A simple formula. The Europeans like Jeremy Rifkin. And with good reason: he is practically the only person in the United States to glorify the "European model of society", which he feels is the model of the future, far preferable to the American model. I have to say that I wasn't overly impressed by him when I attended one of his performances (organised by the Greens of the European Parliament), because I felt that I detected a considerable dose of superficiality and a lack of rigour running through his ideas and the way he presented them. But I do acknowledge that he has the great merit of drive and optimism, which is already quite a lot in this dismal and demoralised Europe. And now he's applying his pro-European enthusiasm to one of the most decried fruits of EU activities: a document of the European Commission! You have to admit that this shows plenty of non-conformism.
Let me explain. In a new column he has been given by several European newspapers, Jeremy Rifkin praises the "Green Paper on Energy Efficiency" to the skies, a "slim and obscure" volume of 46 pages published by the European Commission "discreetly" (which means that, in his view, it was neglected by the media). In it, the Commission proves the EU can easily save 20% of its energy consumption by dint of energy conservation programmes involving transport, public and commercial buildings, dwellings, factories. Mr Rifkin is extravagant in his praise. It is as though he, today, is discovering a pile of initiatives which have, in fact, been discussed in Europe for years, and conjuring up an ample description of their effectiveness. He states that the measures put forward by the Commission would cancel out the increase in oil prices, and that parallel measures in favour of renewable energies would radically reduce Europe's dependence on this product. For an average family, the savings indicated would easily compensate for the increase in its oil bill. Furthermore, the tax reform to benefit the environment, which is described in the document, would help not only to avoid the "ravages of global warming", but also to generate considerable income and it would be positive for industrial competitiveness, because the increase in taxes would hit the polluting industries, "which are obliged to remedy the inefficiency in their use of resources and make them more competitive on world markets. Studies show that countries with high environmental taxes are also the leaders in terms of international competitiveness". Mr Rifkin concludes that each European country should "give itself five years fully to put into practice the suggestions of the Green Paper" of the Commission. This would mean "investing in thousands of best practices, and the investment involved would help to kickstart the economy by creating millions of jobs in Europe alone".
Why? Even if Mr Rifkin's examples seem somewhat simplistic, we must ask ourselves the question. Why does what is well known by the specialists appear to him like discoveries? Why does energy wastage continue to be tolerated if the solutions are so close at hand? Why do the oil barons, be they the countries holding large reserves or the big oil companies, continue to have the final say on our economies? The studies and analyses carried out by the services of the European Commission deal with this subject at length. When she was vice-president of the Commission, Loyola de Palacio did not hesitate to state that the increases in oil prices was due, for the most part, to speculation. Oil-producing countries and oil companies are often in tune with this, as unscrupulous profiteers from the situation. Certain Arab kingdoms have long financed terrorism, whilst the feeding and education of refugees in Palestinian camps was paid for entirely by the EU budget. A few European governments are just about starting to dare to discuss with oil companies the possibility that these oil companies, whose profits are continually on the increase, may start to pay for a proportion of the cost to consumers of the increase in oil prices. Norway is the only producing country which has put almost all of its revenue to one side, to be reserved for the future generations which will no longer benefit from the manna currently falling from the heavens, and it has commissioned an independent expert with a study on how this nest egg should be used.
Difficult choices. The details of the European energy policy are being looked at by the institutions; the document discovered by Mr Rifkin is just one example of work underway. But those who are making a profit from the current situation are very rich and very powerful, and it won't be easy to counter their interests. Certain choices are, furthermore, objectively difficult: how can we take position for or against nuclear energy, in all serenity and with the certainty of being right? Fortunately, other choices are far less dramatic. If Mr Rifkin's message may help the general public to become more aware of the matter at hand, then this can only be a good thing. (F.R.)