is a journalist with degrees in management and philosophy. He’s written for a range of French publications including Philosophie Magazine, Marianne, and Le Monde diplomatique.
A recent report on the environmental transition commissioned by the French government recommends a green tax on the wealthiest, to compensate for the increase in public debt. As simple as it seems, such a measure has taken a long while to be formulated and popularised. Here’s a historical overview of the notion.
Taxing the wealthiest to finance the environmental transition would be a “stupid trap” to fall into, according to President Emmanuel Macron. The comments came after the publication of a report by Jean Pisani-Ferry and Selma Mahfouz on the economic implications of environmental action, presented last week to Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne. In it, the authors recommend “an exceptional flat-rate levy of 5% [of the top 10%], within a thirty-year window” which could bring in 150 billion euros.
This measure would be a world’s first, Pisani-Ferry told the Telegraph. However, its reason for being is very simple: the wealthiest pollute more than the poor. At the national level, he explains, the carbon footprint (including imports) of household consumption increases with income and varies from one to three between the first and the last decile.
This was enough for the environmentalists in France’s parliament to come out in favour of such a measure in France’s weekly Journal du Dimanche, all in the name of “climate justice” – a measure they claim to have been defending for a long time. But since when exactly?
The making of the green wealth tax
The idea of taking more from the richest to finance the environmental transition isn’t new. In different forms, the “carbon allowances system” popularised by environmentalist Mayer Hillman and economist David Fleming in the 1990s, or its close cousin, the “cap and dividend” system, both aimed to create markets where citizens can sell and buy rights to pollute. The more carbon an individual consumes, the more they pay, suggesting the introduction of a progressive carbon tax based on one’s footprint.
Obviously, with such schemes, the wealthiest would end up paying more: they have larger homes, more private means of transport, they consume more consumer goods, etc. Moreover, with the carbon allowances system, those whose consumption is lower than the allocated emissions quota could make money by selling their rights to pollute. But these systems are based on the creation of markets, not taxes.
The idea of an exceptional taxation applied only to the super-rich was popularised quite recently, nam…
Subscribe to Philonomist and gain free access to all our content and archives for 7 days. You'll also receive our weekly newsletter. No commitment. No bank details required.
You're already subscribed to Philonomist via your employer?
Connect to your account by filling in the following details (please provide your professional email address).
