emissions to his customers, a law must oblige him to carry out effective insulation work, under threat of expropriation.
The 50/50 rule could be limited to class D, E, F and G dwellings, to avoid landlords who have spent a lot on insulating their property becoming responsible for the overheating of their tenants.
Statistical studies are still lacking in precision, but several are based on the 2013 standard of living survey and show that 62% of French people are beneficiaries with 9,000 points (including 86% of winners in the tranche
1 of the lowest incomes, 82 in the second bracket, 77 in the 3rd decile, 69 in the 4th, 68 in the 5th, 62 and 55 for the 6th and 7th, and finally 53, 54 and 29 for the 3 richest deciles: 71% of the wealthiest 10% of
would quickly run out of carbon for their daily needs).
This study also shows that single people and couples without children would be in deficit across all brackets, but we recommend limiting the advantage of families with children by proposing a half share for under than 16 years old.
Other studies (based on wealth) estimate the number of winners at 9,000 carbon points at 65%. So the richest 10% have to reduce their consumption by 3 times...
This question is important for assessing the chances of success of a referendum or national vote.
Many believe that buying carbon quotas from poor countries would be an incentive to consume, which would run counter to the sobriety approach embodied in the carbon account: each country must strive for carbon neutrality.
through a national carbon account.
If, by 2040, all European countries have reached 3t/capita, then the agencies can merge to form a European agency, which could be similar to the African agency, which would have reached 2t faster. then link up for a coordinated carbon reduction.
It could be possible then that rich countries (if they don't have enough space) will finance carbon sinks in poor countries.
Local currencies are already managed by simple connection to the telephone (e.g. Basque Eusko, Doume in Puy de Dome, Gonette in Lyon, Gatinelle in Deux-Sèvres): it's easy to practice with your retailer the same recognition for money (connection to the local currency account) and carbon (connection to the personal account at the carbon agency). It would therefore be advantageous to integrate local currencies into all territories, as they have the great merit of relocating the economy and maintaining jobs against Amazon and Alibaba.
Tomorrow, French banks could follow suit, for telephone identification, without going through the American giants Mastercard or Visa who spy on us so much.
The carbon content of local currency and telephone exchange transactions is ten times lower than that of Visa or cash.
The concept of melting money stems from the fact that holders of conventional money have an advantage over producers of goods and merchants, as they can defer their purchases over time (fungible money).
whereas producers and merchants must sell their products as quickly as possible to prevent them from losing value.
Silvio Gessel and then Bernard Lietaer have demonstrated the virtues of currencies that lose their value over time.
Local exchange systems (SEL) use this principle, with a 6% drop in value over the past year.