Following the previous news (GDP, sustainable development and ecology do not mix), here is a more detailed reasoning showing that the GDP is very difficult to reconcile with the notion of econology and sustainable development.
We based ourselves on a comparison of heating fuels but the reasoning can be transposed quite easily to fuels, and even to the reuse of used objects, haunts economists because it does not create any wealth according to the definition of GDP obviously ...
The demonstration consists in taking 3 heating fuels from the least econological to the most econological and simply showing that these 3 examples are econologically inversely proportional to the GDP created.
In other words: GDP = f (1 / econology) or the more ecological the less it is good for the GDP and the sacred GROWTH
Econology is therefore not compatible with GDP in its current definition.
corollary: another measure of wealth creation and growth would have to be put in place.
We will quickly compare the following heating methods: fuel oil, pellets, wood (or other “raw” biomass fuel) and “self-produced” biomass.
Demonstration is also possible with fuel types: diesel, diester and pure vegetable oil; self-made hvb or frying. The reflection and conclusion is exactly the same, obviously the figures will be slightly different.
We assume the 4 cases in 4 recent identical 120m² houses, well insulated whose annual gross energy requirements are: 120 kWh per m2. Therefore 14 400 kWh gross energy is required per year.
To simplify, we assume the cost of the heating installation identical (or already amortized) and we are only interested in the fuel costs.
The rest of the reasoning on forums: the better for the environment, the less good for the GDP