Unprecedented, uncertain and in many respects dizzying, the political sequence which opened following the dissolution of the National Assembly places, like any electoral campaign, the question of political voluntarism at the center of public debate. And, with its string of more or less baroque promises, that of the place and role of the State: should we need more or less immigration, more or less taxes, more or fewer police officers, teachers, etc. ? While the ecological issue has practically disappeared from the media agenda, the temptation is great, for the government as for the legislative candidates, to promise mountains and wonders. Even if it means freeing oneself from the most elementary principle of reality.
When state interventionism is counterproductive
Nothing new under the sun of the Fifth Republic. A stronger at the plausible end of the reign of a government team which will have, like shortly before it, raised to the rank of art this very French mania of interfering with the State where it has nothing to do, while discarding it of its responsibilities where, on the contrary, public power is legitimately expected. The issue of climate, the environment and the protection of biodiversity is no exception to this tradition. And provides, far from simplistic trials of incompetence or collusion, its share of recent cases where the unbridled interventionism of the State has collided with the wall of reality. Rather violently.
The examples are, unfortunately, legion. Thus the anarchic dissemination of wind turbines, which scar our landscapes without improving the performance of our electricity network. The closure of the Fessenheim power plant – a real ecological aberration. From the ban, brutal and not concerted with our European partners, of neonicotinoids in Isère, without of course giving the beet sector time to adapt. Over-taxation imposed on our timber sector, which contravenes the objectives of promoting French forests to achieve our climate objectives. Or, again, the protection of endangered animals – and in this case not just any animals: orcas.
Orcas at Marineland Antibes: the government is floundering
At the initiative of the law of November 30, 2021 prohibiting, from 2026, the detention and reproduction in captivity of cetaceans, the members of our current government are also those of a generation bottle-fed with films Sauvez Willy. The spirit of the law cannot be disputed. But its implementation comes up against a political-administrative imbroglio from which the State would undoubtedly have done well to stay away. At Marineland in Antibes, two orcas are now waiting for their fate to be decided. So the legislator decided: very good, but why would the State interfere in the future of the two cetaceans?
Transfer of orcas to another dolphinarium or creation of expensive “marine sanctuaries” with an impossible economic model and which would probably take years to see the light of day? As if trapped by its own voluntarism, the State Secretariat for Biodiversity is multiplying contradictory declarations. Without particular expertise, the State interferes where it has nothing to do and takes the risk of making decisions in a haphazard manner. Even if it means wasting public money and doing more harm than good to the orca population in general. The latter would benefit, for example, much more from better plastic collection or the development of fish farms than from the concentration of public money on two individuals.
Household waste: the State has no subscribers
Conversely, what do our leaders do when it comes to tackling environmental issues which, this time, are indeed their responsibility? Why do we have to wait until local authorities take the State to court for “environmental inaction” so that the law on the reduction of household waste is implemented? Certainly, looking into the French trash is, for certain ministers, undoubtedly less immediately gratifying in the media than pretending to save Willy once again.
