Climate, Gabriel Attal
Emissions cut by 2030, compared with 1990: Meet the 2030 target: 5% decrease per year, against 1.8% today
Direction of change: unchanged, compared with current law.
The lever. Target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, as a percentage of their 1990 level. Direction rule: ↑ more ambitious emissions reduction target.
« Pour respecter nos engagements climatiques, nous devons tripler notre rythme annuel de réduction des émissions entre maintenant et 2030 : passer de 1,8 % à 5 % par an. »1Translation by the editorsTo meet our climate commitments, we must triple our annual rate of emissions reduction between now and 2030: going from 1.8% to 5% per year.
Encoding
No cost-schedule parameter for this position: see the costing for the reason.
Costing
Announced by the candidate
not announced
The programme does not cost this measure.
Published costings
none
No external costing of this position recorded to date.
Our calculation
lever that cannot be costed
Lever with no coefficient in the cost schedule: the position is compared, not costed.
Current law, sources and limits of the cost schedule
Current law. Code de l'énergie, art. L100-4, I, 1° (version in force since 24 June 2023, amended by act no. 2023-491 of 22 June 2023): 40% reduction in GHG emissions between 1990 and 2030, carbon neutrality in 2050. The SNBC-3 (decree no. 2026-636 of 16 July 2026, JO of 18 July 2026) sets carbon budgets of 342 Mt/year (2024-2028), 262 Mt/year (2029-2033) and 194 Mt/year (2034-2038), excluding sinks. At EU level, the commitment is -55% net. The Gremillet private member's bill planned to move from 40% to 50% gross; it had not amended the article at the date of reading (13 October 2026, no later version on Légifrance).
Horizon. Not applicable.
Limits. A target has no cost of its own: the cost runs through the instruments (renovation, rail, support for renewables, public investment). Costing them here as well would be double counting. As a benchmark only: according to I4CE (2024), reaching -55% in 2030 requires €71bn per year of additional public spending by 2030, with regulation and taxation unchanged. The figure falls to about €39bn, of which €18bn for the State, if regulation is tightened and aid refocused. In 2024, public authorities spent €32bn on climate. The I4CE figure is a need, not a cost relative to current policies.
- Légifrance, Code de l'énergie, article L100-4 (version en vigueur depuis le 24 juin 2023, loi n° 2023-491 du 22 juin 2023, art. 1er), 2023-06-24: « De réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 40 % entre 1990 et 2030 »
- Décret n° 2026-636 du 16 juillet 2026 relatif aux budgets carbone nationaux et à la stratégie nationale bas-carbone (JO n° 166 du 18 juillet 2026), article 2, reproduit par AIDA (Ineris), 2026-07-16: « Les budgets carbone des périodes 2024-2028, 2029-2033 sont révisés et fixés respectivement à 342 et 262 Mt de CO2e par an et le budget carbone pour la période 2034-2038 est fixé à 194 Mt CO2e par an, hors « puits de carbone » (émissions et absorptions du secteur de l'utilisation des terres, changement d'utilisation des terres et foresterie et absorptions de CO2 par voie technologique). »
- I4CE, « Financement de la transition : quelles marges de manœuvre autour du besoin de financement public ? », juillet 2024 (page 3 du PDF), 2024-07: « Ainsi, face au déficit d’investissement climat et sans action de maîtrise des dépenses, les besoins de dépenses publiques supplémentaires atteindraient 71 milliards d’euros en 2030. […] En combinant toutes ces mesures, qui reportent les efforts de financement vers les ménages et les entreprises, les besoins minimaux de dépenses publiques supplémentaires s’établissent à 39 milliards d’euros, dont 18 milliards d’euros pour l’État. [encadré] En 2024, les pouvoirs publics ont dépensé 32 MILLIARDS D’EUROS en faveur du climat »
How to read these amounts. These are static costs and revenues, with no feedback effect, over a full year: nothing on growth, employment or the revenue that economic activity would gain or lose. A higher net cost does not on its own make a worse policy, nor net savings a better one: each programme rests on an economic model (demand-led stimulus, lower compulsory levies, consolidation of the public accounts…) that the cost schedule does not settle. GDP itself measures a volume of activity, not well-being or the usefulness of what is produced. Economic models and feedback effects.
- attalpresident.fr, « Dette écologique » (page non datée). Read the programme page.
Contest this encoding (prefilled email; procedure and deadlines)