Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you write:

Oh, I think the media discourse still educates a lot of people who are not yet well aware.

I see rather the opposite: quite a few people realize what we are going towards, but the media discourse (in which the words of Chirac subscribe) tends to provide a substitute for reflection oriented towards conserving the system as it is, or rather by making the few modifications necessary to maintain it, while passing these off as a change of course and thus reassure public opinion and defuse criticism => "energy transition", "sustainable development" and other gadgets like "save the planet" ...

[eclectron]

Eclectron, you write:

Oh, I think the media discourse still educates a lot of people who are not yet well aware.

I see rather the opposite: quite a few people realize what we are going towards, but the media discourse (in which the words of Chirac subscribe) tends to provide a substitute for reflection oriented towards conserving the system as it is, or rather by making the few modifications necessary to maintain it, while passing these off as a change of course and thus reassure public opinion and defuse criticism => "energy transition", "sustainable development" and other gadgets like "save the planet" ...

and me the opposite! I'm kidding, it's a bit of a story of half full and half empty glass.
I can not say the dosage precisely.
The 2 media speeches are present and irreconcilable but it does not bother our dear media, quite the contrary

[Ahmed]

The 2 media speeches are present and irreconcilable, but it does not bother our dear media, on the contrary

It is true that speeches which are fairly similar in form can be made by sincere people or by manipulators, but these two kinds unfortunately produce the same effect ... All emancipatory efforts end up strengthening the system they criticize, as long as they remain immanent (that they are within the conceptual framework of said system) ...

[Petrus]

It is incredible that all the analyzes in the book are brought to the attention of our politicians and that they completely ignore the wall towards which we are rushing.
They all invoke growth as the only solution. From the right to the left, even some ecologists.

Maybe not all of them, I watched the political program on Benoît Hamon (because he was talking about universal income), and it's really weird to see a politician questioning the dogma of growth:

► View Text

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVGYsE-eaBc#t=10m8s

But it is clear that the overwhelming majority of them are in "business as usual" mode, even though they are aware of the wall (they cannot ignore its existence). The dogma of saving growth is too entrenched in society, too hard to question and above all suicidal from a political point of view.

When to ecology "seen on TV" it is only greenwashing, false painless solutions see profitable for the system. They are not going to question the consumer society that supports them.

[phil53]

Chirac made remarks with highly prophylactic content: he denounced the fires that he, throughout his career, had done everything to fuel; in doing so, he confined himself to reassuring the public by giving expression to his fears ...

Christophe, you write:

The wall will never happen and I rather predict a "little frog" behavior.

The future will tell, but a sudden collapse cannot be ruled out, since it corresponds to a gradual approach to a tipping point; the "little frog" stage would rather be this approach phase ...

Eclectron, you write:

I think we will have to wait for the wall for awareness to arise ...

No, awareness requires time and favorable conditions, in the face of events for which no one is psychically prepared, it is astonishment that prevails.

I fully agree, we are in the little frog phase and the wall is approaching but we close our eyes.
It is true that we have to question all our way of consuming to produce and also probably accept things that may seem to be sacrifices because we have made things downright useless but addictive essential.
When I am in a store and I see all these packaging that will serve a few seconds and be put in the trash I tell myself that to avoid the wall it would take a hell of an awareness to challenge this consumption system. That is to say mass production and throw away who wants it to change?

[Ahmed]

Petrus, you write:

The dogma of life-saving growth is too eembedded in society

This (nice) spelling slip seems interesting to me ... even if nowadays, it is more the audio-visual than the paper-media which maintain the myth ...
You're right: all the proposed changes are "for fun" ...

[Kokopelli seeds]

Rather than talk about this gentleman, I suggest you read
Should we wait for growth?
http://livre.fnac.com/a9529460/Dominiqu ... croissance
It is very instructive, it is a question of Jancovici but also of Pierre Rabi.

Great idea Phil53!
From the Pierre Rabhi Humus to the agricultural sector:
Agrofuels replaced by solar? Energy production multiplied by 180!
https://sites.google.com/site/olivierda ... grosolaire

=> green growth + protection of soils and biodiversity.

[sen-no-sen]

Head without legs

In June 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio, where the Climate Convention was launched, François Mitterrand described the environmental objectives under discussion as "the condition of the very survival of humanity". He also defended "the stabilization, within 10 years, of carbon dioxide emissions, at 1990 levels".

In terms of stabilization, global emissions have grown by 40% since 1990, whereas they would have to have already fallen by 25% to be in line with the “2 ° C” objective. In France, national emissions have certainly dropped by 15% since the year of Rio, but, with our imports, the country's way of life actually emits 25% more than in 1992.

The second increase was, as a result, that of the greenhouse effect, which began to translate into extreme precipitation here, prolonged droughts there, hurricanes never seen before here, unprecedented forest fires ... with to each time a little more pronounced damage than the previous time.

All this did not prevent a third inflation: that of the speeches on the need for strong and immediate action. However, we continue to "look elsewhere", as Chirac so aptly put it. In fact, for two centuries we have been looking at what the participants in Davos are looking at above all else: our economic production and our purchasing power, the more being necessarily the better. And since there can be no question of choosing between growth and environment, we invented "green growth".

Unfortunately, physics has the unpleasant aspect that it cannot be modified by a vote in the national assembly, a decree or a martial electoral speech. In physics, the patrol always catches up with you.

You don't want to do without carbon voluntarily? No problem, nature will take care of it for you, since it is an exhaustible energy. In 2006, the production of conventional crude oil (all that is not shale oil and oil sands) went through a peak, and we remember the crisis that followed.

It may well be that the same episode is being replayed: for two years, world oil production has stagnated [Ed: "oil", here, refers to the addition of conventional oil, oil from parent rock (says " shale oil "), oil sands, and condensate, which are produced with gas] and it is probably only a matter of years before the next big shock in the economy. Acting will be difficult. Failure to act will be much more.

https://jancovici.com/publications-et-co/articles-de-presse/la-tete-sans-les-jambes/

[sen-no-sen]

A very good article by Jean Marc Jancovici on the very questionable concept of "sustainable development":

What is the use of sustainable development?

Fashions are powerful factors in guiding the behavior of representatives of our species. Whether the results were happy or unhappy, the essence of fashion has always been to substitute emotion for reflection, and to replace analysis with mimicry. This has of course been worth more to ideas than to objects.

Today, one of the very fashionable ideas is the notion of "sustainable development", an imperfect translation of the English term "sustainable development", which is defined as "a development that meets needs of the present generation without compromising those of future generations. "

It certainly starts from a good feeling of hoping for the flourishing of all humankind, present and to come, everywhere and all the time, but is the existence of such a concept of any practical interest for better achieve it? Does it allow to lead to a particular project of society, or to trace particular paths for the future? On closer inspection, this is unfortunately not the case: this definition unfortunately has no operational significance, in the sense that it does not provide an objective answer or decision-making aid for either of the two preceding questions.

Let's talk about the environment, first of all: does sustainable development help us to set limits to our footprint on the planet? No: it is perfectly impossible to match the definition of "sustainable development" with a particular state of the physical world, because no one knows how to define the needs of the present generations unequivocally, and therefore the quantity of necessary resources which corresponds to it. Have we "met our needs" since our life expectancy has exceeded 40 years? Where will we have to wait for each of us to live 120 years before we feel satisfied? Have we "satisfied our needs" when we have 10 m² heated per person, or will this only be the case when every landlord will have 150 m² heated, plus a jacuzzi and a private sauna per person? Have we satisfied our needs when each landlord has 0,5 tonnes of oil equivalent of energy (level of an Indian, roughly), or is it 7 tonnes of oil equivalent per capita of the planet (level of an American) which corresponds to this state of fullness? (...)

A very relevant passage:

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Any objective on the list is antagonistic to at least one other objective on the same list. For example, eradicating poverty (objective 1) supposes that monetary incomes increase (which is also necessary for objectives 8, 9 and 10), therefore GDP, therefore production, and this also increases pollution of all kinds , pressure on ecosystems, and increased consumption of non-renewable energy, since it is precisely fossil energy that has enabled economic growth (objectives 12, 13, 14, and 15).

Similarly, now that we are 7,5 billion, improving health (objective 3) increases the size of the population and therefore increases the pressure on the environment (for example animal populations in Africa disappear as the population increases there. , and it is mechanical, since humans and animals compete for the same land for food), etc. etc.

As it stands, these SD objectives therefore push us to do the exact opposite of what a manager in a constrained universe must do: think about managing his priorities. It is an incitement to recklessness, when the question of the day is what we accept to give up to preserve the rest!

The following here:https://jancovici.com/transition-energetique/choix-de-societe/a-quoi-sert-le-developpement-durable/

[PVresistif]

Mr Jancovici is a pronuclear that explains a lot of things
the pb of energy in France is a social and political pb as everything; it should :
-close 50% of nuclear power plants over the next 20 years and therefore lay off a lot of "fonks"
- insulate the buildings by helping / subsidizing thermal insulation and by the same to create 100 artisanal jobs of insulators / masons specialists in insulation, design offices ... etc
- produce the maximum of electricity by solar either thermal or PV (by helping individuals to self-consume) in a decentralized way
- orient the houses facing south (bioclimatic architecture required)
alas as you know ErDF has the monopoly of the distribution and all the competitors of EDF will spit in the bassinet to sell elec; and the more we consume, the more taxes we pay.
politics is at the service of the monopoly - I remind you that there are 70% taxes on electricity - (20% VAT for state, 25% for network, pension scheme taxes, local taxes on poles, new energy taxes ... )
When you lower your consumption or when you consume it it avoids these 70% of taxes, so it is a policy that serves the interests of consumers and serves those of lobbies ..... as it is the lobbies that are in power and not consumers, so ...
The problem of the production of ENr is that it is by nature decentralized and that France is by nature centralized unfortunately (since 1945), so it opposes frontally.