The private jet, symbol of the contradictions of political leaders

Following the first round of the presidential election on April 10, 2022, the Green media pinned the choice of Prime Minister Jean Castex to have used a private jet to go and vote in Prades, in the Pyrénées-Orientales. A petition even popped up to encourage him to make a proxy on the occasion of the second round.

This is not the first time that a political figure has been criticized for using the plane deemed unjustified.

This new controversy emerges in a context where calls to reduce household energy consumption are increasing, while the European Union must free itself from its energy dependence on Russia and the publication of the last part of the IPCC report, April 4, 2022, once again warns of the urgency to act drastically to curb climate change.

Besides the financial impact for the taxpayer of the excessive use of private jets, what effects can such behavior on the part of political figures have on consumers in terms of energy choices?

In a study published in the summer of 2020 in the Responsible Organizing Review, I attempted to explore the main reasons why individuals do not reduce their household energy consumption, despite the urgings to do so.

In this work, I established a typology of consumers according to their relationship to energy savings. If on the side of the “resisters”, the motivations are diverse, the contradictory speeches and attitudes of the leaders appear as a salient factor.

Sentiment d’injustice

First, there are those who believe that energy savings are just a fad that will pass, who are tired of hearing about it and of making an effort. Others are explicitly climate skeptical: they simply do not believe in environmental issues, nor therefore in the need to reduce their residential energy consumption.

Others invoke the preservation of their individual freedom: they refuse that public action interferes in their daily life and prevents them from consuming what they want, when they want and how they want.

Yet another fringe shows a general reluctance to change, which goes beyond habits and can have four dimensions: routine seeking, emotional reaction, short-term focus and cognitive rigidity.

But there is another segment among these “resisters” to energy saving: that of those revolted by the injustice perceived with regard to the real polluters, by the inconsistency of public action and its lack of transparency.

They believe that the public authorities are hounding households while being lax vis-à-vis the major polluting groups. Our qualitative research, through interviews and netnography, reveals that these respondents, because they judge the action of the State to be contradictory, go so far as to refuse to adopt energy-efficient behavior.

For them, on the one hand, the state encourages the population to adopt economical behaviors, while on the other hand not informing them of the energy-intensive nature of technological innovations and new appliances.

The schizophrenia of public authorities

Public action can indeed appear schizophrenic on this subject, caught between the challenges of economic growth and market dynamics, and those of regulating consumer behavior.

For the revolted respondents, resistance to consumption therefore appears as a way of expressing their point of view and revealing their opposition to this double discourse.

“No, not at all, I’m not going to fool around while the others spend money at the princess’s expense. […] Let them start at the topsays one respondent. Why don’t the people above tighten their belts?”

“In the evening, on the national roads, there are shopping complexes that leave all the lights on in deserted parking lots. The energy consumption of Las Vegas, the politicians who travel by private jet…”underlines another anonymized contributor on a forum.

It should “calculating the ecological footprint: evaluating the trace left on the passage on this Earth in terms of resource depletion and pollution, and above all, for those who can (i.e. societies), the profit drawn of these levies (gratos), and pointing the finger at the culprits, the real ones”, suggests another contributor.

If they want to convince this group of “resisters” to act in favor of energy management, public actors will have to refine their communication and try to correct the perceived injustice.

In this regard, political figures would benefit from proving their consistency and ensuring that the message they are broadcasting is reflected in their behavior.

This article is republished from The Conversation sous licence Creative Commons. Lire l’article original.

The Conversation

Source: by

*The article has been translated based on the content of by If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!