Primary environmentalist: what to remember from the debate between Yannick Jadot and Sandrine Rousseau

Who to don the clothes of the ecological presidential candidate? The MEP EELV Yannick Jadot, champion of an ecology "of solutions" that he wants to put "in power" in 2022 or the Lille academic Sandrine Rousseau, the "ecofeminist" who assumes his "radicalism". Three days before the second round of the ecological primary which promises to be as uncertain as it is tight (the online ballot will take place from September 25 to 28), the two finalists who came out of the polls last Sunday clashed this Wednesday evening on LCI, at the occasion of the only televised debate between the two rounds. A crucial confrontation where the debates were lively even if they remained courteous.The aim was to convince the 120,000 or so enrolled in primary school and in particular those who voted in the first round on the EELV mayor of Grenoble Éric Piolle and the deputy Generation Ecology of Deux-Sèvres Delphine Batho.

Ecology of government versus radicalism

From the outset, during the short presentation given to the two candidates, each insisted on their differences. As expected, Yannick Jadot defended "an ecology of action", an "ecology of field struggles". And pleaded for an ecology which "assumes to want to govern, an ecology which unites." Because we will have to act with all the forces of society ”. Faced with him, Sandrine Rousseau once again assumed her "radicalism". “We won't be able to make an ecological transformation if we don't say it right. "And the ex-number 2 of EELV did not hesitate to attack Jadot challenging" the ecology of government "and suspecting him of wanting to be satisfied with" half-measures ". "The ecology of government that you propose is an ecology that does not go to the end of the road",accused Rousseau who does not see "sufficient transformations" in his program. "If to govern is to give up then we must no longer engage in politics, we must get involved in associations, social movements," retorted the MEP dryly.

What place for the car?

The two candidates then engaged on the theme of mobility and the car, again making their nuances heard. Sandrine Rousseau pleaded for a policy of “demobility” aimed at limiting the number of journeys as much as possible, by putting an end to urban sprawl or by setting up fleets of shared vehicles. She repeated that she wanted to ban SUV-type cars in favor of light, less fuel-intensive cars. “SUVs are totally useless in a society of ecological transformation. (…) We don't need to move around with tons of metal around us. "Yannick Jadot explained to him that he was against" the elimination of the car "taking the example of his mother who lives in Picardy:" My mother, when she goes shopping, she cannot go there by bicycle.He defends the improvement of the frequency of daily trains, the reopening of small stations or a moratorium on commercial areas on the outskirts. And this time, it was he who went to the net in reaction to his competitor's proposal to increase the price per tonne of carbon to 250 euros, fearing "full at 100 euros" impossible to afford for the modest households. "There, Yannick, it is you who stir up fears," Sandrine Rousseau sermonized."There, Yannick, it is you who stir up fears," Sandrine Rousseau sermonized."There, Yannick, it is you who stir up fears," Sandrine Rousseau sermonized.

Tax the rich?

After debating the nuclear phase-out and animal welfare, two subjects on which the two candidates are relatively aligned, they reaffirmed their divisions on business and tax issues. Yannick Jadot wants each "euro of public money for companies to be conditioned on the climate, health at work, the revaluation of wages, gender equality". When Sandrine Rousseau proposes to “shift corporate taxation to CO2”, which according to her “allows more people to be employed because we reduce contributions on work and make things that endanger us expensive”. A new pass of arms then intervened on the taxation of the wealthiest. "I do not mean that you tax the richest", reproached Rousseau. "You must not have read my program",Jadot replied, who explained that he wanted to take up "the idea of ​​Eric Piolle of the ISF climate" which would include "the carbon footprint of the richest". New hitch when Jadot explains defending (like her) a new bracket of income tax. "I am very happy to hear you say it for the first time," Rousseau smiled. "It's not good to caricature," Jadot reprimanded.

Racism in the police

There was also lively debate on the issue of the police. Rousseau like Jadot agreed that if "the police are not racist", it is urgent to put an end to discrimination and violence on the part of certain police officers. The first wants to put an end to "facies control" when the second proposes that "the IGPN be out of its conflict of interest" by transferring it from the Ministry of the Interior to the Defender of Rights. But the Lille academic tackled Yannick Jadot on his participation in the police demonstration on May 19 in front of the National Assembly. “The police must respond to policies (…). Politicians never have to be behind police protests, ”she criticized. "It was not comfortable, but to govern it is not comfortable", argued Jadot,explaining having responded to the invitation of the CGT, the CFDT of Unsa, "which are not factious unions". “The police told me:

.

I considered that my political role was to be at their side ”, justified the MEP.