Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[Ahmed]

I have a hard time understanding your point of view, which, of mine, mixes a lot of things, without us being in frontal opposition.
Let's take it calmly: no, the peak oil is not an economic vision, but a physical reality that proclaims that we have (once reached) the same amount of oil that has been consumed previously, but that the amount of energy needed for extraction will be (and more and more) much larger than in the previous period (which limits ipso facto the recoverable volume, much more than just the pecuniary cost).
You write:

But in what way is it a fatal danger? Our gluttony leads us to evolve and to become aware of certain things inaccessible without this form of evolution by error.

The danger comes precisely that this awareness of the energy abuse does not translate in any way by the rectifications that this implies, but on the contrary by a headlong rush that you seem, at times, to endorse. This is particularly the case when you mention the space adventure which would be the "logical" result of our inability to manage the Earth ...
Your last two paragraphs are based on a relativism that seems utterly irrelevant to me: if the Earth is very little considered on the scale of the universe, it is however the only part that concerns us directly and which engages our responsibility: the energy that is dissipated is not in vain, it directly serves the destruction of the living conditions of living species, including us.

[lilian07]

but that the quantity of energy necessary for the extraction will be (and more and more) much greater than in the preceding period (which ipso facto limits the recoverable volume, much more than the mere pecuniary cost)
Learn more about energies-fossil-nuclear / jean-marc-Jancovici-is-it-a-con-t14740-310.html # kVdIjPE88AzqRvJY.99

There I do not agree because your reasoning is based on the known techniques that have evolved enormously between the simple puddle that is flush with the ground and extraction 2000 m.
It is for me a vision of necessary energy need "to feed our gluttony of rich" in the absence of having another source of energy which causes the date of this peak to evolve, which moreover could not be determined well in advance hence the uncertainties.

The danger is precisely that this awareness of energy abuse

For me it is clear that the man is not aware of his anticipatory abuse, he is aware of it only at the moment of the visible consequences, which makes him then pass to a higher stage.

[Ahmed]

If it is true that the technical evolution influences the ratio between the volume recovered and the volume spent, this does not change the essential. This is all the more true as the evolution of the remaining deposits goes against the current of the technique.
The real problem is not there, but that in one way or another, enormous amounts of energy are available, which is incompatible with the maintenance of the conditions of life on Earth.

On the second point, I find it hard to see how the perception of negative consequences would lead to a "higher" stage. On the contrary, I note that the negative consequences are only very partially accepted and still not by everyone, that many are the subject of denial and above all, that the main fear expressed remains the shortage of energy ...

[lilian07]

that many are the object of denial and above all, that the main fear expressed remains the shortage of energy

The psychological brake to change and denial, it always starts like that ... but it does not resist causation.
I think that the animal evolution is a succession of pressure of more and more intense on the medium and by definition the destruction of the free space.
Each organism evolved by drawing more and more energy in its environment ... and by successive iteration resulted in the monkey, then the consciousness, then the society, the mechanization, the capitalism, then a too high level of CO2 which is only an indication of the overheating of planetary looting.
But in this vision I think that it is a necessary evil to invent a more efficient energy, and as the man cannot go back "human decrease", he must evolve to better occupy the space and not to perish.

Finally our vision is centered on ourselves and the human sapiens could have "on his scale" have the same vision, he had a superior vision because he understood that the pressure he exerted on his environment was not more viable this way.
The Neanderthal man did not understand it, hope that all our knowledge will allow us to have a higher consciousness to reach this famous higher level, in this sense the IA is a serious candidate to this collective consciousness and the taking decision before it's too late.
I do not doubt it and the earth will probably recover because our modern history does not represent much on a geological scale.

What I believe is that there will come a time when there will be only one form of energy and that we will be limited by inviolable rules that will protect us from ourselves.

[Ahmed]

But in this vision, I think it's a necessary evil to invent a more efficient energy ...

The trouble is precisely that the energy currently being implemented is already terribly effective and that its eventual increase would only increase the damage.

On the rest, we can consider that energy dissipation is part of the mode of operation of the universe, but it seems clear to me that submission to this determinism is fatal and that opposing it is vital.
As for the idea of ​​leaving the Earth thanks to machines and technology, I can see that today we ask science to plunge us into the dream, after the last century we had to deliver old chimeras ...

[sen-no-sen]

A small interview of Jean Marc jancovici extracted from Grand Paris Magazine (Avril 2018) on the question of the carbon neutrality of Paris.

Grand Paris Magazine: the climate plan of the City of Paris aims for carbon neutrality in 2050. How to achieve it?

Neutrality means that the carbon footprint of all activities related to the city must be eliminated: the transport that brings goods and people, the food, the comfort of housing, and even the production of goods bought by the inhabitants. How to do in a city that is partly an annex of Roissy, partly a huge shopping arcade, and where you always need more? All carbon offset measures will not be enough ... The objectives of the mayor of Paris are quite symptomatic in reality of the inflation of political discourses on the energy transition, disconnected from the basic laws of physics and chemistry. When you continue to build housing - one of the stated goals of the Paris metropolitan area - the actual process of making concrete involves releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Imagine building the metropolis only in wood? All the forests of France will not be enough. The Shift Project, for its part, is "happy" to propose the division by three of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe on the 2050 horizon; it's already titanic as a construction site. And yet that's what it takes to have two chances in three to stay below the 2 ° C temperature rise in 2100.

What measures of the manifesto could apply immediately on the metropolitan territory?

The first concern the mobility of everyday life. Rather than rely primarily on the diffusion of the electric car - which today is not a mature solution: batteries are expensive in euros and CO2 to produce, electricity remains very carbon in many European countries, even if France is well placed - we propose that the European Union should ban all cars consuming more than 2 liters at 100 kilometers - under real conditions - in 2030. They will be less powerful, less heavy, less equipped, more hybrid, etc. It is also necessary to develop the mobilities cocktail, by promoting buses and coaches, daily trains, cycling, carpooling. Regardless of whether or not it runs on oil, the bus carries 45 people, against 1,1 on average per car used to go to work ... The other lever of immediate action is the improvement of the carbon sobriety of buildings . The movement has been launched, but we must go much faster, accelerating on the one hand the deployment of more carbon-free heating modes - geothermal, heat pumps, wood heat network ... - on the other hand insulation of buildings.

Is the fight against climate change happening first in metropolitan areas, as the C40 claims?

The paradox is that a sober energy world will have fewer metropolises! Such an object does not survive without energy in abundance. Metropolisation, with Grand Paris in the lead, is therefore a totally anachronistic project, which encourages urban sprawl and concentrates a little more the inhabitants of the country on a territory that can only provide a tiny fraction of its basic needs. Why concretize the Saclay plateau at a time when the urgency should be to recreate a vegetable belt around the capital? Promoting a world-city and the multiplication of international exchanges is it compatible with the scarcity of energy? In my opinion, the good idea would be to contract, to deflate the big cities of 10 million inhabitants, who will eventually pay for their lack of resilience. There are still some good initiatives within the C40, such as the "Reinventing Cities" call for projects. But this remains anecdotal: what will change some potential carbon sites when 120 000 housing should be thermally renovated each year in the Paris metropolis?

Cities are responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Is not their territory on the right scale to act?

There is no exclusive scale. All actors - local authorities, states, supranational organizations, business federations ... - will have to play their role. One of the emergencies in Europe is to remove coal from power generation. Do you believe that the mayor of Paris - or that of Stuttgart - can order it? It would not have more hands to manage the conversion of minors ... Let's take another example, that of food, responsible for a quarter of GHG emissions, two-thirds of which are linked to cattle. Paris can limit meat on the menus of municipal canteens and schools. But, without rising purchase prices, the counterpart is the bankruptcy of the farmers. It will be - this is what the Shift Project advocates - that the European Union imposes by law the division of livestock by two while controlling the prices paid to farmers, and multiplying by three so that they can continue to live. A municipality can accompany or advocate the movement, not implement it alone.

You warn against posting political speeches and lack of acting out ...

Just because they suggest that the economy, consumption can continue to grow while lowering GHG emissions. It is unfortunately impossible. Manufacturing more and more manufactured products, which represent a quarter of our carbon footprint, is always making more steel, metals, plastics, and that increases CO2 emissions! Increasing air traffic increases CO2 emissions! Build more is more cement and steel, and it's more CO2! In my opinion, ecology is the acceptance of boundaries before the system imposes its own. Between growth (immediately) and the environment (which implodes with delay), it will be necessary to choose, and it is a structuring choice. If "we do nothing", the gradual weakening of the environment - which has allowed us to get to where we are - will force us to adapt on a forced, necessarily disastrous. But managing a contraction now is also a revolution. In practice, this means a decrease in actual consumption, and therefore a deliberate limitation of purchasing power... The easiest part, and you have to start with that, is to require homeowners to heat-up their homes.

https://jancovici.com/publications-et-c ... vril-2018/

Once again we can see that the political discourse is totally against the physical realities WYD and that the solution to the ecological problem in big cities will certainly not be achieved with "green skyscrapers" or solar roads!

[Ahmed]

The journalist judiciously raises his interlocutor:

You warn against posting political speeches and lack of acting out ...

This observation, which everyone can do, does not stem from a cognitive dissonance that would unfortunately hit the political class, but from a double discourse: display of good feelings and good intentions towards the public opinion, and strict compliance with systemic determinisms on the other hand. The former are responsible for symbolically counterbalancing the second, very real for it ...

[izentrop]

The title is "anachronistic". It would have been nice to create a new topic.

[Remundo]

Ben there for once, it is not

[sen-no-sen]

This observation, which everyone can do, does not stem from a cognitive dissonance that would unfortunately hit the political class, but from a double discourse: display of good feelings and good intentions towards the public opinion, and strict compliance with systemic determinisms on the other hand. The former are responsible for symbolically counterbalancing the second, very real for it ...

This is also explained by the fact that the political class as a whole is subservient to worship of progressdirectly (Cornucopian) or indirectly (by imitation of the first).
It is the dominant dogma in industrial societies, namely, this unshakeable belief in the success of technology to remedy all our worries.
This is the essence of the problem and the cause of ecological collapse.
It is therefore fashionable for politicians and other decision makers to sell (in the strict sense!) A future made of technological challenges supposed to correct problems constantly renewed.
This clearly demonstrates the idea of ​​alienation not to say possession of brains by Memes of the techo / economy.

On the other hand we must remember the role of politicians in liberal democracies: that of an interface between the economy and consumers.
Admitting that we should launch a project of economic contraction is simply not thinkable because it would result for the said people a one-way trip to the box unemployment or in the best case a renunciation of their ideologies*.


*The French political spectrum ranges from the NPA to the RN, apart from all parties are historically based on the production of abstract values, only the distribution of it in the social classes or means to produce it is debate and determines their existences.