eclectron wrote:ABC2019 wrote:yeah "collaborator" and "resistant" is there no moral notion for you?
As long as you know there is an RCA and an inevitable end to fossils, you know the whole problem.
Therefore your conscience is forced to make a choice.
BAU or transition.
to the extent that there is an inescapable end of the fossils, the transition is inevitable, it is not a choice, one cannot escape it.
The choice is therefore not that there; it is to know if we exhaust all the fossils of the ground, or if we leave some in the ground which one does not touch. In short it is to know how much fossils are burned before the "transition". There is no transition in existence, which is inevitable.
And to decide that, it is not morality that we need, it is numbers; from what quantity of fossils do we consider that burning more brings more disadvantages than advantages? it is not a question of morals, it is a stupid question of cost benefit calculation.
And it is this kind of calculation that should lead to saying things like "the limit is at 2 ° C". I have nothing against the principle of such a limit, me, if it stems from an argued reasoning,
I'm just asking: where do you come from that the limit is 2 ° C, from what figures "? And until it has been clearly explained to me, I have no reason to take my word for it. It's not morality, it's common sense.
It's like vaccines, if you don't trust the tests that have been done you are probably going to refuse to be injected, and if you trust you will accept. But to have confidence, you have to have seen the test results, and believe them, otherwise how can you have confidence?
Well, it's the same: I'm just asking someone to show me what we used to decide on a limit, it doesn't go any further.
Are you serious ?
Do you sincerely believe that the dose and rate of current renewable energies is able to fill the fossils?
We wouldn't do anything if we would be the same.
baj if I think that the rate of growth is sufficient to replace fossils if we manage to continue it. The problem is not there, it is just that renewable energies are insufficient to replace fossils.
In Iceland, for example, they produce much more renewable electricity per capita than the total energy needs per capita of all Western countries (yes yes, check ...). And not even intermittent, wind or solar (obviously solar in Iceland is not the best), no, geothermal energy and hydraulics, perfectly controllable. They don't need to make a transition, they've already done it and far more than necessary (in fact they are using their huge surplus to power big aluminum and ferrosilicon factories).
So they don't need to develop anything, they don't give a damn about solar energy and the price of PV, they absolutely don't need nuclear power and gen IV, they already have a lot of renewable energy. it is necessary. And yet they produce more CO2 per capita than the French; whereas it is an island devoid of fossils and they must import everything by boat, without any economic interest.
is that there is something wrong, right?
So what?
You don't answer WHEN you have to transit in real life, so as not to be impacted very negatively by the contraction on fossils, you who claim to be big on the figures?
if it was possible to transit without being impacted very negatively, the answer seems absolutely obvious to me, it is: immediately, and as quickly as possible (starting with Iceland which does not need anything more) .
If we don't do it, it's because we don't know how to do it without being impacted very negatively. And if we do not know how to do without being impacted very negatively, the answer to your question is on the contrary; as late as possible, as long as the disadvantages of fossils do not outweigh their advantages. Hence the first question I ask, how do we determine this moment and on what basis?
But sustainable is neither one nor the other, there have been renewable energies, science and technology since the Amish way of life.
this is wrong, there is absolutely nothing sustainable in renewable energies, because all renewable energies without exception, after water and windmills built with wood and ropes, are made with fossils, and no one 'proved that they could be built without.
The sustainability of renewables (and nuclear) is a legend, nobody knows how to do them with renewable energies alone
Otherwise the fossil problem would have been settled long ago.
In addition, to oppose activists not to change the form of society is quite simply dishonest because it is impossible to change society alone in your corner! Be a little serious in your remarks.
why do you want to change society if renewable energies can replace fossils without being negatively impacted? not being negatively impacted, that means that we can continue to live as before, but with renewable energies, right?
if people can do the same thing with renewable energies as with fossils, they don't care to transit, when they plug in their electrical devices, they take their car and their plane, they don't care how that works, they just want it to work and cost them the same price, and they don't care about the rest.
You cannot argue that we can replace fossils with renewable energies without negative impact and "at the same time" that it is very difficult to accept, it is totally contradictory.
I let you choose between the two, I have my opinion.
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)
Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)