It is not easy, the life of president of the environmental group in the National Assembly. Just two days before the group’s parliamentary niche this Thursday, a key day for conveying the ecologists’ vision of the world, Cyrielle Chatelain had to face the departure of Julien Bayou, her former co-president, accused of moral harassment and abuse of weakness by her ex-partner.
For 20 minutesthe MP for Isère returns to the latest twist in this affair, which has poisoned environmentalists since 2022. She also defends the choices of her group for her niche on Thursday: seeking victories, yes, but “significant” victories.
What is the overall philosophy of your niche?
There is an increase in crises. We of course have the climate catastrophe, the first elements of which we are feeling. A very strong democratic crisis, with an overall loss of confidence and a distance between citizens and political representatives. A crisis of meaning and remuneration of work. A health crisis, with the development of toxic substances.
With this niche, the idea is to say: there is no inevitability, there are only political choices. We can take strong political actions, dare to make other choices that will allow us to provide responses to these crises. We have the hand for a day in the Assembly. Let’s take it to do something that makes sense and provides concrete answers to major issues.
You seem to have a strategy quite different from that of the rebels or the socialists who, each in their own way, seek to maximize the number of victories. For what ?
The goal is to have victories, but meaningful victories. For example on eternal pollutants. Something very green happened: we have a subject that we rarely talk about, which concerns 99% or even 100% of the population, extremely impactful in terms of health… But which we do not deal with politically.
Our job is to lay the groundwork and say: “We have political solutions.” Making these subjects political subjects leads everyone to take a position and, in the best case scenario, we obtain victories.
You are proposing a bill (PPL) on floor prices for agricultural products. Concretely, what would that look like?
We do not want to put floor prices on all sectors. We are talking about sectors where there is demand, where a large proportion of farmers sell their products below the cost price. The idea is not to impose something from above but to work with these sectors, to have conferences to arrive at these floor prices which allow farmers to live with dignity, around two minimum wages.
I take the example of milk: the National Interprofessional Center for Milk Economics has succeeded in defining a production cost, estimated for a farm in the plains at 403 euros per 1,000 liters. There, we have a price which is objectified. However, if I take dairy farms in my constituency, in the mountains, with therefore a higher production price than in the plains, we buy them for 350 euros per 1,000 liters. They lose at least 50 euros every 1,000 liters! Without this safety net, farms will disappear.
Doesn’t such a floor price risk leading to a loss of purchasing power on the part of consumers?
Absolutely not. Today, there was a drop in sales prices of 9% for farmers, but an increase in purchasing prices of 8% for consumers. It is because we are in a system which is completely dysfunctional, where margins are taken by intermediaries, mass distribution, agro-industrialists, that we must redistribute wealth and added value. It is not up to Lactalis to make profits, it is the work of the dairy farmer who must be remunerated.
In the first bill on the program, you therefore propose to ban PFAS, eternal pollutants. How are they dangerous?
Eternal pollutants are very stable molecules. And it has lots of very interesting properties for the industry: non-stick, water resistant, fire resistant… We put it almost everywhere in kitchen utensils, clothes, cosmetics, because it’s practical. But this resistance – which makes it its industrial interest – is also what makes it a danger due to its persistence in water, in the earth and in our bodies. 100% of rainwater is contaminated and approximately 99% of the population.
Studies show that this has effects on health: it will increase the risk of cancer, infertility, it can have effects on the development of the embryo,
If these PFAS are banned, the Seb group has already warned that this could threaten 3,000 jobs in the country. But you want to project yourself ten years from now… Does this mean that in ten years, with the environmentalists, there will no longer be an industry?
Seb blackmails for employment. Seb, it’s Tefal. Tefal certainly makes pans with PFAS, but also makes pans without PFAS: ceramic, stainless steel. By saving time, Tefal protects its margins. On asbestos, it was the same logic: we know that it has an impact on health but we buy time to be able to make a profit for as long as possible. The industry knows how to adapt. But as long as she is not forced to do so, she does not move. It has already been able to adapt to other rules and other standards to make products that are more respectful of health. This actually means investment, training, but also protecting the employees who are the first to be contaminated. And then we have to think about the question of global competitiveness: industry around the world will change and will move away from PFAS. If only in France we continue to make products with PFAS, they will no longer be sold!
Marie-Charlotte Garin and Sébastien Peytavie have caused quite a stir about their proposed law on menstrual cessation with their video where they have male MPs “test” the pain of endometriosis. But this PPL arrives very late in the niche, and therefore has little chance of being debated. Was it just a publicity stunt?
No ! We’re already happy that we’re talking about it, because periods are taboo. However, it affects 15 million people in France. It’s a cultural battle. We wanted to see if we could move the lines and the video succeeded, we achieved equality in commissions.
This is not enough. But this is not a publicity stunt because we are not going to give up: before the end of the mandate, there must be a stop to incapacitating rules. In this context, making it a political subject, that we talk about it, that we have men who must on the sets and themselves come and express their support, talk about the question of rules, that allows us to break the taboo.
Julien Bayou announced on Tuesday that he was leaving the environmental group and EELV after the complaint filed against him by his ex-partner. Is this logical? A relief ? A betrayal ?
None of those qualifiers. It is a personal decision, which he has considered.
In a vote last week, the group decided not to suspend Julien Bayou. There, it’s him who leaves. Didn’t the functioning of the group, “feminist” as you say, allow it to almost come out on top?
There is this idea in the air that men will suffer from the #MeToo revolution. That they would be victims of something that “went out of control”. I do not share this idea. On the contrary, we still do not talk enough about all the women who are victims of the patriarchal system. On the other hand, it is true that today, we do not have the tools – neither within the group, nor in the Assembly, nor in political life – to know how this subject is treated. That we are not in a binary choice between burying the subject to “protect friends”, and on the other hand total and lifelong exclusion. How can we have reactions that are proportionate, coherent, etc.? We are at the beginning of all this.
No one comes out on top in this story. And yes, it takes us by surprise, because we have always been keen to take the time, to think, to put things down, to move forward on a difficult line. Because for us, in the end the question that matters is: what will we be able to build to prevent violence? The logic must be collective, not individual. It doesn’t seem obvious at the time but in the long term, taking the time to build collectively, we will benefit.
That is to say, do you not consider that this affair, from the summer of 2022 to today, for the leader of the green group that you are, for the party, is not a failure?
(She thinks for a long time) If I talk about failure, everyone will hear what they want: those who think that Julien Bayou’s departure is a failure and those who think that it is a failure because we took all this time to put in place procedures and finally he left on his own. Did we do everything right? No. Do I think we did well not to sweep the dust under the rug? Yes. Can and should we improve? Yes. It’s a learning moment. We are the ones who are bearing the brunt because we confront the subject not only when it concerns other political families. It’s not always easy, but we try.
Would you like Julien Bayou to resign from his mandate as deputy?
(She thinks for a long time) A week ago, we asked the group about suspension, we chose to say that withdrawal was more appropriate. I’m not going to tell you a week later, as president of this group, that I think he should resign, I’m trying to be consistent.
On the other hand, for a year and a half, we have been thinking a lot about what we should have done differently, in relation to him, in relation to his ex-partner. I hope that now, with this departure, he will take the time to think about it too. We are at a time when everyone must question themselves.