Great paths. Faced with a sharp increase in fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine, the government decided to finance a discount of 15 centimes per liter of gasoline at a gas station. An emergency decision to ease the family budget, which will cost the state 2 billion euros and last only four months.
Thus, this is a costly and temporary solution, although this is not the first time France has faced such a rise in gasoline prices. For researcher Aurélien Bigot, author of a dissertation on energy transition in transport, this crisis illustrates “once again the delay and lack of ambition in energy transition over all these recent years.” He calls for long-term measures so as not to find yourself in the same situation in a few months or a few years.
Franceinfo: What do you think of these government measures on fuel prices?
Aurelien Bigot: There is an inevitable side to the presidential election and a somewhat opportunistic side. It was inevitable to provide an answer to social concerns about the household budget. The whole difficulty lies in succeeding in creating mechanisms that would be socially oriented. This is not the case here. This discount is valid for everyone, so for very unreliable people who really need it, as well as for rich people who will also use gasoline for vacation trips.
These measures should also not limit the energy transformation of transport. I regret that the decisions taken so far do not once again solve the problem at the root and do not act to reduce dependence on oil. However, it is mandatory to go through an energy transition, whether for climatic reasons, for health reasons, with air pollution or for social reasons, for sustainability, with dependence on oil.
What should have been done, in addition to helping with the cost of fuel, are measures that allow the energy transition to be accelerated as much as possible in order to allow as many people as possible to get out of this addiction and reduce dependence on oil. consumption. A fifteen cent discount won’t get them out of their addiction at all. This is not a long-term or even medium-term solution, and certainly not suitable for the humblest of people.
What can the government do in the face of this crisis?
The problem when you arrive during a crisis and have to deal with an emergency is that many of the levers of transport decarbonization have a medium to long-term impact. What we are paying the price for today is once again the delay and lack of ambition in the energy transition of all these past years.
“There were two oil shocks in the 1970s, the oil price spike that preceded the 2008 financial crisis, the Yellow Vest crisis… If we had acted more seriously and prudently in the face of these crises and the climate emergency, we would be far less today. vulnerable.”
Aurelien Bigot
on Franceinfo
We are paying the price for our lack of ambition in these matters. Thus, in a crisis, when we hope to get out of dependence on oil in a few weeks, when this is a project for several decades, the means of action are inevitably very limited or imperfect. However, there are a whole bunch of speedups that can be implemented. But they will not solve all vulnerabilities, so there may be a need for financial support for the most unreliable.
What are these measures?
They are of several types. In terms of transport demand, the government could plan for moderation in telecommuting travel, as is the case with Covid-19. In the medium term, there is also something to do. For example, the government is announcing a more targeted mechanism for “big rollers”. If we take the problem at its core, we must start by asking who these big chariots are and what can be done to get rid of their addiction to long car trips in order to recreate greater intimacy. Today, we rarely ask ourselves these questions. However, we can find answers, as is the case when running a 1 km walk with several companies.
About Modal Shift [le changement de mode de transport], during the Covid-19 crisis, municipalities have accelerated the introduction of cycling facilities, which should be returned to the table. In New Zealand, the government has also cut public transport prices by 50%. [en complément d’une réduction sur les carburants à la pompe, comme le détaille le New Zealand Herald]. When you think of the 2 billion spent on that rebate [celle de 15 centimes sur le litre d’essence]we can imagine a range of other government policies: expanding the sustainable mobility package in companies, helping car sharing, etc.
In terms of energy efficiency, there is only one short-term leverage: 110 km/h on motorways. This is the only measure that significantly reduces oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions overnight. For all the other solutions mentioned above, there is a certain amount of inertia before they lead to a significant reduction in oil consumption. The first speed limits (130, 110, 90) were introduced in 1974 after the first oil shock, and the introduction of speed cameras was not in vain in reducing vehicle emissions in the early 2000s, which shows that this measure can be relevant.
This measure was sharply criticized when it was proposed by the Convention of Citizens…
Its social acceptability is limited. The latest polls I’ve seen give just under 50% of the opinion in favor of this measure, and there are no 80% of the population against [selon les chiffres de l’Ademe, qui sonde chaque année depuis 2004 les Français sur cette mesure, le pourcentage de personnes favorables a oscillé entre 56% (2008) et 34% (2014), pour s’établir à 42% en 2021].
Unlike a carbon tax, which could put some people at risk, the 110 km/h limit is a waste of time, but it results in savings for households, they are even savings. If we stick to the speed limit, the 30 km/h limit indirectly favors active modes of transport such as cycling or walking, making them safer.
“The last lever is the transition to electric vehicles. There may be a range of means to facilitate the transition to electric vehicles. The ones that currently exist are not always very well aimed and do not always encourage the most virtuous cars.”
Aurelien Bigot
on Franceinfo
Preference should be given to lighter vehicles, which are also less expensive. Few households have access to the new market, and the purchase of electricity requires additional costs. In terms of total cost and usage, an electric vehicle is already competitive with a thermal vehicle, but requires a basic investment to be made. There is clearly no ideal solution. Today, it is important to accelerate some of these levers, which could have a significant impact in a few weeks, a few months, and gradually provide solutions for a part of the population.
When this discount on fuel prices comes to an end, how do you see the future?
As for the discount, it will depend on what the presidential elections will bring. The current government has announced that if it were still in power, there would be a more targeted arrangement from the end of July. It is important that this be more targeted in the future.
There is a lot of uncertainty about the development of the crisis and oil prices. The worst thing would be to say that this will pass and that we can continue, as we do today, at our pace, which is in many ways insufficient for the energy transition. You must be prepared for the fact that prices will remain at a high level or continue to rise.
“We must anticipate the possible measures that may be taken and avoid financing from the public funds of oil-producing countries such as Russia. This is the financing of the problem that we are now trying to fight.”
Aurelien Bigot
on Franceinfo
Every time a crisis occurs, we are always in the same short-term device to alleviate the situation, and each time we return to our mistakes again. If certain measures of the Civil Climate Convention were taken, we could already reduce certain vulnerabilities and increase resilience. Climate change has already been reason enough to change our transportation habits. There, in the very short term, our transport partially finances the conflict. This is an additional reason to doubt this dependence on oil.