ABC2019 wrote:excuse me but you can explain to me a little better what there is of "moral" or "immoral" to say that
I am not the one who put morality on the carpet to try to discredit something.
ABC2019 wrote:a) the amount of available fossil reserves is insufficient to cause catastrophic warming
catastrophic is very subjective ...
The rise of the seas, personally it will not concern me, so nothing catastrophic seen from my doormat.
Otherwise it will not cost a little this rise of the seas?
I'll let you give your figures, those I find will necessarily be exaggerated in your eyes.
Aren't you going to support me as the seas recede?
ABC2019 wrote:b) at the time of the deglaciations there were other important forcings so the ratio ∆T / ∆ (ln [CO2]) was not the same as now
and so where are you going with this?
ABC2019 wrote:Even though I am racking my brains in all directions, I do not see what is "immoral" in these proposals.
I repeat I did not try to introduce the notion of morality, on the contrary it is you who does it.
ABC2019 wrote:Whether they can be right or wrong, that's okay, I can see it, but whether we are "collaborators" or "resistant" depending on whether we believe it or not, I don't understand.
The collaborator in this case would be the one who demands the continuation of the use of BAU fossils, which implicitly demands not to put in place the RE and to quickly find oneself in front of dry wells.
It will not have escaped your notice that the peak of the conventional has passed, we are rather close to the decline of fossil deposits in general, therefore promoting a BAU use is simply suicidal.
ABC2019 wrote:But listening to you I understand a little better how we were able to condemn Galileo for having said that the Earth was spinning, that was to be judged also "immoral" at the time ...
Ah ah ah… .it would rather be me Galileo in this case. You are a perfect defender of the system in place, whether you like it or not.
ABC2019 wrote:but I never denied that the fossils had to be replaced! I just said it was not worth doing without more than necessary. But they will have to be replaced, that's for sure.
The correct wording would be "must" and not "must", given the approaching peaks
ABC2019 wrote:Everything shows that the wealth produced by fossils is MUCH GREATER than the cost of the damage they cause. ?
Already this evaluation is at time t, we do not yet have the very significantly negative effects of RCA.
The notion of delayed effect, the hangover effect, you skip it all the time.
Then you don't realize that we are around the energy peaks, therefore it is soon the physical drop in supplies.
It will not escape you that we have experienced growth, thanks to the growth in the consumption of fossils.
You will explain to me how to grow further for certain countries or even stabilize, with a global supply which will physically contract?
Of course, with a lot of resources, we can always maintain a high level of fossil production, but to the detriment of duration.
Another notion that obviously escapes you, the capitalist system maintains a high level of comfort, at the cost of financial growth and therefore material growth.
The on-site is not expected, see covid, it is absolutely necessary to grow and therefore squander resources and energy.
Already said many times, with equal ease of use, durable goods would require much less resources and energy. This type of sustainable economy is quite simply incompatible with capitalism.
In conclusion you ask for the pursuit of fossils (which is already the case),
implicitly you are asking for renewable energies not to be implemented (since fossils dominate the market, which is already the case),
you ask for the continuation of the RCA (sea level, which is already the case),
you ask for the pursuit of capitalism which is not a sustainable system and on the contrary deadly in the end.
When will we have to dare to introduce renewables to replace fossils?
When will it be necessary to change the economic model to move towards a more sober and truly sustainable one?
When is the right time for you?
Because that's just the problem: WHEN?
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max