Prepare the exit ...

[PVresistif]

To eliminate nuclear waste from uranium takes a few million years; to eliminate the CO2 from the atmosphere it would take a few centuries to completely stop any rejection; so the return to the old world is totally impossible.

We can only reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere and therefore adapt to the new conditions, any proposal for sudden change is only deception on the part of lobbies wanting to replace one pollutant by another, to the greater benefit of the ultra-taxing state .....

Consume oil or gas, it's the least harm, but consume in half the time by insulating your house and rolling less; go get your wand on foot or by bike, not with your diesel.

Burning wood or uranium is the worst solution for the planet.

[Ahmed]

Izentrop, you write:

There, you absolve the responsibility of the man.

Not at all! Science is man-made and the use made of it. The mention of "performative" which qualified science takes into account that science does not hover in the ethereal sky of ideas, but has a stake in the society in which it is integrated.
I readily admit that science is instrumentalized in that it is listened to when it proposes means to increase the power to act and ignored when it warns against the consequences of their use.

[izentrop]

Ahmed, Ecocide did not wait for science and began as soon as man knew how to control his environment.

The science of the industrial age has raised the standard of living worldwide. It is the excessive consumption of fossil fuels that has led to the acceleration of CO2 emissions, but now that we know what to expect, science must be able to find solutions to get us out of harm's way, but for that, politics must change completely. The solutions of everyone for themselves will not work.

We will see if future generations will come to an agreement to follow a global course without killing each other.

[Ahmed]

Do not mix everything up! Certainly ecocides have been perpetrated in the distant past, but never of this magnitude (lack of means, perhaps, but the question is not there) and not everywhere, and not always. What we call with an involuntary irony our civilization, for its part, is based on the destruction of the living and the rest, which is really completely different.
To circumscribe the problem to the only increase of the CO² (which is already nothing!) Is to disregard the gravity, the complexity of the situation and to reduce it to the only maintenance of our temporary comfort (but that we do not perceive as such) .
The challenges to be taken up are political and not scientific * (since all the "ingredients" are already at our disposal). As you said, beggarly solutions won't work, but the professional political class cannot implement measures that are inherently against their interests (that's whatAurelien Barraudoes not seem to have understood).

* How and why could science, for example, oppose the growth of social inequalities that are usually hidden behind the display of a gradual reduction of poverty, at the cost of acrobatic manipulations of numbers?

[Ahmed]

If I evoked at the end of my previous message the question of social inequalities, it is not anecdotal, because it refers to your remark about the necessarily collective nature of adaptation to the necessary changes. Indeed, in a world of very large inequalities, which, moreover, is growing, it is unimaginable to hope to encourage cooperation, cooperation which is nevertheless essential to create a liveable world or at least lacking the main defects that condemn it. .

[sen-no-sen]

Ahmed, Ecocide did not wait for science and began as soon as man knew how to control his environment.

The science of the industrial age has raised the standard of living worldwide. It is the excessive consumption of fossil fuels that has led to the acceleration of CO2 emissions, but now that we know what to expect, science must be able to find solutions to get us out of harm's way, but for that, politics must change completely. The solutions of everyone for themselves will not work.

We will see if future generations will come to an agreement to follow a global course without killing each other.

Izentrop, you seem to reduce the ecological issue to simple GHG emissions.
In fact, ecocide is above all the result of the increase in the level of entropy and the transformation of the earth's surface by technological colonization.
Global warming is a result of this increase in entropy, but we can not objectively put on the back of the RCA deforestation or the disappearance of species.
To resume this example we can very well cut a tree with an electric chain saw powered by ENR.
Reducing ecocide to GHG is moving the issue of funds and delude about the possibility of continuing in the worst.

[izentrop]

What's your solution, Ahmed, everyone cultivates his garden?

[Ahmed]

Have not you read the previous posts?

[eclectron]

I only published this video to please Eclectron.
A beautiful story

And He thanks you
I did not see, it gave me faith in humanity.
India has definitely given birth to great things, hat and very amazing this sacrifice.

Eclectron (and not Enerc, write by mistake!).

It is true that I sometimes get angry, hence the contraction of my nickname in your mind!

[Ahmed]

No, it seems to me that it was another member of the forum and I wrote a little fast ...

These Bishnois * prove at least one thing: human groups are not condemned, by virtue of a so-called "essence", to destroy the world. This kind of propaganda, scientific appearance is a very common thing, to justify the unjustifiable.

* And they are not the only ones, but the authors of destruction are more "effective" than those who respect or help to safeguard the living space that we share with other species.
This brings to another consideration, which is that the damage done will be very difficult to repair, admitting, of course, that there is a real will to do it ...