VZCZCXRO7446
PP RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB
DE RUEHFR #6969/01 2961517
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231517Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2438
INFO RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC
RHEBAAA/USDOE WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAEPA/EPA WASHDC
RUEHZN/EST COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 006969 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR G, OES, OES/GC, EUR, EUR/WE; 
WHITE HOUSE FOR CEQ; 
DOE FOR INTERNATIONAL MARLAY, USEU FOR SMITHAM; EPA FOR 
INTL AYRES; USDOC FOR NOAA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE SEEKS TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS BY A 'FACTOR 
OF 4' 
 
 
¶1.  On October 9, Ecology and Industry Ministers, Nelly 
Olin and Francois Loos, jointly presented at a 'Factor 4' 
Conference the final report of the Working Group on 
'Achieving a four-fold reduction in GHG emissions in France 
by 2050.'  Written under the supervision of the French 
Council of Economic Analysis, the study included 
recommendations for more stringent regulations regarding 
emissions of GHG gases and improvement of incentives to 
prevent such emissions.  The F-4 authors acknowledge that 
their target of a four fold reduction in GHG's by 2050 is 
ambitious.  In their words it is, "Feasible yes, easy no." 
 
------- 
Context 
------- 
 
¶2.  In France, President Chirac and former PM Raffarin 
first raised F-4 in February 2003 at the 20th plenary 
session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) in Paris. France's objective, based on the findings 
of the third IPCC assessment report, is to stabilize 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations from rising above 450 ppm, 
with a goal of limiting the global warming to a further 2 
degrees Celsius.  (According to some climate experts cited 
in France, this means that worldwide GHG emissions must be 
halved by 2050.)  "By virtue of the principle of shared but 
differentiated responsibility," the GOF established its own 
target of a four fold reduction in national GHG emissions 
by 2050.  In July 2005, France passed this F4 objective 
into law. 
 
¶3.  Also in 2005, the GOF appointed an "F4 working group" 
of 31 members including representatives of French 
ministries, companies, and company associations (EDF, GDF, 
Total, Areva, Enterprises for the Environment, Chamber of 
Agriculture), public/international organizations (Academy 
of Technology, IEA, ADEME, Meteo-France), research sector 
(CNRS, IDDRI), unions, local authorities, NGOs (WWF, 
Greenpeace France, Reseau Action Climat).  The group was 
tasked to review (already existing) long-term energy 
scenarios and to make recommendations to the GOF to help 
France achieve its F4 objective. 
 
--------------------- 
Conference highlights 
--------------------- 
 
¶4.  The F4 group consensus at the October 9 conference was 
that the trend in energy policy is NOT acceptable. 
The group acknowledged a high degree of uncertainty 
concerning the future, the shortcomings of long-term 
scenarios, and the lack of precision as to the effects of 
technical advances and rate of dissemination of new 
technologies; hence, the need to proceed with "utmost 
modesty."  The speakers, nevertheless, underscored a number 
of key elements that should be given immediate 
consideration: 
 
-- GDP should not be constrained in the medium and long- 
term, but growth should be better managed to reduce its GHG 
component; the development of long-term strategies based on 
strong voluntary action is critical. 
 
-- Energy efficiency is "the absolute priority" as it is 
thoroughly coherent with the three criteria for a 
satisfactory energy policy (it is good for economic growth, 
involves limited costs, and energy efficiency technologies 
and materials already exist and could be implemented 
rapidly).  Standardization at the European level is a must 
and energy inefficient products should be removed from the 
marketplace. 
 
-- Energy accounts for around 70% of GHG emissions and 
should therefore represent some 70% of the Factor 4 
solution.  Nuclear energy represents 6% of global energy in 
Europe and 2% worldwide.  Although some 80% of French 
electricity is generated by nuclear power plants, nuclear 
accounts for only 17% of France's total (all sources) 
energy production.  Given these percentages, focusing the 
debate on nuclear energy in order to build up a climate 
strategy does not seem justified." In France, the areas 
 
PARIS 00006969  002 OF 003 
 
 
that need urgent attention are existing buildings, 
transport, and the development of combined heat and power 
technology in industry. 
 
-- A large number of countries will continue using coal 
(e.g., China, India, U.S., Russia, and Indonesia). Cost- 
effective CO2 storage and sequestration is one of the most 
critical problems in the coming years. 
 
-- Technological advancement in the transport sector is an 
absolute necessity. 
 
-- Renewable energies (wind, solar) cannot solve the 
Problem; biomass potential is superior to wind and solar. 
 
-- Existing tax incentives are not efficient.  The GOF must 
become more regulatory and reflect this new approach in the 
Revised National Climate Plan which will soon be released. 
 
-- Research alone is insufficient. 
 
-- Behavior patterns, particularly consumption, are key 
factors. 
 
------------------ 
29 Recommendations 
------------------ 
 
¶5.  The report includes 29 recommendations intended to 
cover every sector of activity: transport, construction, 
industry, agriculture, and energy production; all economic 
actors: the State, local authorities, businesses and 
citizens in general; and all public policy tools, including 
research, regulations, financial and tax incentives 
(positive or negative), communication (education and 
awareness), and information (e.g. systematic labeling). 
The F4 group listed its recommendations under three main 
categories. 
 
¶6.  Strategic recommendations include the need to: 
 
-- Define objectives for gradual and realistic GHG 
reductions matching the rate of investment renewal and new 
technology development.  Objectives need to be established 
10-20 years in advance to give business enough leeway to 
plan for low-emission investments.  Improve the efficiency 
of the Emissions Trading System (e.g., broadening its 
scope, lengthening quota allocation periods). 
 
-- Establish an intermediate target (-25% of -30% compared 
to 2005 by 2020-2025) in liaison with socio-economic 
actors. 
 
-- Design and implement a "National F4 Pact" to be 
integrated at the European level. 
 
¶7.  Public policies will be needed to assure consistency 
between projects from public financial agencies and French 
climate change policy (e.g. introduce parliamentary 
oversight for COFACE projects; clarify GOF position vis-a- 
vis the World Bank and regional development banks).  A 
European strategy should be adopted for a long-term 
investment plan for purchases of emission quotas after 
2012, without waiting for the introduction of institutional 
arrangements still under international negotiations whose 
outcome is uncertain.  The report further notes that "this 
would also place the EU in an innovative position with 
regard to international climate change activities." 
 
¶8.  Yet other recommendations for sectoral change include 
detailed actions that each sector should implement.  For 
example, in the transportation sector, the authors of the 
report recommend a focus on mass transportation, to reduce 
maximum authorized speeds to 120 km/hour instead of 130 km 
on motorways as a start (which would reportedly immediately 
save 2 million tons of CO2/year), to legalize urban tolls, 
to make road tax compulsory for freight transports, and to 
tax aviation fuel.  In the agricultural sector, the report 
advocates large-scale use of biomass resources for energy 
recovery and production of chemicals or materials in order 
to substitute fossil energy by 2020.  It further recommends 
 
PARIS 00006969  003 OF 003 
 
 
long-term R&D investments in biomass. 
 
¶9.  Other recommendations are intended to raise awareness 
and foster action to improve energy consumption behavior. 
Finally, there are recommendations dealing with fiscal 
measures and regulations aiming to establish minimum 
efficiency standards for each family of electrically- 
powered appliances and systems. 
 
¶10.  Comment: The French F 4 program is an ambitious one as 
well as very much a work in progress.  An environmental 
report released the week of October 16 lamented that French 
personal comportment with regard to energy consumption in 
the vehicular and housing sectors has changed but little 
despite intense discussion of the climate problem in recent 
years.  The F4 program also hardly constitutes a strategic 
plan; it is more of a vision.  Suggestions for tightening 
regulations are not likely to go any where in this election 
season in France and may be untenable at any time. 
Changing French habits will certainly not come easy.  End 
Comment. 
 
STAPLETON