How has ecology long been "mis-sold" to the French?

After being invited to the 2007 presidential elections (Nicolas Hulot charter), ecology was the big loser in the 2012 presidential elections and the big absentee in 2017. But above all, for the time being, at the beginning of this century, ecology has been poorly positioned and therefore poorly explained and therefore poorly sold. The big winners are still communitarianism and the class struggle, which is making a comeback. This idea which consists of opposing each other in the face of increasingly congruent portions of growth that must be shared out because we cannot make them bear fruit.

In other words, we have not - yet - succeeded at the beginning of this century, which is just waiting for us, in setting ourselves in motion collectively, on the scale of a nation, of Europe and ideally of the world, around a new project, a new model, which could, and should, be that of a more virtuous growth, socially and ecologically. So, in the absence of a new paradigm, we are fighting to try to preserve the old one, accusing each other of its degeneration.

These calls for national unity, for coming together, do exist, but they are above all calls to come together behind a ballot paper. Calls for unity that are only ephemeral and calculated, the time of a ballot rather than a destiny.

During the 2012 campaign, EELV did not have the courage of its convictions, preferring a deal for the legislative elections, and perhaps a government post for the clever Cécile Duflot, rather than full support for its candidate. 

And yet, the ecological issue has been very well perceived and identified by public opinion, which is fully aware of it, but which is struggling to find a dynamic and positive outlook, due to a lack of tangible elements, so today it is not its priority.

Objectively, ecology has so far been badly sold. The 'brand' is now well known, but it is not being bought. This is for several reasons:

• The discourse remains predominantly anxiety-provoking when it should be positive and aspirational. But we cannot learn to drive by only explaining that we are going to the wall, without brakes and in the fog. On the other hand, we live in a world, especially from a French perspective, that is so worrying that one more anxiety is inaudible and undesirable. Talk to me about something else.
• When the discourse is not anxiety-provoking, it is moralising, lecturing and guilt-inducing. We don't want to hear any more bad news or lessons in behaviour when we blame others for irresponsible, disrespectful, individualistic and unethical behaviour. So if by chance we were a bit of the other we criticise, we prefer to break the mirror.
• The long term is good... but it is too far away! We certainly want large-scale, long-term, strategic projects, but we expect even more measures with immediate effects.
• The lack of rough edges: even from the point of view of the outlet, ecology does not take the same kind of toll as global finance or the wealthy, not to say the rich. The ecological problem is in each of us, it calls for a form of awareness and individual responsibility. So condemning the big polluters of the oceans through their oil platforms, or of city centres with their 4×4, then yes, it's easy, it's identifiable, it's mostly either "the powerful" or "the others".

Even the socialist candidate, relayed by EELV, only mentioned the creation of jobs linked to the abandonment of nuclear power (sorry, the reduction from 75% to 50%, which is not an abandonment) through the jobs linked to the dismantling of reactors! (Only one plant is shut down, but 24 out of 58 reactors are dismantled). Creating jobs by dismantling is correct, but is it the most attractive way to talk about a green industry? Wouldn't it be more interesting and exciting to talk about how these 25% of nuclear power would be compensated by other renewable resources? Even if it means tackling other subjects that anger local elected officials and associations, such as onshore wind power, or evoking a national consensus on the rise of new energies, as is already underway through the latest calls for tenders on offshore wind power or international commitments. But for the moment, without renewable energies, we are all turning into "Mad Max".

Politically, these issues are difficult to appropriate on the right, because, at the risk of simplifying, the right is rather in favour of the liberal economy, framed but virtuous, which is itself perceived as harmful to the environment (exact in absolute impact, inaccurate in trend).

The more ecology is reconciled with the economy (these two spheres have been increasingly perceived as compatible for several years now, both by consumers and managers), the more legitimate the right will be to talk about it, but the more the left will feel that it is losing its monopoly, especially its dogmatic monopoly. As long as ecology remains anti-liberal, if not worse, the more it will preserve reserves, not natural but electoral. Ecology then remains only a component of the socialist movement, which, for lack of substantial electoral weight, tends to just keep it under control rather than letting it take off. The left therefore has no political interest in a strong ecology, and the right is struggling to find its credibility in this area. We're going in circles, and I'm not sure that it's to the benefit of ecology itself.

This ecological mutation is nevertheless underway, through companies, cities, products, our behaviour, and our more respectful and less energy-consuming equipment. Paradoxically, like any profound change, it goes unnoticed by the generation that is living it, and one day, I hope, we will realise that we have grown up.