Sunday 1er April "VOTONS FOR THE PLANET"

[nonoLeRobot]

Zac I know / guess you're kidding, but go for it anyway. Because most of the time living in the city allows you to pollute less or even less, being in the countryside or worse in a residential area is a "luxury" that 60 million people cannot have if we do not want to destroy the planet. If only because of the surface occupied on the ground (individual house, more square of garden more road to come in the subdivision + ...) more car to do the races, to go to work, to go to town precisely. Especially in an apartment, where there is a need for much less heating.

I exaggerate can be a bit, but to believe that a city-dweller pollutes more, it is often necessary, what is impressive, it is that there (city-dwellers) has much much grouped in the same place and also a lot of car, but brought back to the individual, it is much less impressive (less car, less surface, less heating, less transport)

I say that I am from the countryside, I wanted to defend especially indy49 who is absolutely right with a beautiful story (although I also know a lot of stories in reverse !!!)

[bamboo]

Well, the simple fact of accepting to live among the savages proves that you are not ecolo.

Hello,

I confess I do not understand. Is it, as supposes nono, a joke?
Every citizen has no big 4x4 to get his baguette 200m from his home ...
There are some, it's a shame, but there are also some who will buy their wand on foot ...

in accordance with the principles you post and leave the system

One of my principles is to respect people a priori (ie until they have proven their stupidity).
Another is to respect the environment as I can.
It's not incompatible with the city. And the city is sometimes the obligatory passage to be able to work in the branch which pleases us ...

Thank you nono for calling the story "beautiful". It is true and I find it fairly representative of our world: you have to take a scapegoat and do it ch .... (for example, honking it).
This scapegoat, just find him any characteristic (for example, it's a parigot, but it could be something else ... people are very inventive ...
Another little real story to illustrate?
A mini market, one morning. Two people start chatting in the queue for the cashier.
"It feels like a time of war
- What?
- Did not see each other with his cart full ??
- Oh yes, you have to be stupid
- It's open every day until 22h and he fills his caddy to
brim !
- There are people like that, they think they will miss!
- Yeah !"

Frankly, what did they know about his life? He may have his reasons ...

Voila for the little story of the day

Have a nice week end !

[pated]

Alala, zac, hello preconceived ideas. I am Parisian and I do not see why as a city dweller I would be more polluter than you. The city is sharing, the countryside is individual, if you "dissolve" the city in a residential area (which would be a bit huge in terms of occupying the ground surface) I'm not sure the results will be better ecologically speaking. Personally, I prefer to see the concentration of human habitats, and therefore better management and organization around the problem, rather than the spread of the environmental impact (by the way ... to see for those who do not know the future green city Chinese: http://sciencesetavenirmensuel.nouvelob ... 25393.html).
Zac, if at least you gave arguments ...

To return to the subject ... J-1! :-)

[Targol]

Hi, Pated, and Indy49.

When you will be (what I hope ) Regulars of Econology, you will realize that we have here some contributors whose diplomacy is not the main characteristic.

Of course Zac was joking (there was a smiley behind his message).

Wait until you discover the ax of "Lumberjack" (another of the regulars), you will find Zac nuanced and sympathetic

Otherwise, I fully agree with you-on the side not necessarily more ecologic countrymen.

I am the blatant example: when I lived in Paris, I used only public transport, was heated by my neighbors, and did not have a car.
Since I live in the countryside, I do 80Km / day diesel car to go to work, I'm in house so do not take advantage of the heat loss of my neighbors. In short, my ecological footprint has risen sharply.

If it happened to me to criticize the way of living of the "pilots", I am grateful to them because their presence in the cities allows my life in the countryside .... and it is true, that me, I get depressed from that I walk on the tar

[delnoram]

Targol thank you, it's hairy the answer that I should have put, like what you're not so lazy as that ,

me on the other hand I am a little long with the relaxation

[zac]

s.

I am the blatant example: when I lived in Paris, I used only public transport, was heated by my neighbors, and did not have a car.
Since I live in the countryside, I do 80Km / day diesel car to go to work, I'm in house so do not take advantage of the heat loss of my neighbors. In short, my ecological footprint has risen sharply.

hi Targol

Now it is you who produces CO² before it was your vegetables your meat etc .........

I do not know the numbers but one in the other it must be worth. And then try the dry toilets, the chicken farm or the vegetable garden in town

@+

[Targol]

hi Targol

Now it is you who produces CO² before it was your vegetables your meat etc .........

I do not know the numbers but one in the other it must be worth. And then try the dry toilets, the chicken farm or the vegetable garden in town

@+

Hi Zac.

"It's not wrong" as Perceval would have said

[zac]

.html).
Zac, if at least you gave arguments ...

Hi pated and welcome to the site

My arguments are simple and simplistic.

The two biggest problems today are warming (from partly to co² so to transport) and overpopulation.

My solutions are life in autarky (more transport, more senior executive who take the plane to sign contracts in China and cargo that brings back the finished product etc ...).

When overpopulation: if you have to garden for 12, you have no money fly, well you do not have kids.

The more people you put in the city, the people who do not create tangible wealth, the more you have to loot the countryside to eat, to eat, and the rest.

I saw a lot of trade, com box and wind in the city; but never a potato field or a pig farm; instead of a fried steak try to eat your insurance contract or the last pub for xbox and you will see the difference between the virtual (which generates money but that's all) and the real food that feeds you or put a roof over your head.

@+

[pated]

Hi Zac!

And thank you to you and Targol for your welcome.
You're not wrong, for my part I find it a little too utopian. As Hubert Reeves humbly said at today's conference, there will never be enough caverns to house us all. niakniakniak, it made me laugh.
In short, I do not know if it is worth discussing, because your point of view is not a point of view that I dispute, I find it just too utopian and not applicable to 7 billions of individuals. And go molo on urban steup, to each his point of view and his predictions on the societies of tomorrow ... for me the cities have many defects and we do not always want to see their damn betony sol, but this is not by avoiding it that we will improve it (anyway they are not ready to disappear after 3000 years of existence). While China is not a model ecologically (even in the 80% of electricity created by coal), but its future green cities inspire me a lot of positive things.

See ya!

[Rulian]

HALTE IN TROLL !!

Regardless, the sterile Parisian / provincial or urban / rural discussions are not the focus of this thread. Thank you for creating a new thread if you want to lose your saliva.

The subject is, I remember for the distracted: the Hulot lecture at the Zenith of Paris followed by the gathering at the Trocadero to recall the ecology to the good memory of the candidates for the erection pestilential.

Thank you ...