The final agreement must be balanced for all

We are three months of the Copenhagen Conference, do you still believe that a comprehensive agreement is possible

We are optimistic. It is perfectly possible to obtain an agreement between the parties in Copenhagen. However, we will remain firm on the respect of three essential conditions: first, the developed countries should provide substantial efforts to reduce their emissions of CO emerging countries must, too, to reduce the curve of their emissions to a trajectory of so-called reference "business as usual". Finally, we come to nothing without an agreement on a solid financial architecture, which will partly finance programs in developing countries.

What to do to get a "substantial" commitment of developed countries and particularly the United States

The offers of the developed countries are not sufficient. But there have been such advances, recently, that of the Japan including the new Prime Minister is committed to reduce its emissions of COde 25. But for the US, political will is there. We have no doubt about the intentions of the Obama administration, even if it is very likely that a climate bill can be adopted before the meeting of December 7 in Copenhagen. Despite this, we expect the Americans that they tell us what path they are drawn in the medium term and how. The Conference will not succeed without a US commitment clear and ambitious, more ambitious than the text which is currently in Congress. Of course, we are aware that after ten years of inaction, it is difficult to make a difference. But the Copenhagen Summit must not end in a deadlock or a failure. The final agreement must be balanced for all. We have no plan B and is the future of the planet is at stake.

Where is it in Europe

Paris and London have been leaders in the negotiations of the European climate package and always work together. In Great - Britain, we have already reduced our emissions by 21, and adopted a binding target, with a five-year carbon budget. Let us be clear: the European Union will not 20-30 its objective of reduction in CO emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 if it did there not agreement balanced in Copenhagen. The problem is that the comparison criteria have not been defined.

Must the commitments of developing countries all be same nature

The legal status of the offers will be a crucial element of the negotiations. Europe believes that the proposals of each should ensure that the promised reductions are actually worked. The words have a specific meaning, it must be able to measure and verify the reality of the facts. In return, we need to organize the financing of assistance to developing countries. Last week, Europe encrypted at 100 million dollars per year the amount of total aid. We support the Mexican proposal to create a fund to which each country cotiserait, except the least developed. The participation of the Western countries could also be financed by the sale of quotas of CO on the market, as the Norwegians were proposed.

What is encouraging, it is the positive evolution of the position of China, and the real efforts that she leads the field, including to deploy new technologies.

The France has created a carbon tax. Would you be favourable to the establishment of a tax like the one in Britain

Non. We have ecological tax instruments, but our green taxes are highly targeted. We do not wish to establish universal tax, this would not be appropriate to the United Kingdom. Our philosophy is different from that of the France in the matter and if such a tax was proposed at Community level, we do not support. That said, our big six energy suppliers, all privatized, are obliged to use renewable energy for a part of their production, with an imposed rate which will increase. The cost of this constraint being passed to the consumer, can assimilate this provision to a tax, as the Government subsidizes the cost of heating for the lower income.