It just ended it was not bad ... but I found Ripostes a little less rummage (Calvi was not too confident compared to his habits ...) .... Jancovici had to speak 5 minutes in all c is a shame ...
Exact I noticed that Jancovici could not speak, he was entitled to barely 5 minutes while Cohen the economist that we often see in "c'est + clair" on FR5 with Calvi had to speak at least 1/2 hour. I had the impression that JY Calvi did not want to let Jancovici develop his ideas which clashed compared to the other participants much more down to earth, and yet Janco he is clearly above all the others because he masters all areas and has a much more global vision. I find his analysis very relevant, he could not finish his sentence on estimates of global warming and its implications.
Everything else, we have heard it a thousand times ... renewable energies passed over in silence or almost. Or it was too short or Calvi distributed the speaking times very badly; I am disappointed with this program, yet I like the debates led by Calvi. Did he have instructions to guide the debate? Janco had time to say that a computer = 350 kg of oil !!!
I will go to the Janco site to see his comments on his passage to "Crosswords" .... before discovering econology, I often consulted the Jancovici site, it is a wealth of very precise information.
We find that
Despite thundering declarations on the post-oil era which has already started, or climate change which would be a major threat, it is clear that our daily lives do not see any trace of it for the moment. Humanity has never consumed as much black gold, gas and coal as in 2005 and, in France, the rise in the global average of the last century only really prevented us from sleeping for a few days during the summer 2003. Of course, tomorrow will be different from today, because that is the very definition of a change, but how can we be convinced that we are off to a bad start when, as the “skeptics” do not hesitate to do? remember, is everything okay yet?
A first certainty comes from mathematics, which - alas - does not become invalid because the conclusion displeases us: with a finished starting stock, the oil supply will go through a maximum then decrease constantly, and this conclusion also applies to coal and gas. Therefore, when will the inexorable beginning of oil decline, which must be distinguished from the "end of oil", an expression that has only media interest? The response of oil tankers - the only ones with primary information - fluctuates between 2010 and 2025, that is to say almost tomorrow. Even by referring to gas and coal, mathematics prohibits prolonging more than a few decades an increasing consumption of fossil fuels.
The second certainty concerns the climate: 20.000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age, the planet had lost only 5 ° C in average temperature compared to now. A few more degrees for the global average in one or two centuries would therefore be a climatic shock, with consequences unimaginable in the first sense of the term, that is to say, impossible to imagine in detail. Indeed, such a rapid climate transition applied to a few billion sedentary individuals has never happened in the past, near or far. Above all, the inertia of the climate system and the lifespan of CO2 in the air are such that the temperature will rise for at least a few centuries after human CO2 emissions have started to decrease.
Despite the above, we live today with the dangerous illusion that energy will remain abundant and cheap for eternity. It is therefore logical that we cry crazy as soon as anyone advocates raising the price! But to ask the question of the price of energy is already to have answered it: all other things being equal, the price of an exhaustible resource whose consumption would like to increase constantly can only explode. A market price remaining low “as long as possible” would not even be good news: we could then emit so much CO2 that our (grand) children will inherit a monstrous climate bill, without much residual energy to get there. cope, and without even having enjoyed the party. What come nuclear and renewable, then! Although useful, they will not be enough to replace oil, gas and coal in a few decades: we will have to go on a diet