Roasted Pellets (Black Pellet): the new threat?

[Did67]

I have forgotten one point: this should not prevent us from asking the questions of limiting consumption - in which I believe more in the ethics of each, in the information than in the role played by suppliers or even the states ... Isolation, efficiency, self-limitation ...

This posed, the question of the substitution is posed.

Because what are the alternatives?

Oil and gas will run out ...

Nuclear, ITER, etc ... Bof bof ...

Renewables in the sense of PV, wind, dams, rivers: OK.

I do not think we will be able to ignore biomasses ... Including wood. Wet roads, anaerobic digestion, etc.

From each a little ...

That the big capitalist groups will go where there will be money to be made, so a market: an obviousness.

The great collectivist religions (in -ism) do not seem to me to have produced much good question management of natural resources. Some may still dream of the big night. From a perfect system with perfect men: let them try with rats first! I tend to see an unresolved teenage crisis. I have been too old a jerk for too long, no doubt. And so I compromise, and content myself with it. Compromise which, for a Khmer Vert [don't feel targeted, I speak "in general"], are compromises. I heat myself with pellets ("clear"). I reduced our electricity consumption by various measures from 3 kWh / year to 700. But I still do not have a PV roof! I produce some of my food with an excellent energy balance (with very little petroleum or petroleum derivatives), but by far not all. I drive about 2 km / year (I'm talking about me and my wife) per year, on LPG ... In this compromise, the use of pellets does not bother me.It is true that I have a factory backed by a sawmill (SIAT-Braun) about ten kms away.

"Fearful" for some. Very good for others ...

[Ahmed]

You must understand that I do not preach in any way for what you call "the great collectivist religions" (I think that in my opinion it is more than legitimate to include the American way of life [therefore ours]) which were, let us not forget, state capitalisms.
It would be inhuman to be "perfect" and would mean detachment from the rest of humanity preventing all empathy: we function within a group that we depend on whether we want to or not. Therefore, compromises are inevitable, because the individual choices that we can express can only be made at the margins.
From this point of view, I am very attached to the forest, while admitting a reasonable use of its products, but I am aware that the times do not plead for the limitation of the consumption (except in a purely rhetorical and therefore false way) and that's where the bottom of my concern lies. In any case, I am fully aware that detumescence * is inevitable, but that there is a theoretically possible choice between the soft, consented and brutal, unjust option ...

* This is the term used by Bertrand Méheust instead of "degrowth", connoted too negatively: the objective is not to do less, but to do differently and better with less.

[moinsdewatt]

The info is very recent, it dates from the 22 July 2018, link
https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detai ... id=9978016

Uh yes, you thought I gave you outdated info?

I like to check the information and read it in its entirety and with its context.

[Did67]

You must understand that I do not preach in any way for what you call "the great collectivist religions" (I think that in my opinion it is more than legitimate to include the American way of life [therefore ours]) which were, let us not forget, state capitalisms.
It would be inhuman to be "perfect" and would mean detachment from the rest of humanity preventing all empathy: we function within a group that we depend on whether we want to or not. Therefore, compromises are inevitable, because the individual choices that we can express can only be made at the margins.
From this point of view, I am very attached to the forest, while admitting a reasonable use of its products, but I am aware that the times do not plead for the limitation of the consumption (except in a purely rhetorical and therefore false way) and that's where the bottom of my concern lies. In any case, I am fully aware that detumescence * is inevitable, but that there is a theoretically possible choice between the soft, consented and brutal, unjust option ...

So, I'm 100% okay.

“Advanced liberal capitalism” is a part of religious thought, from my point of view. It is the belief in the fact that economic actors are coherent and that freedom leads to a balance. My conviction is that freedom is that of the strongest, or the most perverse, or the most paranoid, or the most insane, to dominate, exploit, kill, destroy, live at the expense of others ...

So of course, he's just as perverse.

I also agree with you on the need for limited consumption. Your first post could let understand that the use of pellets was to be avoided because "touched nature" (I am summarizing). Man touches nature, like mole rats, beavers, blackbirds ... But infinitely more powerfully, we agree. Hence the need for "thinking" a lot more ... Which obviously is not the case. What obviously the "capitalists" have no interest in.

The fact remains, from my point of view, that the solution is not in the "big night", or in any "revolution", or in a populism, or in a militant radicalism that I call "khmer vert" ... Unfortunately, it is much more demanding. In necessary compromises. And partly deep inside each of us. When we stop envying the "richest", when we consider them a form of "mentally ill", when we have freed ourselves from a certain number of our own faults, when we will be rid of "typical thoughts" ( "ah, you have to plow!", "ah, man has always plowed!", for what I know best; but also, "ah you don't have the new Iphone 8S, it's great!" without having defined their telephone needs ...), we can consider solutions. Will this happen ??? One can be pessimistic and fear the worst ... But hey, other civilizations have had brutal ends. They were not "globalized", which adds a point. But I think a few "coelacanths" will survive somewhere!

[Ahmed]

If my first message was so ambiguous as to suggest a radical condemnation of the pellet, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to say that it was the specificities of this new type of pellet that were problematic.
On a more personal level, I would have been really sorry that a misunderstanding is unfortunately set up between us, whereas I do not see anything that separates us fundamentally ...

You write:

It is the belief that economic actors are coherent and that freedom leads to a balance.

That's true, but beyond that, it's the idea that opulence will spread over all of humanity as well as equality between people: that's what I call the utopian aspect of capitalism; if you want, it is an undue extrapolation of a curve impossible to realize because it is based on a logical error.

I've already talked about it (but repetition is pedagogical!), One of the most powerful books that can be read is that of Pierre Jouventin"Man, this animal missedI cannot recommend you enough to add it to your reading list, because I am sure you would appreciate this naturalistic approach.

About your last paragraph, you pose the problem well, which is not simple. We have the means to solve it (this is my fundamentally optimistic side, if you will), but we do not have any (or more?) Psychic dispositions, which makes the collapse inevitable. The symptoms of these cognitive dissonances are everywhere and change the positive resolutions in condition of the aggravation of the evil.
I am passionate about the evolution of China which brings to the paroxysm our contradictions, since everything is concentrated in a very short time, such as we can observe the blooming of a bud and the growth of the shoot with the film technique of the accelerated ... Except external event (and this possibility is far from being negligible because the reality is too complex to be understood otherwise than very imperfectly), it is on this side that should begin the collapse ...

[sen-no-sen]

The main criticism that can be made of pellet is that we have transformed a free source into a paying product whose ecological purpose is particularly dubious.
A bag of pellets is usually a hundred km in a truck before ending up burning in a boiler that consumes itself very often a significant amount of electricity, see that does not work in case of power failure, a shame!
This does not mean that the use of pellets is to be avoided but that it is now part of Exponential economism.

The fact remains, from my point of view, that the solution is not in the "big night", or in any "revolution", or in a populism, or in a militant radicalism that I call "khmer vert" ...

Radicals are only products of reactions, they are part of the society of the spectacle, in particular by playing the role of psychic outlet which evacuates locally and violently a cathartic overflow resulting from the globality.
History shows that humanity is not free and that revolutions and other popular movements are only the result of natural phenomena still largely neglected in the social sciences.
However, we can not lie to physics, the measures that should be taken to avoid disaster generally go beyond the naive claims of extremist movements.
The Universe is a totally amoral structure that is counter to our fate, if we do not implement radical measures we will live in a nightmarish future whose contours are already well drawn: natural disaster repeated and amplified, migratory invasions, rising extremes, wars, famines, super-terrorism ...

[Did67]

If my first message was so ambiguous as to suggest a radical condemnation of pellet, ...

It was my fear. Anyway, that's how I saw it. Christophe also reacted. The "subtlety" between a "black" pellets, resulting from a heavier industry, and "clear pellets", resulting from a more diffuse production (although "capitalistic") could escape. And in some arguments, we could see a "condemnation" of energies of biomass origin!

[Ahmed]

Didalthough it was not in my first message, I made an annotation that may have gone unnoticed; I quote:

I recall that pellets were originally designed to dispose of unused sawdust from Scandinavian and Canadian sawmills (which was rather a good idea).

I emphasize a part which was not it ... This joins the remark of Sen-no-sen.


Sen-no-sen, concerning the last sentence of your message, you use the term "migratory invasions". However exact it may be, this suggests a connotation that is irrelevant since it is not malicious beings who would come to assail us, but victims forced into exile, with the destabilizing consequences that we have. imagine in places of destination (and which will add to other negative factors since everyone will be affected).

[Did67]

Didalthough it was not in my first message, I made an annotation that may have gone unnoticed; I quote:

I recall that pellets were originally designed to dispose of unused sawdust from Scandinavian and Canadian sawmills (which was rather a good idea).

I emphasize a part that was not ...

Just to allow you to understand that without knowing your own free will, no doubt, I went further than your thought: this is written in the past tense ("originally ...", ... "was rather a good idea "). We could therefore understand that it is no longer.

Of course, now everything is clear: "clear" pellets are less subject to criticism (which does not mean "white as snow") than "roasted" ...

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, concerning the last sentence of your message, you use the term "migratory invasions". However exact it may be, this suggests a connotation that is irrelevant since it is not malicious beings who would come to assail us, but victims forced into exile, with the destabilizing consequences that we have. imagine in places of destination (and which will add to other negative factors since everyone will be affected).

The question of malevolence does not need to be but it is advisable to use adequate terms, to invade means "to step on", "to attack", and it is well of what he will return to when the time comes.
When European settlers arrived en masse in America it was not necessarily a question of malice, especially when the Irish fled the great famine of 1850.
However, when populations arrive en masse in a given space, it automatically enters into competition with others, and this is where conflicts emerge, all the more so when cultural differences are important.
It is clear that refugees and economic migrants are victims, but when conditions become untenable the questions of good and bad are lost in the struggle for survival.
It is unfortunate that some terminologies, particularly in the case of migratory flows, are now under the copyright of the extreme right * ...
I can hardly see how entire populations could wait patiently for their fatal destiny without such desperation provoking a rise in violence.


* This was the case of ecology until the dawn of the 2000 years which was the prerogative of the far left before being recovered by economism.