#RDLS45 : CLIMAT, COP23, PARADISE PAPERS, PÉTROLE, LIBAN, IRAN, ARABIE SAOUDITE, CONTRE-BUDGET

Let's go! 45th Weekly Review! Hello Everyone! We are going to send the generic but beforehand I have to tell you that together with Antoine we are thinking to change the form of the Weekly Review. Well, we will do that in January 2018. Now we continue as it is because we have got into this habit and apparently you too as it seems you like it, no? Let's go! Generic! First I talk about a topic that is rather... annoying.This is the status of climate change. I have already given my opinion on this subject in the Weekly Review several times and I have told you that I was not very optimistic because already from the start, at the COP21 the agreement that was signed in Paris, as you know, declared that humanity was setting its target to reach a maximal increase in global temperature of two degrees. This debate did not go very well because a whole list of countries that with two degrees rise the sea levels will go high enough to submerge our islands. I don't know how many thousands or dozens of thousands of islands that are currently disappearing. Some of them are populated, they are states like the Maldives, and there are other places where sea levels rise on very low lands with all consequences - the floods, the land being reduced and the populations move back. As a result in Bangladesh 50 million people are migrating up and crossing the Indian border. It usually creates problems when huge masses of populations move across borders. You see this is the proof that what I told you. When confronting the climate crisis there are political phenomena at stake not just the people living conditions because this lead to masses of people becoming poor or who have lost their habitations but also because they cross borders, disrupting everything, but obviously those poor people cannot be blamed. Thus they had set two degrees, they had added the real target should be 1.5 degrees. Well, OK! Only 1.5 degrees to avoid recording in a document that we agreed for all insular nations disappear under water! After that all the states provided their own plans saying this is what we are going to do here and there against global warming. And all these were summed up it appeared that the commitments from the different states would lead to a higher that 3 degrees increase! This meant that we forget 1.5 degrees, we forget 2 degrees, and we are aiming towards 3. And at the time when people like me said it, and others because there are many environmentalists who have done calculations and that's what I use to support what I say we were told: you are catastrophist you have not seen that we have signed a very important agreement. Alright! We have signed an agreement, it makes us very happy but a useless agreement is a very BIG problem because we are dealing with humankind survival. Now the UN environment agency has done an analysis and says that the 2 degrees target is over. We cannot make it! The odds at holding onto this 2 degrees target are now minute. Thus there will be a more than 2 degrees rise. In clear this means that climate change will accelerate. And I tell you again that climate change is not a linear increase such as a slow progression with the weather getting warmer and warmer and with more and more rain. No! This is not what happens. It's by stages. There is an accumulating effect, such as the sea warming which makes the ice from the deep seas to come up this deep see ice is full of methane and when a lot comes up at once, methane is liberated in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect suddenly is considerably amplified with highly unpredictable consequences because the climate is a metastable structure or ensemble. which means at the threshold of an equilibrium, thus when it gets out of its balanced state it may change to a different system. I have read an article in the journal "Pour la Science" that said that the most statistically probable would be a great glaciation. This shocks your mind! How can climate warming provoke glaciation? Well you have understood what I tried to explain. Thus there is a very bad prognosis. We have to be aware of it and that it allows you all to understand the importance of spreading politics of ecological transition. This is not just a part of our program "L 'Avenir en Commun" and a subject on which la France Insoumise is hanging. The general human interest is concerned. This is not a question of party, or movement or a program of a particular group. We have to set up a change of direction of our economic model. It has to change, and to change from one to the other end. And change is a good thing! I exhaust myself repeating it because some people believe that when we talk about ecological transition: yes, OK, well we will work on insulating houses so that heat does not escape This is not what we are talking about. We talk about changing production processes, changing our eating habits, changing the way of trading and this begins first of all by changing production processes and the way we produce energy. This is a whole. And this is very exciting because it involves creativity, human activity, employment. None of this should be scary! It's the opposite. It should be reassuring, inspiring We should say: great we are tackling the problem and we will sort it. What is anxiogenic, what is scary is doing nothing and let the situation evolve towards a disaster, because a disaster is going to happen! It has to be well understood: the disaster is going to happen! Except if we change our work methods. And when the disaster strikes, this will destroy the bases that underlie a system of production and civilization. Thus if we change the bases to our functioning we will protect ourselves against not only the disaster but also the consequences of the incoming disaster. For example, if we are able to produce energy from the sea or from the wind or geothermal - these are diffuse installations which means not in a one spot thus it's more resistant, if there are all over the place it's better than in a one place because if it's all in the one place when it is destroyed there is nothing left thus this diffusion addresses the two problems: first we sort the problem by stopping the contribution to global warming, and second if extreme climate events occur, such as tornadoes and others, torrential rains, then since we have all these facilities we are able to cope. We won't be destroyed. Thus the big problems that we are facing have to be analyzed in this context. It is useless to believe that things will not happen if we hide our head under the table. Then, it is also in this context that we have to consider the decisions taken by our country. For example I took it very badly that Nicolas Hulot said: regarding the renewal of the nuclear equipment, it cannot be done within the time-frame. So, why does this upset us? Because as many people I think highly of Nicolas Hulot. But I believe he tries to do some things, we cannot say no, but it's not up to the level it should be. Decisions have to be made now. Take a real turn. Concerning the nuclear, one may say what is the relation because nuclear does not produce greenhouse emission gas, it is clean, etc... Tell me it's clean! Of course not! This is terribly dangerous. And when a nuclear plant is threatened it's not just the plant that is threatened!. It's its whole economic environment It's its whole human environment and the damage is irreversible. Once it's broken, it's broken for everyone and for hundreds and thousands years. You may not know but Fukushima is not over. You must know think that it;s over because we don't talk about it any more. Every day radioactive water passes into the sea and nobody can leave in the surroundings, and so on. I am told that in Tchernobyl nature has taken over. Well of course nature will continue to live, wherever there are humans or not it's not its purpose. Nature does not care. Except that over there in Tchernobyl, no humans can live because the ecosystem has been modified by the radiations, not just for humans any way and it cannot sustain human life. If you want a human-free planet, continue! Nature does not care. There will always be some kind of nature. But our concern is to protect humankind sustainability, for our children, our grandchildren. It's normal we take interest in this. We are not just here to comment about nature. So, when Nicolas Hullot says we cannot make it we have to think. Why can't we make it? Because we don't do anything! Because we have not taken measures, we have not started the big building sites of installations, the wind turbines at sea etc... We continue working. Some companies like DCNS and others have developed magnificent technologies for example now we have some prototypes of floating wind turbines The floating wind turbine is very important because instead of being set up in land or on the sea shore where everyone complains to have to see them this can be place much further at sea. This is not just to preserve the landscape It's because winds are stronger further at sea we possess the technology. What is missing is the political will! And if we set up the resources right now, then we will be able to stop the reactors. The opposite has been decided. We said: we will see later, we have no time for that, it's not developed, blah blah, blah... And we say that the target was 50% of electricity production only, from nuclear. This is meaningless. If electricity consumption increases 50% from nuclear will mean no change because what we are producing today will correspond to tomorrow 50% Thus all this is cladding with words. We cannot accept that! It;s time for a change! I wanted to tell you that because the COP23 is coming soon. It;s taking place in Germany. I hope we can talk to the German government because today Germany is the biggest polluting country in Europe. When you are in Paris and you are unhappy because of the pollution peaks this is in part due to open-pit coal mines in Germany! By the way, in Germany environmentalists demonstrate regularly in the open-pit coal mines to say It's enough. Stop that! The global problem of our production model is to break from carbon sources. OK? All what comes from petrol, coal in short from carbon A page has to be turned and we need to move to something else. This leads me to another matter. I am sure you are not even aware of that other matter. The other matter is what's happening in the Middle East. You have followed the war in Iraq, the wa in Syria I think that by the end you have ended up by understanding you have been fooled because you discover that those same who were yelling at me during that time where financially supporting DAESH as this iwa the case for Lafarge. You would have noticed that nobody talks about this affair any more. A magnificent silence on this matter! You understand that you have been fooled by all sides and that by the end those who were right are us! when we said to put a stop to it, that the war would not lead anywhere and that this was a petrol war. Now it continues. Since Daesh has been eliminated the countries that were financing Daesh - because some countries were paying it, no? don't believe that Daesh would have found money only from Lafarge Lafarge was a small racket with people who have no morality and who to produce their cement were ready to muddle in blood. But this is small beer. The main part, the new equipment vehicles, all what's needed to make war was paid by whom, do you think? By the Emirates! And by which Emirates? There are two kinds of Emirates. Saudi Arabia on one side and its allied and on the other side Qatar France... in between. The Saudi closer to the USA than the French. The Qatari closer to the French than the USA. But right now the battle is nearly open. Since Daesh has been eliminated Saudi Arabia has to move again its pawns forward because the real battle going on is about petrol, gas between the Emirates from Sunnite denomination although religion is rather a second issue, and on the other side Iran, who are Shiite. Thus these are the two blocks fighting each other Don't you think it is strange that the Lebanon Prime Minister while everything was getting back into order by the way a contract was just being signed over gas and petrol exploitation. The Prime Minister leaves his country of Lebanon, goes to Saudi Arabia and over there: says: they want to kill me, thus I resign. Good bye everyone! He denounces Iran and he disappears. This does not seem to surprise anyone. Then the president of Lebanon Republic Mr Michel Aoun, says: well, he resigns, he resigns, but he should tell me. He should not announce it on TV from Saudi Arabia! Thus this guy has disappeared and since Mum's the word! I speak to the Parliament Assembly and we have not stopped asking where is Mr Hariri. We had to shout because it was not question time we had to shout loud to be heard by the Prime Minister The Minister heard me very well Not a single word on the matter! blah, blah, blah, we are joining I don't know what with countries aspiring to stability... just music to your ears! But in the mean time, a Prime Minister has disappeared and no one has anything to say. This is huge, isn't it? And always the same story: gas, petrol gas, petrol that are the plague of our civilization. It's because of gas and petrol we have wars. It's because of gas and petrol there is such a greenhouse effect and so on. Think about this people! because situations may be simpler than the sense we make of them even if the results are extremely complicated the starting principle the self-organizing principle of the situation is often very simple. Well, now I talk about a topic you may have heard of this is the presentation of our counter-budget. So, first this is a rather large document those who wrote it have done their best to make it simple but I don't tell you it's very simple I will not mislead you. For those who do not have a particular knowledge it may be off-putting, but yet this is not a book for technocrats. This little brochure has been linked to this video so you can access it on the website of La France Insoumise This is a big piece of work. This leads me to tell you The parliamentarian group La France Insoumise consists of 17 deputies among which there is no former finance rapporteur, no former president of the finance commission no former minister. In all other groups there are people who, in the last few years have had some responsibilities in the state budget and for us, it's lucky we had well prepared during the presidential campaign. You will remember our broadcast - we ill also indicate the link at the end of this Weekly Review - We made a 5-hour broadcast on the detailed calculation and at that time I had really assisted, - I did not speak for 5 hours for those who may believe so. In fact now then some said I thought I was Castro when talking for 5 hours - I must say that I have not been spared a single stupidity - Of course not! It was presented by all those who were involved in preparing the different chapters of the program. I am really keen for you to know that in any circumstances we are ready to govern. Thus obviously when making a counter-budget you cannot call on the state services especially for people like us who don;t have among us people used to deal with the budget. But yet, many senior officials who obviously work anonymously and specialists that we know such as the economists Liêm Hoang Ngoc or Jacques Généreux, or people who have overseen the program and who are here to give me a helpful hand on the technical aspects. And there are our own deputies who have become specialists! I am not too bad myself by dint of doing in dealing with budget and also Éric Coquerel who has presented it to the press and we also add the link to his presentation and you will see several deputies speaking about their particular domain. In brief, this is the counter-budget I will also tell you and admit that when making a counter-budget we try to include some things to draw attention It's not just daily management, it's obvious. Thus we continue hitting the theme concerning that we take everything over 300,00 or 400,000 euros. Every time they make three backflips: Oh! what are they thinking? This is terrifying. They are very scared. In fact this concerns only 0.05% of taxpayers. But what does it allows? To bring up the subject and make people think there is a limit to accumulation. This is the purpose. Because at first everyone cries then we say: do you know this concerns almost nobody? Really? As someone told me this limits my dreams! I have already said 100 times that I have never dreamed of money. Not many people dream of money! Or maybe if you are lacking so much you are so unhappy that you dream of finding a bank note or something like that. I guess because I have never dreamed of money. In the mean time this shows the limit to accumulation because this is our point of view. We have the right not to agree but us, we think that there is no benefit in hyper-accumulating money. That's it. When you hyper-accumulate money you don't place it into real production you don't help others, you put it all in the financial bubble and you speculate! That's all! Thus we are against! For us I said this once, it's a basic slogan but yet I said: being a billionaire is immoral. Yes because one cannot accumulate such an amount of money without wondering where it come from. This is not real production. It's just speculation, trafficking well, things like that. Precisely his question comes back to the table with the tax evasion. You have heard about that. It's the Paradise Papers. Paradise Papers or Paradis Papiers. Why is it called like that? I don't know. This means the files on tax evasion in fiscal paradises. Said in French it's simpler but it sounds more trendy for some and also it brings a little fun to it. But this is not funny at all! Because tax evasion adds up to tax fraud. The difference between those is that tax evasion is... how to say that? within the law. This means that if an enterprise that is taxed 25% in France - as is the case for enterprise taxes - you transfer the head office -just the head office - the address in the island something-or-other then the taxation drops to ... to nothing at all! When I say an island, there is ot even need to go to an island. If you go to Luxembourg, you can ask for a meeting with the Prime Minister and then the taxation rate which is whatever, 20% or less? 18? and you negotiate face to face and the Minster does a thingy called a rescript in clear a privillege and you sign a document where it says that you will not pay 18 or 20% tax but that you will pay 5%! This does not show, nobody is aware of it, all is hidden. This is a fiscal paradise! This is legal. There is nothing illegal about it. The proof? It's that the whistle blower who denounces this system is punished and sentenced because he is supposed to shut up as part of his contract. But the one who signs, no, no, it's not illegal. Nobody has ever been sued for tax trafficking in Luxembourg. Nobody! Except for the whistle blower who show this existed. Then, tax evasion is covered by legal systems This is really a problem! Legally you can cheat your country. This means you consider that you don't care about what is going on in the country where you live. Thus you are here, you have your factories, eventually, your office and all But who has trained and paid for the education of the people who work with you? They don't care! who build the road that deserves your factory? They don't care! Who produces the energy? They don't care. They don't care about anything! This is a form of outsourcing as we say the costs of capital. The capital produces, destroys nature, it does not matter, it does not pay. It destroys people. It does not matter Then outsourcing of environment costs outsourcing of social costs. When I say outsourcing of social costs: they make people work like beasts.of burden When people fall ill, they need health care.This is costly. Pffft, they don't pay for it On the contrary, they say: we have enough of paying social charges - the contributions- we don't want t o pay any more social charges. They are just happy with killing people! That's all! Well Here it's the same when one does not pay their contribution, their taxes, the this is a way to outsource all the costs contributing to production. Try and run a factory without electric power! Try and make it run without a road! Try and make it run without the highly qualified workers This cannot exist! Someone has to pay! Everyone has to pay. This is the purpose of taxes. Them, they offload. Thus tax evasion is the legal part. Tax fraud is the illegal part.