20 years: this is the time left to humanity to live on this planet

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Here it reminds me of La Belle Verte:

Ah nice reference.

Coline Serreau often sees very right even in the politically incorrect ...

[sen-no-sen]

Ah darn !! I cheated on Wiston !!

But as we are (Western world) in capitalist democracy the gap is ... let's say ... small

Revealing slap in the sense or by democracy you have to understand market democracy, therefore it is correct to use the term capitalism (I prefer economism) as a synonym.
It is indeed this ideology which is the bearer of human rights and its derivatives (feminism, anti-racism, LGBTism etc ...) not with the aim of ensuring peace and harmony on earth but to conquer ever more important "sociological markets".
We can see everywhere that the decline in growth leads to a rise in populist or even totalitarian currents ...

[Forhorse]

I hope two things:
- let it happen fairly quickly
- Be still there, at least for a while, afterwards to see what will come of it.

[Remundo]

in 20 years, we will still consume a lot of fossil fuels and humanity will be there with X billion inhabitants.

the planet will be livable even with an additional 3 ° C, but there will be upheavals ... that no one can predict precisely.

for me the heart of the matter is not so much climate change, which is irreversible now anyway, but that of the energy transition; if it does not happen, then yes there will be a great collapse of our "thermo-industrial" societies

[Ahmed]

For the moment, the "energy transition" worsens the problem and is unfolding in a context that is by no means transitory: it is in fact a question of adding these new energies to the old ones; moreover, energy is not not the solution, since that's the problem ...

[Remundo]

energy is the condition sine qua a decent standard of living. It is no coincidence that our ancestors began to domesticate fire, and then many other things.

[moinsdewatt]

There are some who see us not dead in 20 years ......

MARKET: THESE RAW MATERIALS WHICH CONSUMPTION WILL EXPLODE BY 2060

Saturday October 27 2018

According to the OECD, the consumption of the world's raw materials will double in just over 40 years.


The use of raw materials is expected to double by 2060, exerting pressure "twice as strong as today" on the environment, warns an OECD study posted online this week. "The global use of materials will amount to 167 gigatonnes (Editor's note: 167 billion tonnes) in 2060, against 90 gigatonnes currently", says the study by the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) entitled " Global Resource Outlook

The report, which expects the increase to support "the expansion of the world economy and the rise in living standards", however, fears serious consequences for the environment. "If no concrete action is taken to address these challenges, it is likely that the expected increase in the extraction and processing of raw materials (...) will aggravate the pollution of air, water and soil, and contributes significantly to climate change, "warns the OECD.

The infrastructure boom is coming to an end

"The gradual reduction of manufacturing activities in favor of service activities and the permanent improvement of the efficiency of industry, which limit the consumption of resources per unit of GDP, will not prevent it", she adds. . "Without them, the pressures on the environment would be even worse," said the institution, which also expects "stabilization of demand in China and other emerging economies, with the infrastructure boom coming to an end." .

The consumption of sand and gravel should therefore explode, going from around 24 gigatonnes in 2011 to almost 55 gigatonnes in 2060, an explosion in demand of more than 129%. Over the same period, the use of limestone, bituminous coal, clay, biomass or even wood should also soar. Note that consumption of unrefined oil is almost stable, according to these projections.

50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent

By major family of raw materials, it is the use of metals that will grow most rapidly, going from 8 to 20 gigatonnes from 2011 to 2060. The consumption of non-metallic mineral resources would drop from 37 to 86 gigatonnes. That of fossil fuels from 14 to 24 billion tonnes and finally the use of biomass would jump to 37 billion tonnes, against 20 billion in 2011.

The use of raw materials per person per day would increase over the period from 33 to 45 kilograms.

"The extraction and combustion of fossil fuels and the production of iron, steel and building materials are already responsible for a large part of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse, ”notes the OECD. "In the absence of new reduction measures, all emissions attributable to materials management will drop, according to the report, from 28 to 50 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2060," explains the organization.

https://www.tradingsat.com/actualites/m ... 32375.html

[Forhorse]

Consumption forecasts (and therefore growth) ) over 40 ... anything! it’s just blah to stir the wind.

[Christophe]

Reporterre's opinion on the issue: https://reporterre.net/La-transition-ec ... fondrement

THE COLLAPSE It's here and now! (a bit neo-hippie philosophy but hey ...)

Ecological transition failed, let's live with the idea of ​​collapse

It is very difficult to speak of collapse in environmental associations, observed the authors of this column. They note that the idea of ​​ecological transition has failed, and believe that the concept of collapse, far from being anxious, pushes to act with humility to the measure of each.

Valérie Garcia is a sophrologist and Marc Pleysier is an engineer. They live in Béarn, in a collective school, decreasing, and open to the outside. They come back from a tour of France by bike on the theme of collapse.

For a few years now, the subject of the collapse of thermo-industrial civilization has become essential, particularly in the French-speaking world with the book Comment tout tout peut évondrer (Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Stevens, éditions du Seuil, 2015).

Conversations between friends, in our local group Friends of the Earth, podcasts, web-series, articles ... the subject challenges us at the end of 2017 and, in April 2018, we set off on a bicycle for a study trip on the subject. After two and a half months across France, 21 public events, around 500 people met and another two months to write a summary of our study, we learned at least two things:

On the one hand, the public, in any case the one we met, is asking for space for discussion on the subject of the collapse, a subject which therefore does not make people flee, a subject no more demoralizing or demobilizing than a well-documented evening on climate risk. Many participants thanked us for these moments of exchange, this opportunity to express their doubts, their fears and their hopes.
On the other hand, while we collect opinions and emotions on the subject as methodically as possible, we wanted to bring the debate to the national level in our organization. The reception was much colder. It took a lot of perseverance and naivety on our part for us to finally lead to an internal working group on the subject, bringing together a few other muzzles.

It seems that no strategy works

It seems that the most attacked by the subject of collapse are those who carry the dominant strategy of the environmental movement, the "transition", which our small working group defined as follows: "Movement with the objective of the progressive transformation of our industrial societies into sustainable societies, that is to say, not degrading the natural environment which allows them to exist. In the transition movement, the observation is as terrible and catastrophic as in the groups dealing with collapse. But the strategy in place does not suffer from seeing this word appear: the goal is to mobilize widely to avoid the unnamed, because it is not too late, we have 10 years, or five, or two, depending on the sources . The need to stop the extractivist machine is clearly expressed, the bad guys are clearly identified, banks and multinationals. But the consequences of this transition on our way of life, our consumption and our level of comfort are themselves rather discreet in this polished communication. The word "degrowth" is used, it will have taken 10 good years for it to be adopted, but the word alone is enough, without giving details, at the risk that they are demobilizing.

Example among others of this disagreement about the collapse, we recently read on Reporterre that ecological catastrophism would have failed, proof would be the resignation of Nicolas Hulot, his most media representative, throwing in the towel and noting his impotence : the argument did not convince us. Nevertheless, we share the observation of the failure of this enlightened catastrophism, as well as that of all the other approaches to the ecological question. Because it seems that no strategy works: the probability of the worst continues to grow, its deadline is approaching and the work to avoid it appears increasingly impracticable. It is the environmental movement as a whole that is failing, and very few of its spokespersons seem willing to recognize this.

Has the change of direction of society, after several decades of ecological struggles, taken place? No, these struggles have only brought a few victories on the sidelines.

Is what was called "change of society" or "revolution" in the 1970s and which is now called "transition" or "change of system" in progress? No, the transition is still at the stage of theorizing and mediatization.

Collapse is no longer a future to be avoided, but an opening period, a period to live

Is the proportion of activists who carry this transition greater than during the 1970s? We doubt it, even if recently hyperactive branches mobilize a significant number of young people. How many people for the Alternatiba Tour? A few thousand. How many people on the street for Johnny's death? Hundreds of thousands. How many people for the recent Climate Marches? A few tens of thousands. How many people on the street for the last football episode? Millions. Are the population, despite their current passivity, ready to accept the changes that would result from a transition that meets the challenges? No, this would require a complete reversal of media propaganda and another 10 to 20 years of intense popular education.

Really, the account is not there so that we can chant “Alternatiba, the transition is here! »Which we did on October 6 in Bayonne, carried by a great surge of enthusiasm and collective illusion.

Collapse is inevitable and that does not mean general demobilization, that does not mean that there is nothing more to do. This means that we have to be more modest, more humble.

We have lost on the main objective, to make our societies eco-compatible, but life and struggles continue. Most of our past and current actions remain relevant, but the overall objective needs to be reformulated.

Collapse is no longer a future to avoid, nor is it an event to pass but a period that opens, a period to live, a period that will be brief on the scale of our civilization but probably long in our environmental agendas. Creating spaces of resilience, preserving humanity and dignity in the midst of the turmoil, welcoming all those who are willing to join us are certainly more modest objectives than that of the transition of the whole of society, but they are to our measure.

[Janic]

there is a common sense principle that we do not call the firefighters if the house does not burn (or if it is not visible) but when we call the firefighters it is generally too late .It would have been necessary to take drastic measures (but very expensive already not to arrive at the point where we are). Now that we are there and considering all that has not been done (politically) the firefighters (but who are they?) Will not be able to avoid the compulsory damage which results from it.