With the election campaign under way in France, the speeches of political leaders and the statements of business representatives highlight the dominant mindset, whether out of habit or necessity: how to organise the taxation – that is, the contribution to public spending – of wealth producers. Squeeze companies, or protect them from the “phynance” vacuum cleaner (to borrow Alfred Jarry’s Ubu)? The political approach prevails, with its divisions and anathemas.
The indispensable control of mineral supplies
Les Échos of Tuesday 31 January reported the creation by German industrialists, with government support, of a joint initiative to secure their supplies of rare earths: elements indispensable to high-tech industry. In France, the BRGM (Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, the public body for geological and mining research) is responsible for this strategic mission… A public body versus shared mobilisation; a few experts on one side, an alliance of large companies with dedicated resources on the other.
But in France, some might think otherwise – hostile to private initiative, setting concern for the general interest against the thirst for capital… The saga of the national “Géoportail”, launched with fanfare, delays and public money to “compete” with Google Earth, may unfortunately illustrate the weaknesses of the ideological approach, “Albanian-style, Enver Hoxha version” (we are victims and we are right against the rest of the world), in the face of the shared pragmatism that drives action.
When the last production lines stop for lack of secured raw materials, there will no doubt still be talk of revolting against the cruelty of markets, the unfairness of the Chinese or the Russians who keep their resources for their own industry, the arrogance of the Germans who keep producing, on our borders… And of weeping.
And food self-sufficiency next?
Let us hope that the next stage, after the end of strategic mineral independence, will not be the end of food self-sufficiency. Because while France was an agricultural country, the galloping spread of suburban houses around urban centres is causing the best farmland to disappear. It may indeed be worth considering that centres of life historically grew up where the land was most fertile – since people farmed their fields right next to home. And that producing food is not just a matter of planting a field wherever one does not feel like building…
Houses versus food: perhaps that will be tomorrow’s debate, the next step in our admissions of powerlessness… In this respect, the announced easing of public constraints on housebuilding could have taken this issue into account… At best, it may be a collateral benefit.
Leave a Reply