75% to zero for electricity production, research and development, and the development of decentralised production sites and other sites with large industrial capacity. There would be a commitment to lock up the investments for a period of 30 years. This commitment is made as a guarantee that the necessary amounts will be paid over time, for the sole purpose of ensuring the energy transition via a cross-generational initiative. The following different types of financing could co-exist: A share of the "nuclear rent" paid by all French citizens and that must be invested in France (since the nuclear risk cannot be insured, these payments will be the nuclear industry's guarantee of its conversion). It goes without saying that, as soon as EDF complies with the political decision to phase out nuclear energy, it will play a major role in the VGV project. An annual contribution of at least €1 billion from the oil and gas industries in the form of a reallocation of public subsidies paid until now to the oil sector – which total €19 billion according to the Court of Auditors - with the rest allocated to debt reduction. Gas produced by the VGV system would be bought on this basis. Initially, VGV (artificial methane produced by the VGV system) will be more expensive than fossil gas, but ultimately will be less costly. The allocation of emissions allowances (the validity of which is called into question) and the carbon tax, once it is in place. A carbon tax levied directly on fossil fuels could be calculated on the BTU equivalent of the oil needed to produce a tonne of CO2. Based on the Rocard-Juppé plan, which comes to around €10 per barrel of oil equivalent, this tax would generate around €8 to €10 billion a year in France alone, and more than €100 billion if applied to the Europe of 27. This would also be the basis of the calculation of the carbon tariff on imported goods and services produced using fossil fuels. Individual savings accounts blocked by the holder in return for an exemption from inheritance taxes. Several solutions are possible, provided these funds are locked up for 30 years and earmarked for the younger generations. Private green funds could help finance the global fund. We can give thought to a system similar to the foundation scheme used in Belgium and elsewhere (though currently not legal in France). An exemption could be considered for this specific type of fund that would not offer any short-term advantage to the depositor. It goes without saying that all funds will have to be invested in green energy and that all profits will be re-invested in green energy. This could create a magnet effect and draw capital into France. Capital and interest could be blocked for 30 years and the transmission to heirs would offer particularly attractive conditions. A debate should be launched to encourage allocation of the wealth tax to the fund. The Green Redemption Fund could use COFACE-type mechanisms to secure the receivables of wind farms and solar installations. This use could multiply tenfold the amount of private financing of renewable energy installations. The Green Redemption Fund must have investment capacities. It would be interesting to draw on methods used in other countries for this type of investment. REITs, for example, the American equivalent of FPI, invest either in real estate (land or buildings) or in real estate mortgages. In the United States, this investment vehicle now covers gas pipelines and photovoltaic installations. The Green Redemption Fund could acquire strategic companies (national and foreign) to enable France to catch up from its delay in renewable energy.
8