BD, The ECOLOS - Tome 1

[Woodcutter]

Like?
Again, you changed your post afterwards ...
Be careful: this practice completely harms the shine of your presentations.


In addition, and it is traditional of people who do not support the contradiction (reassure yourself, you are not the only one), you carefully avoid answering on certain precise points.

[Woodcutter]

By the way, here is the post of the BD of Menf, so I think we should stop the HS, don't you think?

So stick strictly to what is noted by me on your comment on the comic ...

[Elec]

you carefully avoid answering certain precise points.

What specific points?

not support the contradiction

Still there should be a contradiction for what is supported, or not.

Then, weren't you the one who wrote about the algae that produces oil? Algae consume UAA?

Yes, I know the subject a little, it interests me.

- A $10 the liter according to the Shamash team (taxes not included), microalgae oil is far from being competitive on the market.

- The combustion of microalgal fuel in a heat engine, as with any fuel, is accompanied by very significant losses (80% of losses in ordinary use cycle)

- The culture of microalgae requires very large inputs of fertilizers and chemical substances in order to inhibit the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms which tend to invade bioreactors or basins.

- The teams working on the subject use GMOs. What will happen if these organisms are released into the environment?

- No environmental impact study of these crops has been carried out to date.

- The conversion efficiency of solar energy into biomass by microalgae seems at first sight high but remains in reality very low, of the order of 1,5%, or 10 times less than the conversion efficiency of energy solar into electricity via photovoltaic solar or thermodynamic solar (15%).

Microalgal fuels offer interesting prospects for aviation-type applications, that is to say where we cannot do otherwise.

Does jatropha consume UAA?

Yes, Jatropha curcas is now cultivated on good land, it "consumes UAA" and the yield is around 400 to 500 liters per hectare per year, which is low (source: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326 ... 14004.html ). Its culture leads to the exploitation of people from developing countries (they are very largely underpaid), the only condition for the cost of production to be attractive. Grown on ungrateful land and / or without watering, the yields of Jatropha curcas are even more mediocre, not at all profitable and therefore not realized.

Jatropha curcas despite its remarkable resistance, is a living being like the others: without inputs of water and fertilizers, it survives, and has a low productivity. Experiments were carried out several years ago in arid zones with the Mexican variety of Jatropha curcas by Mexican agricultural engineers. Conclusion of the experiments: without regular water supply, the yields are extremely low, unprofitable. And water is a precious resource in arid zones ... We are witnessing today, in poor or very poor regions, the mass cultivation of good land with Jatropha curcas, land where we can cultivate food plants. Castor oil, a plant, such as Jatropha curcas, from the euphorbiaceae family is for example grown today in Ethiopia, instead of food crops! The international network of access to sustainable energy denounces the consequences of these practices for local populations [Ethiopia: peasants scalded by the promises of biofuels http://www.riaed.net/spip.php?article1842 ]. The cultivation of Jatropha curcas or, better, the nitrogen fixing tree Pongamia pinnata, is of interest to underprivileged populations who cannot, for example, acquire photovoltaic panels to produce electricity. With oil, these populations can supply a generator. The electricity obtained makes it possible to meet basic needs: produce cold to store medicines and food, power a computer to have access to information, etc. The oil can be used to power the engine of a water pump or a multi-function platform. It can also be used as a raw material for artisanal soap making and thus improve hygienic conditions. The Breton sailor and ecologist Jo Le Guen, for example, has set up a project that is really socially relevant in Burkina-faso, "Vivre au village". On the other hand, in Africa, Asia and South America, the exploitation of land and disadvantaged local populations by companies that sell Jatropha oil in the United States or Europe to make automotive fuels is nonsense. social and ecological total (...)
http://www.electron-economy.org/article-27286879.html

[Woodcutter]

you carefully avoid answering certain precise points.

What specific points?

Reread my last 10 posts and see where you did not respond ...

Well, I don't know what time it is in Mexico, or how much time your students give you to come and do all-electric propaganda on forums (energy that I do not denigrate, we agree?), but here it is late and I have work tomorrow, so chao!

[Cuicui]

Let's say that Bové associated with "the green people" on the cover of volume 1 already introduces a great deal of confusion: what characterizes Bové is not being "green" (everyone is green and ecology does not belong to any political party) but anti-globalization (ie anti-liberal), which is completely different.
Reducing ecology to alter-globalization, to the illegal destruction of the property of others, or to the hyper-left greens, it's easy, it sticks to some clichés, but in my opinion it's total nonsense. And this confinement of ecology to the hyper-left contributes to greatly discrediting the fight for ecology.

Liberalism consisting in bursting the planet and polluting it genetically for the sole benefit of special interests should, in my opinion, be caught by the law and be severely condemned. I believe that José Bové, by mowing GMOs only makes up for the shortcomings of the legislation. Its intervention is not aimed at liberalism (which is necessary provided that it is sufficiently framed), but its unacceptable excesses which endanger the planet and its inhabitants.

[Elec]

I believe that José Bové, by mowing GMOs only makes up for the shortcomings of the legislation.

I respect your point of view but I do not share it.
My opinion: these illegal actions could be justified in a banana republic but France is a free, democratic country. You can express your ideas in the press, on the radio, on TV. And stand for election.

liberalism (which is necessary provided that it is sufficiently framed

Completely agree on this.

Its intervention is aimed only at the unacceptable excesses of liberalism which endanger the planet and its inhabitants.

This fight there is in my opinion useful (but be satisfied with shows is useless if we do not offer a serious alternative), taking into account social and environmental aspects is of course imperative. The market is a wild animal which has a formidable power but which can lead to a real carnage on the social or environmental level. It is therefore advisable to tame it, to channel its energy. "We must organize ourselves collectively so that people can act and undertake with maximum freedom, within the global constraints defined by the capacities of ecosystems." (Alain Granjean). Similarly, it is imperative to domesticate the wild technique (Hans Jonas).

The problem with certain hyper-left movements is that we still don't know whether they accept the market economy or not, it's very confusing. Michel Rocard has an interesting analysis of this situation in my opinion:

Michel Rocard. - (...) This crisis is an opportunity or never to to restore order to the intellectual confusion of the French left.

(...) The French left, it is still entangled in its archaisms. We traditionally identify the left in France according to three criteria. The first is its proximity to the French Communist Party. Now it has lapsed. There is no longer, and so much the better, a Stalinist project. We lived for fifty years by defining ourselves in relation to the PCF. For too long, the left has only defined itself politically in relation to the others without really saying what it is, which is still a pain (...)

New Obs - Why is the market economy a fundamental achievement?

Mr. Rocard. - It is because it guarantees the freedom of the worker - consumer - basic citizen and because capitalism succeeded in associating with the idea of ​​development and growth the totality of the population. And because History has shown that the collectivist response to capitalism has been ineffective and defeated everywhere. Marx also praised the revolutionary efficiency of capitalism. A reminder: a French citizen during the Revolution lived almost like a subject of Louis XIV and not much better than a Roman citizen! Today we live 120 times better than our great great great grandparents. We worked 4 hours a year in 000 or 1820, at the birth of capitalism, or 1830 hours a day, including Saturdays, without paid leave or pensions. We are in present-day France at 17 hours. This is constant progress due to social conquests inside of the system. There remains however the problem of the instability of this same system which provokes repeated crises. The crisis of 1929, which led to the Second World War, was the most serious.

After the war, there was a consensus for rationalize the excesses of capitalism. We actually relied on three “balance correctors”. The first based on reports from the British economist William beveridge who theorized the humanization of capitalism, particularly in 1944 in his work "Full Employment in a Free SocietyBy social protection, seeing it as a powerful stabilizing factor. He wanted to put the efficiency of capitalism at the service of the fight against its cruelty. The second is of course John Maynard Keynes, the other British economist who theorized the use of the budgetary and monetary powers of the States to stabilize the tremors of the system. Third regulator, historically the first, and the real winner of Marx is Henry Ford. His post-World War I doctrine is in one sentence: "I pay my employees to buy my cars. " So, after the last world war, all agreed to defend a policy of high wages to increase demand. The result is the Glorious Thirty. Thirty years of steady growing capitalism without major crises. Thirty years of redistribution with 5% growth per year and full employment. During which the left protests against colonial wars or attacks on human rights, for lack of being able to challenge the economic system. There was only one fight left: to criticize the consumer society!
(...)

I bless the time when the world right is finally able to accept the idea that social democrats have been right for over fifty years in asking for a European and global regulation of the market economy ! A world right which has been an accomplice of this crime against thought, by hammering this dogma: the economy can function without rules (...)

http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/paruti ... crise.html

This analysis by Michel Rocard on the archaisms of the hyper-left (hyper-left which attacks liberalism either, for some, without offering anything serious as an alternative, or, for others, by proposing collectivism as alternative) and also about the dangers of ultra-liberalism (the ultra-liberals pronounce a completely wild market, without social and environmental constraints, and bet on a regulation of the market by itself, which is in my opinion not realistic and irresponsible because we have repeatedly demonstrated that the market can become highly unstable and we also have the demonstration that not taking into account environmental constraints leads to a threat to humans) is in my opinion excellent.

Dominique Strauss-Khan and Daniel Cohn-Bendit also have, in my opinion, a very relevant analysis on this subject.

Social democracy (in its modern form) is in my opinion the best way to go. And even better, social-eco-democracy. Ie an approach pronouncing a market economy (freedom to undertake, free competition source of competitiveness and innovation), but a regulated-supervised market economy taking into account both social aspects (dignity of humans) and environmental (preservation of our natural capital); fair trade etc.

In France, Lionel Jospin, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Michel Rocard, Bertrand Delanoe, Jacques Attali et Jacques Delorsare examples of social democrats.

In France, a large social democratic party, uniting center-left (liberal wing of the PS) and center-right (Bayrou / LePage) is sorely lacking.

Martine Aubry:

"Communism died twenty years ago, neoliberalism two months ago, but that does not mean that people will automatically turn to us, that our time has come (...) The common European project is a condition rebirth
Social Democrats "
http://www.humanite.fr/2008-12-02_Polit ... pour-Aubry

Two steps to take for the emergence of a large social democratic party in France:
- That the liberal wing of the PS free itself from the “revolutionary socialist” wing which plays the prophet of the end of capitalism but which offers no alternative.
- Fusion of this liberal wing of the PS and the liberal wing of the Greens with the Modem / Cap21.

In the context of the current crisis, the failure of ultra-liberalism and the radicalization of the hyper-left leave a large space for the emergence, finally, of a great social democratic movement in France, the path of a happy medium between an energizing capitalism but producer of inequalities and a revolutionary socialism without real project, if not a collectivism more or less avowed and disrespectful of freedoms.

We must relaunch the call of the Gracques [think tank comprising former senior socialist officials, researchers, etc.], who, during the presidential elections, called for the merger of the Liberal PS-UDF-Liberal Greens ...

Manifesto for a modern left

(...) The modern left is liberal, in the tradition of Montesquieu or Spinoza (...) Pursuing the ideal of social justice with all force does not mean that we must refuse reality, lie to ourselves - even and camp on postures that threaten to become impostures. For example, it is not enough to say that we accept the market - how else could we do otherwise? - if we do it in a resigned, shameful and at the same time ineffective manner. The left must make it clear that the market economy is a good thing even if market values ​​do not have to take over everything. She must understand the positive dynamics, that which makes it possible to create collective and individual wealth and ultimately to serve social justice. There is no contradiction between the market economy and the demands of redistribution. Social justice is first and foremost the rejection of protected castes and the society of heirs. And this is what allows the dynamics of the market, because, well regulated, it is the means to question the acquired situations, privileges and annuities. The modern left wants to put redistribution wherever there is a market, and a regulated market wherever there are rents (...)

Similarly, you have to stop seeing an enemy in business. The left must be favorable to entrepreneurs. It must recognize the company as a source of wealth and also of social integration. Risk appetite is a factor innovation and growth. It must be allowed to unfold fully to create the economic dynamic that all of society needs (...)

The left must say loud and clear that globalization is progress It is the opening of trade that largely drives global growth. It is this which has enabled hundreds of millions of men and women in developing countries to emerge from shameful misery for humanity. (...)

http://www.lesgracques.fr/manifeste

[Cuicui]

You can express your ideas in the press, on the radio, on TV. And stand for election.

Certainly, but while waiting for these "civilized" means to bear fruit (if they succeed despite lobbying from the seed companies, and after how many years?), What to do with the fields of GMOs? Patiently wait for them to irreversibly pollute the environment? In my opinion, José Bové and his friends had no choice. These crops had to be destroyed before flowering. All this would not have been necessary if the rule of law had done its job.
In my opinion, cultivating GMOs in the open air when environmental impact studies are insufficient is unreasonable, not to say criminal, behavior. A state that lets its powers be abused and is no more respectable than the leaders of a banner republic.

Furthermore, I assume that we agree on the following facts:
- Communism and its horrible Stalinist excesses originate from the limitless rapacity of wild industry and capitalism.
- the unreasonable excesses of some lead to the unreasonable excesses of others.
- between reasonable people there is always a way to get along.

[Superform]

I believe that José Bové, by mowing GMOs only makes up for the shortcomings of the legislation.

I respect your point of view but I do not share it.
My opinion: these illegal actions could be justified in a banana republic but France is a free, democratic country. You can express your ideas in the press, on the radio, on TV. And stand for election.

no no, nothing I was just passing ... but I don't agree, that's all. France is not (more?) A free, democratic country with complete freedom of expression. When the elections ...

I will not say any more, because this kind of debate is essentially sterile, I set out my opinion succinctly, but completely. I will read the answers, but do not wish to debate, I just used the little freedom of expression we have left.

Otherwise, tome2, is it going ahead?

I will see a contest in partnership with econologie to win the 2 volumes ...

[menf]

Yes, T.2 is finished. The designer is in the editing phase.
I will post some excerpts as soon as possible ...
As for the competition, why not .. I will speak to my editor.

[Elec]

France is not (more?) A free, democratic country with complete freedom of expression. When the elections ...

Freedom of expression is so great in France that some of those who live there forget it. To say that there is no freedom of expression in Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran or Libya is in my opinion completely justified. To say the same for France is, in my opinion, unfounded.

this kind of debate is inherently sterile

The debate is in my opinion effectively sterile with the anti-epidermal hyper-left whose sole purpose is to criticize, to destroy the current system, instead of seeking constructively, positively and realistically to improve it. "History has shown that the collectivist response to capitalism has been ineffective and defeated everywhere " (M. Rocard). The state of mind that leads to say "entrepreneurs are mobsters, I'm anti-liberal, down with capitalism, let's revolt"at best remains marginalized, at worst leads to a collectivist regime depriving of liberty.

Bertrand Delanoe:

"I am a social democrat, for the market economy. I am neither for the Soviets, nor for Bolshevism."