The bistro of the site, leisure and relaxation, humor and friendliness ⇒ Reflection on political will
For some time now, surfing the net, I find a lot of articles, patents, methods and others allowing for YEARS to decrease if not to suppress the need for fossil fuel for the production of energy and transport, There seems to be a proper way of using nuclear power without producing these very long-lived wastes that poison our environment.
It seems to me, even at the risk of being cataloged in anarchists, that the major obstacle to the development of these techniques is a genuine political will to change the current system, the only pseudo-advances have been, for example, the use of Catalytic converters, which are just a go-ahead for vehicles.
Political power does not in fact have any power over the power conferred on it by the power of money, as evidence of the examples of societies OBLIGATING their workers to accept the loss of social benefits which they have durably acquired in the past on the pretext of profitability: the no Productive laws impose their laws on workers. (Examples in Germany and no doubt, the folds being taken soon in Europe)
While it is well-known that these companies make significant profits, and that their "debts" are often due to financial tricks well tied up in relocation, transfer of production etc.
Policies are supposed to represent their constituents, ie us, not the financiers, so why is no real measure taken to ENABLE industries to use certain processes? It is obvious that we must not, under penalty of seeing the economy collapse because the transition must be smooth, impose a radical and immediate change, but mark a real desire for reasoned change in terms of sustainability and obtain these changes by the political power really representing the citizens.
B) B) B)
I would like to be able to paste here two graphics published in "La revue durable" but the forum do not allow it (but I will probably do one of these days in an article).
The first shows "the evolution of the final price of energy and labor costs" between 1985 and 2001.
Heating oil: -54%
Natural gas: -41%
Work (salary + charges): + 66%
The reasoning of the manager is simple: save on the job that increases the most, ie work! On the other hand it is human: saving energy involves studies, changing machines, reorganizing the company, the risk that the price of energy increases ... in short it involves costs. On the other hand it is so much simpler (and more economical) to put the pressure on the employees!
The second graph shows the "Productivity of labor, energy and materials in the US industry" in 1950, 1970 and 1997.
The productivity of 1950 is taken as 100 base. In 1997:
Energy: approx. 110
Raw materials: approx. 110
Human work: 340!
It's that the pressure on the employees, it works! It costs almost nothing but what does it cost!
I see in these graphics the confirmation of what I see every day: malaise at work, precariousness, distention of social ties. And one solution: to stop people from being frenzied and to focus on growth (is it growth, but that is not the question today) that allows people to live better and no Consume more . Productivity gains in energy use are part of this. This is where the economy and ecology come together (who said "econology"? That's good, you follow )
But from there to impose .... hmm ... personally I'm pretty allergic to bonds (who said "anarchist"?) And I always hope rather convincing or inciting. I have been told that my optimism will lose me ...
I also note that when the price of diesel has increased, the road has put the brothel .... and it worked!
Moreover, most of the "ecological" taxes we impose serve only downstream of consumption, while their cost would be much less if they were applied upstream (ie during production). I find this system particularly Malhonete !! It perverts the very meaning of the approach, pollutes, then pays to depolluer: angry:
As for patience, it is what grieves me, by dint of waiting, nothing is done ... <_ <
When it comes to ecological taxes, of course they are just "polluting permits". But have I defended them? Did I say that nothing needed to be done? It is not because one thinks that cutting the head of the king is not a good thing that one is royalist so far! You have to stop with the "who is not with me is against me"! This is a reasoning to bin Laden. Basta of ayatollas of ecology!
Evolution is not revolution!
Good reasons do not excuse irrationality!
- Similar topics
- Last message
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 3 guests