More purchasing power = more power to pollute?

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 01/02/08, 22:53

Good Nightrow diagnosis.

Maybe a little pessimistic anyway ...

Our needs are more and more artificial. The problem is that the very real technical progress comes up against the stagnation of the human "average spirit", if you want of its intelligence of the situations and its low instincts of immediate profits, of ease which oppose reasonable decisions. . All of this is deeply rooted in human nature and does not fade away in a few thousand years.

In our modern society, the popular masses become a herd of "summons cons" to use my expression ...

As you describe it, these are people who "sum" in the sense of accumulation, or in the sense of their invoice at the cash register, a pile of material goods that they put in the trash 3 months later and of which they do not. 'do not even need, like c ....

And all this is necessary for what our rulers and economists adore, the "Holy Growth". All this is very complicated because at the same time, if she were absent, the standard of living would be very low. And at the same time, it has a considerable ecological cost.

However, apart from health problems, did our ancestors, who had mastered agriculture, live more unhappy than us? Social needs were much better respected in the villages of the turn of the century than in our inhuman "modern" towns. People talked to each other, got to know each other, helped each other (sometimes quite constrained ...). The difficulties were not the same (hard work in the field), but they were healthier.

Much to meditate in the ever more complex tumult created by this funny animal that is man ...
0 x
Image
User avatar
loop
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 816
Registration: 03/10/07, 06:33
Location: Picardie




by loop » 01/02/08, 23:09

Bonsoir

Work colleague returns from Romania
The country is growing with exponential industrialistion, new factories growing like mushrooms
It was not what surprised him the most
There, as soon as the employees can afford it, they buy a big car, like their neighbor.
They get into big debt and tighten their belts to fill up on diesel
Result, the Romanians drive in 4x4 ..... with an empty stomach! : Shock:

A+
0 x
nightrow
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 33
Registration: 13/11/07, 22:40




by nightrow » 01/02/08, 23:26

My last post was indeed a little too pessimistic :D

I also have to agree that growth has had a very positive set of consequences for our lifestyle.

I only think that this development model is reaching its limits (or that of the planet).

The only problem is that many countries have not yet had the right to this increase in lifestyle, which is for them the holy grall.

We therefore come to the unfortunate conclusion that this growth should slow down when only a privileged group could benefit. It is simply not possible for example that every household has a vehicle, just in China it is completely impractical (even if there are 100 new cars / day in Beijing alone). The difference in standard of living can only increase, accentuated for example by the price of food, pulled up by these Westerners who polluted the planet and now ask everyone to freeze their lifestyle.

The solution to these growth and consumption problems seems very difficult to find given the current situation. Unfortunately, given the impropriety of our policies (only capable of conservatism, offending as few people as possible), I am afraid that this burden of hot potatoes will be transmitted to our children, amplified by our immobility.

Well it becomes a novel again, I think you know what I mean :D
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 02/02/08, 19:59

Hello Nightrow

nightrow wrote:The solution to these growth and consumption problems seems very difficult to find given the current situation. Unfortunately, given the impropriety of our policies (only capable of conservatism, offending as few people as possible), I am afraid that this burden of hot potatoes will be transmitted to our children, amplified by our immobility.


In fact, the solution is quite simple. We must turn exclusively to renewable energy. Do you know that the solar energy received on Earth represents 10 times the energy needs of Man?

Christophe even talks about 40 taking into account the seas and oceans ... Let’s be careful about 000 and assume 10% efficiency for our photovoltaic panels.

If we reason in time, this means that it would suffice to cover the entire planet for 365/1000, or 0,365 days (less than 9 hours !!) of PV panels and to store all of this for the year. This is not technically reasonable, of course ...


... BUT spatially, grossomodo, that means that in each country, devoting 1/1000 of the surface to a photovoltaic collection would be enough to cover all needs. Obviously, the solar resource is inhomogeneous, but these are the orders of magnitude.

Desert countries could equip themselves with the impetus for co-development projects or not.

Other countries are more supplied with wind / rain which is indirect solar energy. Others benefit from geothermal sources, tidal effect, swell ... etc ...

Electric transport is known and widely mastered to bring energy where it is needed.

That leaves one dreamy, doesn't it? 8) however, this is the reality
0 x
Image
nightrow
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 33
Registration: 13/11/07, 22:40




by nightrow » 04/02/08, 00:01

I have no doubt about the technical existence of one (and / or) solutions. (Thanks remundo for showing it in a simple way).

Its application in the near future however seems to me to be strongly compromised ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 04/02/08, 14:24

Hi Nightrow,

So close means 5 to 10 years, okay ...

BUT I think precisely the opposite ... so close means 40 years.

Because in 40 years, when we think of our little retirement, oil will be overpriced AND above all INSUFFICIENT for human needs.

Perhaps even BEFORE (20 years) if CHina, India and South America are "rocking the house" by raising their standard of living as much as ours.

At the individual level, "it will turn our guts so much", and at the economic level, it will be so disastrous that instead of going to get excited to drill wells or screw up the soil of Canada for the tar sands. (which I believe consumes 1 barrel for 2 products !!!!), we will be obliged to collect what falls on the corner of our noses ... namely the radiation of the sun.

Already, groups like Total are planning their reorientation on the solar ... to continue to exploit the oil market, they present this as a diversification for ecological concern, of course : Lol:
0 x
Image
andre-34
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 31
Registration: 06/02/07, 11:50

Re: More purchasing power = more power to pollute?




by andre-34 » 04/02/08, 18:49

Christophe wrote:It's all in the title ... more purchasing power, more consumption, more industrial production, in short, more plunder and depletion of planetary resources and therefore also, of course pollution...

So environmental talk and increased purchasing power are hardly compatible in our current system...a little consistency in the speeches does not hurt GENTLEMEN the politicians ...

In addition, learning to consume better and consume less (rubbish) also means increasing your purchasing power! A short chronicle on this subject: https://www.econologie.com/forums/changer-de ... t4724.html

ps: I feel that this subject may quickly leave in a lollipop ...


Not necessarily, to buy "clean" technos you need money ...
The more you have, the more you can save energy by starting from the construction of the house, through heating, the production of renewable energy and the purchase of more economical cars ...
But hey ... Of course if we divide wages by 100 to bring them to the level of poor countries we would consume less, that's for sure, but there would be almost more uncultivated areas and forests (we would eat to heat and cook among others) the same may be if there were fewer of us on the planet is not it?
0 x
andre-34
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 31
Registration: 06/02/07, 11:50




by andre-34 » 04/02/08, 18:53

Remundo wrote:Hi Nightrow,

So close means 5 to 10 years, okay ...

BUT I think precisely the opposite ... so close means 40 years.

Because in 40 years, when we think of our little retirement, oil will be overpriced AND above all INSUFFICIENT for human needs.

Perhaps even BEFORE (20 years) if CHina, India and South America are "rocking the house" by raising their standard of living as much as ours.

At the individual level, "it will turn our guts so much", and at the economic level, it will be so disastrous that instead of going to get excited to drill wells or screw up the soil of Canada for the tar sands. (which I believe consumes 1 barrel for 2 products !!!!), we will be obliged to collect what falls on the corner of our noses ... namely the radiation of the sun.

Already, groups like Total are planning their reorientation on the solar ... to continue to exploit the oil market, they present this as a diversification for ecological concern, of course : Lol:


fully agree! The oil problem will not be one soon, when it reaches prohibitive prices ...
But hello pollution too: many people will return to wood and coal ...
The only hope: the renewable.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Re: More purchasing power = more power to pollute?




by Christophe » 04/02/08, 19:35

andre-34 wrote:Not necessarily, to buy "clean" technos you need money ...


Another negative prejudice (admittedly maintained by some traders who overcharge when it is "eco" or "organic") !!

It seems to me to have proven black on white the economic interest, for example, to be equipped with a fluorescent bulb ...

I give the link for the others: https://www.econologie.com/electricite-r ... -3640.html

How many nuclear reactors are all the non-fluorescent bulbs that still burn in France every night according to you?

In one year, undoubtedly much more energy than all the "ugly villainous not beautiful" (according to the ecolo pipo) 4x4 of France combined ... But not much is done on their part to promote eco bulbs. .. In short, a little consistency would be welcome ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 126 guests