Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[Obamot]

Unfortunately, I believe that due to the drift of the world economic system (based on the waltz of profits around abstract values) we have destroyed the central principle that its very ethimology was supposed to define .... Because, NO, the management of raw materials is not economical. No their squandering at high speed "V" is not more so ... This is the main criticism that I make Jancovici when he says that "the raw materials would be free, since given by mother nature»(And which proves that he is the opposite of an environmentalist, but he is only following the movement by adding a layer of collateral damage in depth). These are some of the most scandalous remarks that can be made in the world of unbridled ultraliberalism ... At the same time, he is right, since at the price we are paying for them (i.e. peanut pa at the necessary geological time it took to constitute them, which is why their price is fictitious and his words a sham) they are indeed "stolen"to extractor countries under conditions which do not encourage their" economy "=> which cannot even get richer, as long as it is to the one who will sell them the cheapest ... We call that the law of plunder organized.

In any case, Professor Courtillot cannot be completely wrong, since he provides a demonstration with 4 convergent scientific proofs: 1) astronimic (movement of the planets) 2) chronological (which causes a succession of ice ages) 3) geological (which is verified by examining erosion due to successive periods) 4) physical (its demonstration of rejection then re-absorption of Co² by the oceans depending on the temperature is quite correct and flamboyant). So difficult opposite to say that it is not true, or else it should be quantified and given proportions ..,

Anyway, in any case, both cases, there is nothing to be happy about, we are already in the worst case scenario and given the spiral of debt which is one of the pillars of the system abundantly described elsewhere by Ahmed and Sen-no-Sen, it is to be feared that this will continue until almost total exhaustion follows (we are almost there ...)

And for your second point, ditto, as long as there is uncertainty, it is better to get out of it as quickly as possible (that is to say not before fifty years, things go slowly). The good news is that the development of research will make fossil fuels obsolescent due to the low cost of renewable energies, nuclear included, whose kWh is too expensive (at least that is what we can hope for, and which is already emerging ...!) but that does not say whether we will manage to stop the amplification of the warming for the part induced by man. The other good news - which in fact is bad - is that the human species will temporarily get out of this, but I fear that the energy crisis will not have been sufficient to initiate a total reform of the system. -economic".

[Ahmed]

I had not examined the relevance of the journalist's words because, and those who know me know it well, the question of CR and its origin matters little to me, since this phenomenon, whatever its cause or even its reality, is a great opportunity to initiate a radical change that would come to fight other well-known consequences (but denied) and not at all climatic ... My thesis is therefore that it is important to act as if RC existed and was of anthropogenic origin, without asking any more questions. It is not even certain that this substitution belief (in the sense that the other consequences of the economy are concealed) is sufficient to be nothing more than a pretext to revive the consumption machine ...

What is distressing in the progress of renewable energies, is that their probable efficiency which will add (much more than replace) to fossils will further increase the capacity to plunder natural resources and will accentuate the decline in living conditions on earth, since current efforts are being made within the usual framework.
I repeat it here for our friend Eclectron, the problem is not the risk of energy shortage, since it is the fact of its too great abundance which led us where we are and that clean, abundant and non-polluting energy, far from pulling us would be our worst nightmare.

[eclectron]

@obamot,
When Jancovici says: "the raw materials would be free, since given by mother nature."
It only describes a fact, I think it just regrets that it is not counted in the economy.
But it is true that I have never seen him expand on the subject, he has so much to say by the way…

"Anyway, in any case, both cases, there is nothing to be happy about, we are already in the worst-case scenario and given the spiral of debt ..."
I have not yet read what has been written on this subject here but for me the debt is a huge illusion so a false problem.
There are plenty of ways to absorb it. It should not be an obstacle to the changes to be made. That the lack of resources is a brake, that OK, we can do nothing but money, it is only a convention. We can always work out with conventions.

"The other good news - which in fact is bad - is that the human species will temporarily get away with it, but I fear that the energy crisis will not have been sufficient to initiate a total reform of the system" not-economical "."
I think that other crises will be coupled with energy, food resources in particular because of global warming, land degradation, population increase etc ...
If we don't understand that we have to be sober, it means that we are really blocked!
I am optimistic about crises, we will have them!

@Amhed
"The problem is not the risk of energy shortage, since it is the fact of its too great abundance that has led us to where we are and that clean, abundant and non-polluting energy, far from pulling us away would be our worst nightmare. "

I understand, I often asked myself the question, in relation to "free energy" for example (which remains to be proven) or other miraculous source.
Yet clean and abundant energy would take our thorns off our feet, it would already be one less problem.

It would only be necessary to manage the population which will visibly stabilize on its own around 11 billion thanks to the increase in the standard of living in progress.
Basically thanks to health, the poor no longer feel the need to have a lot of children for safety (education too)

All that remains is to set up a clean, sustainable and lively agriculture in the spirit of what did67 and others in the world are doing.

and finally, there is nothing more than to hope that all this will be done in time and that it fits in the "Earth" jar.
I don't see clean, abundant energy as a bad thing.
You just have to learn the sobriety in the meantime and stop this galloping economy of the race for profit.
I see money as a problem that shouldn't be one, I don't have the solution ...

[Ahmed]

I fear that you have a rather vague vision of the economy, which pushes you to misunderstand the meaning of debt and its exact role; it is true that all this is a pure convention, you are absolutely right on this point, but everything must be considered as a systemic concept and, from this point of view, one should speak of "real abstraction": only the oxymoron can account for a fiction that has real effects ...
As for the idea that the standard of living must "necessarily" improve and poverty decline, I fear that this is only a projection without any foundation.
You write:

I don't see clean, abundant energy as a bad thing.

There is no need to invoke a "free" energy, the sun conceals a potential easy to capture with few disadvantages of the old sources of energy and capable of allowing the continuation of the devastation of the world ... If you do not have not understood that energy is the problem, not by its possible scarcity, but by its abundance, it is time for you to think about it seriously.
Whatever the means implemented, however "virtuous" they may be, nothing will deviate the course of things without a radical change in the goals. This change is hardly conceivable, as you envision it, because the desired changes are thought out within a fundamentally perverse system. Like any system, it will go to the end of its logic (whether we understand it or not) until its destruction and will carry us along with it: it is on this side that the real danger is *, not that of the "components" of the system to which technocrats of all stripes, such as Jancovici, are only sensitive.

* It is not its destruction that represents a danger, but our unpreparedness for this event: if we are not able to be aware of the urgency to radically change course, how could we hope to react adequately when the time comes? 'an upheaval we would not understand? The system has unfortunately colonized our imagination to such an extent that we are reduced to trying to save what is losing us, like all those who work in good faith to reconcile the economy and the social (or the pseudo "ecology")!

PS: for more readability, use the "quote" function when you make a quote; to do this, you must exit the quick response box to access the advanced functions.

[eclectron]

I fear that you have a rather vague vision of the economy, which pushes you to ignore the meaning of debt and its exact role

Possible
All I can say is that after the crash of 1929, nothing was missing.
Only the money was gone.
The manufacturing and distribution of goods was no longer as before, just because the money had caught a cold ... through the madness and unconsciousness of men.

This is not provided for by accounting rules but imagine:
One day D, we say to all the people of the planet, you no longer owe any loan to anyone. What you have, you have it.
All lenders, you are artificially credited with what you are owed. easy to do since everything is computerized.
It resets the counters to zero. There is no longer any debt in the world, no one has lost anything.
The next day we leave as before.
What happens the day after D-Day and the years that follow, in your opinion?
This is not a trick question, I ignore it myself, probably inflation and people gravitating around money in search of activity for a little while.

As for the idea that the standard of living must "necessarily" improve and poverty decline, I fear that this is only a projection without any foundation.

I don't know if it must necessarily happen like that, but that's how it happens according to Rosling's work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
(there is a link for the subtitles below)
It relativizes at the level of the world population but there is still reason to panic for energy and food.

the sun has a potential that is easy to capture

Admittedly, this is the biggest potential but solar energy is not easy to store in a vehicle for example, we do not find the flexibility of using gasoline.
Solar energy is sensitive, seasonal weather, not available at night…
Not impossible, but we are changing our way of life.
I'm not making a value judgment, just that we have to change a lot of things about our way of life, if we switch to majority solar, in the state of technology.

I think the energy is not the cause of all our ills, it's just a developer / amplifier of what we are internally, that is to say relatively selfish, focused on ourselves.
Even an altruistic concern may be reduced to a selfish concern.
If it brought us no satisfaction, we would not just.
The biggest job would be educational work, in my opinion, not necessarily scrimp with energy.

But it is certain that if the energy bottleneck shrinks, in fact the damage we can do with it, will decrease.

Evolution of Man in consciousness or evolution of Man by constraint?

The latter is not an evolution in my opinion but an adaptation to conditions.
Man remains ready to restart his cies ... if the conditions in terms of energy availability improve.

[chatelot16]

the sun has a potential that is easy to capture

Certainly, this is the biggest potential but solar energy is not easy to store

as long as the EDF off-peak tariff is at night, this is proof that there is no need to store solar energy: it is entirely consumed by the multiple consumers who consume the day

when there will be a lot more photovoltaic the off-peak hours will be at the time of full sun, we can build a lot of photovoltaic before arriving

when there is enough photovoltaic for the off-peak hours to be in the sun, we can go further with a variable price of electricity to encourage large consumers to consume preferably according to availability: it can go very far to avoid storage

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you make the frequent mistake of attributing the dysfunctions of our society to moral causes, which is to ignore the underlying mechanisms of the economy in its current functioning. It is true that with regard to said mechanisms, no one has an interest in behaving morally, but that everyone must hope that the others do not do the same ... however, this is only an epiphenomenon that does not allow not to analyze the real causes of the "crisis".

[eclectron]

@ Ahmed
I'm not moral judgment, I'm just describing what's going on, from my point of view.
A layer of human instinct (we are forced to start from there, it is the basic brick of society)
Plus over a layer of financial and other rules, chosen by men.
We fall back on the Man responsible for what is.

I don't know what your thinking is on the economy and I imagine it is scattered across all forums but I would be interested to know your summary vision, concerning the current economy?

For me we are in a debt economy.
No money in circulation without debt somewhere in the world.
Because of compound interest, the system, by nature, ends up in a dead end where we arrive: non-repayable debt.
The physical world no longer allows physical growth, which makes it possible to pay the cost of creating money from banks or other investors.
It is a super-problem on the problem of physical resources.

Hence my simple reasoning:

This is not provided for by accounting rules but imagine:
One day D, we say to all the people of the planet, you no longer owe any loan to anyone. What you have, you have it.
All lenders, you are artificially credited with what you are owed. easy to do since everything is computerized.
It resets the counters to zero. There is no longer any debt in the world, no one has lost anything.
The next day we leave as before.
What happens the day after D-Day and the years that follow, in your opinion?
This is not a trick question, I ignore it myself, probably inflation and people gravitating around money in search of activity for a little while.

It would have interested me to have an informed opinion.

@chatelot16
It will still require a minimum storage for the night and winter (lighting, computer, ...)
Unless you choose the seasons and the day-night cycle, which from a personal point of view does not bother me. Even if electricity does not work in the evening bothers me a little.

And storage for vehicles. We can consider what has been done in Israel where we change the battery pack outright at a gas station to refuel.
http://www.cleantechrepublic.com/2013/0 ... ter-place/
Human individualism directs the choice towards rapid recharging, rather than pooling batteries.

[Obamot]

Oulàlàh here are very simplistic reasonings, and where would be the equity between borrowers? Some having borrowed more than others would suddenly find themselves freed from their debt (the good deal), those who had borrowed less would be harmed compared to those who had borrowed more. As for those who would not have borrowed at all, they would be the main ones left behind, since it is the whole community that should repay the debts. So those who have no debt (which is a virtue) would have to pay for all the others (and it would be done through the printing press, followed by high inflation from which some countries would never recover ...) There would be no ethics either, because the reimbursement could only be done by communicating vases of abstract values, and there, or you are part of the game, or you are part of fate .. .

This is the very principle of predation brought to the most iniquitous level of dehumanization. And so no, we cannot defend Jancovici by pretending that he wanted to warn us. It is a well-known observation fallacy. What he said is to be taken literally since all his speech is supported by the same idea (we did not see him defending solar thermal at the time for example, while it is an alternative very serious about nuclear power, and that you who talks about storage: precisely, thermal solar stores very well in the form of heat in molten sodium between 200 ° and 800 ° C or else we can convert it into methane by removing Co2 of the atmosphere during this metamorphosis: and I would like to make it clear that I do not wish to relaunch the discussion on Jancovici who is by this fact an imposter in the pay of the atomic industry, obviously. With selection bias and faked figures , even if he says correct things, but mixed with false conceptions. Debate closed, I will not answer on Jancovici anymore.)

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you write:

I'm not moral judgment, I'm just describing what's going on, from my point of view.

The attitudes you invoke (describe) must be understood within determinisms, therefore as consequences rather than causes ...
Further:

Plus over a layer of financial and other rules, chosen by men.
We fall back on the Man responsible for what is.

This is an important aspect of the problem; already a remark: it is a little tricky to speak of "the man" while thus generalizing a homogeneity of the population. There are several degrees of analysis of these phenomena and, in reality, everything happens as if the action of all men is manifested in a way totally independent of their will: it is indeed men who are actors. , but they obey a scenario which escapes them; hence the concept of "system" ...
Further:

The physical world no longer allows physical growth, which makes it possible to pay the cost of creating money from banks or other investors.

The cost of money creation is practically zero, so this is not a good explanation, but on the first point you are right: it is no longer possible to manage to increase the immense accumulated abstract wealth. Only the financial industry makes it possible to temporarily postpone systemic collapse and debt, far from being an obstacle, is a lifeline.


If you want to have an idea of ​​what I think of the economy, you will find many messages on this forum and also 2 recent articles published on the home page of the site.

I forgot: I watched the video that you linked and a lot of developed facts are interesting, but the speaker obviously does not understand much about economics, except that he is content to extend the curves, this which doesn't make much sense.