Reflection on political will

The developments of forums and the site. Humor and conviviality between the members of the forum - Tout est anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, free time, leisure, sports, vacations, passions ... What do you do with your free time? Forum exchanges on our passions, activities, leisure ... creative or recreational! Publish your ads. Classifieds, cyber-actions and petitions, interesting sites, calendar, events, fairs, exhibitions, local initiatives, association activities .... No purely commercial advertising please.
Bibiphoque
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 749
Registration: 31/03/04, 07:37
Location: Brussels

Reflection on political will




by Bibiphoque » 20/08/04, 11:45

: Huh:
Hello,
For some time, already surfing the net, I find a lot of articles, patents, methods and others allowing for YEARS to decrease if not suppress the need for fossil fuel for the production of energy and transport, moreover, there seem to be clean means 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 real political will not to change ANYTHING in the current system, the only pseudo-advances have been, for example, the use of catalytic converters, which are just a bad thing for vehicles.
Political power does not in fact have any power or one conferred on it by the power of money, as proof of the examples of companies OBLIGATING their workers to accept losing hard-won social benefits in the past under the pretext of profitability: the non workers impose their laws on workers. (examples in Germany and undoubtedly, the fold being taken, soon elsewhere in Europe)
While we know full well that these companies make significant profits, and that their "debts" are often due to financial shenanigans well put together in relocation, transfer of production etc.
Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents, ie us, not financiers, so why no real measure is taken to IMPOSE industries to use certain processes? It is obvious that we must not, under pain 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)
A+
0 x
This is not because we always said that it is impossible that we should not try :)
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 21/08/04, 21:10

ohlala, what do i agree with you!

I would like to be able to paste here two graphics published in "The sustainable review" but the forum doesn't allow it (but I'll probably do it someday in an article).

The first shows "the evolution of the final price of energy and the cost of labor" between 1985 and 2001.
Fuel oil: -54%
Natural gas: -41%
Electricity: -48%
Work (salary + expenses): + 66 %

The manager's reasoning is simple: let's save on the job that increases the most, that is to say the work! On the other hand, it's 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 pressure on the employees!


The second graph shows the "Productivity of labor, energy and materials in the United States industry" in 1950, 1970 and 1997.
The productivity of 1950 is taken as the base 100. In 1997:
Energy: approx. 110
Raw materials: approx. 110
Human labor: 340!

The pressure on employees works! It costs almost nothing but what does it bring!


I see in these graphs the confirmation of what I see every day: ill-being at work, precariousness, the loosening of social ties. And a solution: stop making people live like madmen and focus on growth (does it need growth? But that is not the question today) that allows people to live better and no consume more . Productivity gains in the use of energy is one of them. This is where economics and ecology come together (who said "econology"? That's good, you follow :P )

But from there to impose .... hmm ... personally I am quite allergic to obligations (who said "anarchist"?) And I always hope rather to convince or incite. I was told that my optimism will lose me ...
0 x
Bibiphoque
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 749
Registration: 31/03/04, 07:37
Location: Brussels




by Bibiphoque » 23/08/04, 09:16

: Huh:
Hello,
I even notice that when the price of diesel increased, the truckers put the mess ... and it worked !!
In addition, most of the "ecological" taxes imposed on us are used only downstream of consumption, while their cost would be much lower if they were applied upstream (ie during production) I find this system particularly malhonete !! It perverts the very meaning of the process, we pollute, then we pay to clean up: angry:
As for your patience, that's what bothers me, by dint of waiting, nothing gets done ... <_
A+
0 x
This is not because we always said that it is impossible that we should not try :)
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 23/08/04, 10:25

Yes, the truckers have messed up by bugging everyone else! Road transport is the main source of CO2 pollution etc. They defended their particular interests and so we continue to pollute happily instead of developing less polluting transport or seeking to rationalize the aberrations (style a French potato sent to Italy to be conditioned before returning to be marketed at 30 terminals of sound place of production!)!

As for ecological taxes, of course they are just "pollution permits". But have I defended them? Did I say nothing should be done? It is not because we think that cutting the head of the king is not a good thing that we are royalist so far! We must stop with the "who is not with me is against me"! This is bin Laden-like reasoning. Basta of Ayatollas of Ecology!

Evolution is not revolution!

Good reasons do not excuse unreason!
0 x
Bibiphoque
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 749
Registration: 31/03/04, 07:37
Location: Brussels




by Bibiphoque » 24/08/04, 07:49

: blink:: huh:;) :P :D
Hello,
My remark was general, I did not question any particular person (humor mode on: who feels stung, itches! :P ) humor off mode, and I go out .... B)
A+
0 x
This is not because we always said that it is impossible that we should not try :)

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "The bistro: site life, leisure and relaxation, humor and conviviality and Classifieds"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 210 guests