In recent days, the discussions on, on the one hand, the 10 years of the student movement of 2012 and the return to politics of Jean Charest and, on the other, the ineffectiveness of the environmental policy of the CAQ carried by its own forecasts made me think about the good old logic of the “fair share”, the rhetorical spearhead supporting the Charest government’s tuition hike in 2012. Being from this generation branded hot (or tear gas) by this rhetoric, the tone of abandonment and the lack of ambition of the Legault government in the face of the environmental crisis – which does not invite anyone to do any fair share – leaves me speechless.
Posted yesterday at 9:00 a.m.
In 2012, it was a question of students and the middle class paying more, therefore being empowered, to maintain our public education system. However, this was without taking into account the growth of social inequalities, the dynamic underlying the crisis called into question by David Robichaud and Patrick Turmel. In their essay on this “fair share” published in 2012, the authors dismantle in quick succession the foundations of this neoliberal rhetoric by proposing that the “fair share” of some was greater than that carried by others given the growth of inequalities. social – and that is without mentioning the collective larceny brought to light by the Charbonneau commission.
Therefore, underlying social dynamics undermined the validity of liberal rhetoric which, in its simple sense, favored the accountability of actors for the achievement of social objectives (for example, maintaining a policy such as education public). Why this detour to 2012? I’m coming.
Contribute to environmental irresponsibility
Already unconvincing, the environmental policy of the Legault government has been undermined in recent days. An expert consulted by The Press last week highlighted that the transport sector – which is at the heart of this policy – would struggle to “do its part” in reducing carbon emissions to achieve the objectives set for 2030. And for good reason: the The government’s internal projections regarding its own policy, which involves, among other things, the electrification of light transport, demonstrate its inefficiency and, above all, its inability to hold government authorities, industry and citizens accountable.
Symptom of late neoliberalism which aimed at the withdrawal of the state from the public bill (for example in 2012) and the revival of political populism with libertarian tendencies carried by polarizing false information, the withdrawal of the state from social responsibility acts, in this case, as what is called “greenwashing” or environmental bleaching.
Basically, we give ourselves goals without giving ourselves the means to achieve them, simply to look good, and tell ourselves that we are doing something.
Misleading the public about environmental responsibility objectives by communicating information that is false, misleading or disconnected from reality is greenwashing. Indeed, there comes a point where the declarations of the Minister of the Environment, Benoit Charette, become professions of faith rather than real strategies or systemic impact objectives.
Despite the populism of the CAQ, we still come back to very neoliberal refrains: the government does not take responsibility and does not give itself the means to achieve carbon reduction objectives. By the same token, we also avoid making the population and industry responsible by laying down broad binding or incentive public policies affecting the root causes of the environmental crisis.
Unfortunately, it is not by electrifying 13% of light transport and producing ever more batteries that we will get out of the environmental crisis.
Contribute to environmental responsibility
According to the latest estimates, we must reduce our overall emissions by 7.6% per year until 2030 and not just 13% of emissions from the Quebec light transport sector by 2030. The Legault government’s policy is certainly broader than what I’m offering here, but here’s where the “fair share” comes into play.
To get out of the crises before us, ALL must do their “fair share”. All generations, all walks of life, all levels of government.
We will soon no longer be able to afford to pay the costs of the externalities of industries that consume planetary resources and lack socio-environmental awareness. Nor, moreover, the joke of all these SUVs coveted by a minority of urban or peri-urban city dwellers. We all need to understand our share of responsibility, that of our lifestyles and the root causes of the environmental and social crises that make daily headlines. We must understand the underlying logics of the issues related to these crises and how we are all affected and responsible in order to act and assume responsibility in a concerted and non-oppositional manner.
Although leaders exist for this purpose in civil society or in various industries, it is clear that the government antechambers are unfortunately not there yet. In the present state of things, the “fair share” carried by some – racialized populations, the global South, those who do not have the means to consume ethically or to educate themselves in eco-responsibility, for example – will be larger than that worn by others.