To translate the 40% reduction by 2030 and more than 80% by 2050, it would be necessary to reduce the annual quota of each to 9t in 2024, 8.5t in 2025, 8t in 2026, 7t in 2028, and 6t in 2030. There is even talk of 1.5t/year in 2050… The account of each would be managed and supervised by a national body that we would call the Carbon Agency. Depending on the speed of start-up, the annual reduction could be 6%, or 7 or even 8% if we wait.

Let's imagine... after a few years the system has become part of our customs, we automatically become sober, and we think more about having fun, dancing, singing, loving... than about the collapse (which we will have avoided thanks to the effect of enlargement towards Europe and then the world). First, it seems to us that we will have had to go through a referendum with all citizens, for that we will need the pedagogy of all the volunteers...

ADEME estimates the burden on government and local government departments and services at 1500kg CO2/French/year. Displaying the carbon of government departments, for example on the monthly statement of each individual account, will help reduce this by emulation between departments. An example of a statement on https://www.agencecarbone.fr/cest-comment

We propose to have the carbon points borne 50/50 by the company and the employee, in order to make both responsible. There may be specific agreements, for example linked to company travel or specific recruitment. In all cases, we must favor collective solutions that the company can put in place, as well as teleworking.

If the winemaker exports half of his production, he can only receive carbon points from his French customers, so he needs the Carbon Agency to compensate for what he does not sell in France to balance his carbon account, which (without it) would be too negative. He cannot abuse or embezzle, nor waste energy calculated on the average of winemakers. The carbon agency must monitor the exporter's effort because according to rule no. 3, any exporter must reduce his impact by 6% per year for the same scope.

Cédric tells us "you have a risk that companies will declare contents lower than the reality to better sell their products, even with litigation!" Well seen, it is necessary to certify the carbon analysis beyond the simple ISO14067 standard. ABC has already trained more than 10,000 advisors in the Bilan Carbone® method. It will be necessary to train ten times more, but above all to set up (as for organic) sworn certification bodies responsible for carrying out random checks. Of course the system must be secured "belt and suspenders": the company is required to present a balanced carbon register to its auditor, or to charge its customers for all the carbon used. It will be necessary to eliminate unnecessary travel and company cars which weigh on the carbon content presented to customers who risk turning away...

These are the 4.8 million homes classified as F and G in the national diagnosis. We can distinguish two cases: for the million homes owned by oneself, zero-rate bank loans must be imposed on a long repayment schedule. For the 4 million rental homes, this is the case of private landlords who have so far had no incentive to repair the homes. It would be proposed that the carbon burden of these heaters would be shared 50/50 between tenant and owner. If the owner is a natural person, their personal quota is at stake. If it is a legal entity, which therefore re-invoices its carbon to its customers, a law must require it to carry out effective insulation work, under threat of expropriation. The 50/50 rule could be limited to class EF and G homes, to prevent owners who have spent a lot on insulating their property from becoming jointly liable for the overheating of their tenants.

We believe that buying carbon quotas from poor countries would be an incentive to consume that would go against the sobriety approach supported by the carbon account: each country must tend towards neutrality through a national carbon account. If in 2040 all European countries have reached 3t/inhabitant, then the agencies can merge into a European agency, which can get closer to the African agency that would have reached 2t faster; the agencies can then connect for a coordinated carbon descent. It is possible at this stage that rich countries (if they do not have enough space) finance carbon sinks in poor countries.

on the contrary, by following the precepts of the commons clarified by Elinor Ostrom, the two concerns are intrinsically linked and to address only one would quickly put it in difficulty. How the carbon agency will take care of biodiversity: if a billionaire wants to generate a carbon sink by planting 10 hectares of forest, the 5 t CO2/year are only validated if the forest meets the standards of NGOs such as Forêts et Campagnes d'Avenir: it is possibly redirected towards the planting of 10 km of hedges. Any allocation of carbon points will be conditioned by the effects of biodiversity. Consumption of carbon points that would affect biodiversity would be penalized.

The carbon accounting mechanism will be accompanied by measures distributing carbon charges between owner and tenant according to levels (100% tenant in criteria A & B, 50/50 in C & D, 100% owner in E & F)