So far, the relative majority of Emmanuel Macron has turned to the right side of the Hemicycle to discuss his texts.
This time, the executive sought the famous "
compromise
" within the ranks of the left, while the solemn vote on the bill relating to the acceleration of the production of renewable energies (EnR) will take place on 10 next January.
The environmental group, particularly requested by the Minister of Energy Transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, finally decided to abstain.
LE FIGARO -. Why did you choose to abstain, after so many weeks of discussions?
Charles Fournier-.
This text arrived in a climate emergency context which only the President of the Republic thought was not foreseeable.
However, the issue of renewable energies is a priority for ecologists.
We have therefore approached this text with a positive a priori while saying: this text is bizarre, it lacks ambition, it does not say how France is going to catch up, it does not say the means that we are going to mobilize to improve this acceleration of renewable energies.
We have therefore done everything to improve it and add decisive elements.
But as it stands today, this text is not a good text and we cannot give it ecological credit.
However, you did not want to block it.
No, because even if this text is a small step, we take this small step.
In total, 36 of our amendments were adopted in session.
But the quantity does not tell the quality: there are minor amendments, others more important.
We have victories and some amendments have been adopted against the government.
Our abstention is also a reserve abstention pending the work of the joint committee (CMP).
We can hope that certain important aspects, which the Senate had acted on, can finally come back to the table.
I am thinking of the solarization of commercial and public buildings: an article jumped into the study of the text in the National Assembly which was present at the exit of the Senate.
It is a retreat on ambition.
We can also fear that the right of the National Assembly,
who led an anti-wind guerrilla war, and that with regard to the composition of the CMP, we are seeing issues such as the right of veto of mayors on wind projects.
This is a message to the CMP: are you ready to move the lines?
In which case, our position could change.
Did Agnès Pannier-Runacher always reach out to you during discussions?
Yes, but not enough.
There is a fundamental disagreement: on planning, the minister is betting on incitement when we believe in incitement but also in constraint.
There were discussions and they were constructive, and we appreciated.
Certain points have been taken into account, such as the establishment of a mediator for renewable energies, tariff modulation.
I must admit that I had the feeling, at a given moment, we were not essential to build a majority on this text.
Is this abstention the result of an impossibility to decide within your group, crossed by different currents?
Not at all.
We had debates throughout the text but the voting position we built is unanimous.
Abstention would not neutralize different positions within our group.
It is the one that seemed to us the most relevant in terms of both substance and form.
With us, decisions are made collectively.
It is not the leader who decides for everyone.
