Are you Sarko compatible? By JM Jancovici

[Elec]

The state of mind is different. Instead of seeing what makes an idea difficult to achieve, they imagine what needs to be done to make it possible. It is all my skepticism (of which I am so proud) which takes full advantage (...).

http://pisani.blog.lemonde.fr/2009/02/0 ... es-doutes/

JMJ is in my opinion one of the hyper-skeptical people, who are also proud of this skepticism (and who are also very pessimistic; read: Desperation of energy ), and who clearly see the problems (peak oil etc.). But it stops there. Nothing, or almost, on the side of the vision in terms of solutions. The state of mind is not there.

[Remundo]

Janco is not desperate, but his books play on alarmism.

Justified by the energy situation, but also for sales / marketing reasons

[Elec]

Janco is not desperate, but his books play on alarmism.

Justified by the energy situation, but also for sales / marketing reasons

Yes, it is his pilgrim's staff (and also his goodwill even if I do not think that this is the main reason for him; I think it comes much more from a personal conviction, from his cultural imprinting which is that of peak oil. He is also a member of ASPO-France. When you stay the mind absorbed by questions of peak oil, you end up being in the dark ... that's the case to say it).

[Elec]

In the continuity of "What if we made capitalism sustainable?
http://www.eco-life.fr/article.php?id_article=1679 "by Alain Grandjean, who co-wrote"Fill it up please !"with JM Jancovici, here is an interesting post from Alexis Déjardin on the Sustainable Reflection blog:

"Sustainable capitalism" or "sustainable liberalism"?

If the planet really wants to turn to sustainable governance, then it will have to learn the lessons of the past, with the Americans in mind. It will also have to banish the term "capitalism", trauma for the third world of the enslavement to the power of money.

“Sustainable liberalism” which by definition leaves room for environmental and societal pillars seems to be a less overused term for emerging ideas of a more just world. After all, is the real added value of our Western society to have been stingy (exclusive accumulation of wealth) or is it to give its citizens the immense chance to experience "freedom"?

Note that the word "liberal" has kept its original meaning in the USA (Obama is a "liberal"), while it has been completely perverted by hyper-left ideologues in France. Note also that the word "socialist" is synonymous with "communist" in the USA and to call someone a "socialist" is an insult in this great free country, just as "facho" is an insult in France - In France, we still does not know if the hyper-left wing of the PS is officially Communist or not.

Capitalism:

- Economic system characterized by the concentration of large capital in order to promote production and trade.

- Economic and social system characterized by private ownership of the means of production and exchange and by the search for profit. "It is (...) by the abolition of capitalism and the advent of socialism that humanity will be accomplished" (Jean Jaurès)

- Industrial capitalism (liberal or free trade, competitive). Mode of production based on free competition from companies. Monopoly or financial capitalism. Economic system characterized by a strong concentration of companies, where a few dominant firms cease all competition and form trusts or monopolies. State monopoly capitalism

Source: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/capitalisme

Liberalism:

- Independence of mind in particular with regard to religious dogmas

- Attitude of respect towards the independence of others, of tolerance towards his ideas, his beliefs, his actions.

- Attitude or doctrine favorable to the extension of freedoms and in particular to that of political freedom and freedom of thought.

- Set of political doctrines based on the guarantee of individual rights against the arbitrary authority of a government (in particular by the separation of powers) or against the pressure of particular groups (economic monopolies, parties, unions). "Liberalism places limits on state intervention by recognizing the rights of the citizen, tempers the executive power through legislative control and the judiciary, protects the individual against abuses of public power, admits representation of minorities and the rights of the opposition, keeps the bender wide open, where individual competitions and social solidarity are formed under the tutelage of the law ... "
L. Rougier, 1938

- Set of economic doctrines based on the non-intervention (or on the limitation of the intervention) of the State in the company, the exchanges, the profit. Antonyms: interventionism, statism, interventionism, planning.

Source: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/liberalisme

"(...) An ecology which takes note of the market economy to better regulate it. (...) An ecology of innovation, excellence, precision, which renounces the intellectual laziness of dogmatic thought and breaks with approximation. An ecology that prefers reality to purity, which does not prevent it from dreaming and making people dream. An ecology of envy and enthusiasm, which -without for you might as well be naïve - turn your back on catastophism, on the ecology of deprivation, fear, urgency and threat! (...) An ecology liberal at the political, cultural and societal levels. A modern ecology resolutely turned towards the future, a movement of sustainable development which fully embraces the word development. (...) "

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

[Did67]

The carbon tax applied nationally or even at EU level is bullshit. If CO2 must be taxed it is at the global level (and indirectly it is already via the quotation of an oil whose price is high ...)

Apply a local carbon tax: there would be no worse way to limit the competitiveness of French companies, many of which are already struggling to be so, and on a global level it would serve almost nothing!
...

Oh there !!! Slowly.

1) I was talking about a carbon tax "with fiscal pressure challengeIn other words, we are removing certain taxes to put the carbon tax in place.

2) This of course poses the question of the plate of this new tax.

I take the simplest case (irrelevant here, but it's easier): we reduce the VAT on everything by 10 billion. And we tax all products to the tune of 10 billion according to the "carbon" that their manufacture / transport required.

Result: overall, purchasing power has not changed. But those who buy "green" wins and the fools who continue to consume South African strawberries at Christmas will pay more.

I find that awesome! Let us not forget the sensitivity of the consumer to the prices (cf: the consumption of petroleum decreased when the crude was at 100 $; the sales of "bonus" cars exploded, we do not see any more than that, among the naked cars: new Twingo, C1, etc ... and some 4 x 4 because there are people who can afford not to give a damn!

So it is a powerful way to direct consumption towards more "econological" products ..., to charge "cash" those who do not care ..

3) To this must be added a "reduction" of variations in the costs of fossil fuels. With the yoyos of crude, everyone is reluctant to switch to renewable energies. To be on full forums, I see that everyone asks the same question: "is it profitable to replace my fule boiler with a pellet boiler? or a CESI ???". And the answer is: it depends! With the fule at 1 € per liter, the calculation was quickly done. With 0,5 € currently, it's tangent, you have to be motivated.

If we could announce an increasing price which would smooth out the oscillations, this would greatly facilitate conversions ... A "smart" carbon tax could be used for that too !!! (as there was the floating TIPP at one point).

3) There, the problem that I pointed out is that we are removing a tax borne by the only companies and that it is rsis to replace it by a tax paid by both, but mainly by consumers ... (in "deviant" skillfully an idea actually carried by certain ecological movements! Pure Sarko!)

4) I do not see the problem fundamentally for a country, if it is not a "border effect" which we already know on tobacco, fuel, alcohol, etc ...

So harmonization is of course desirable. Is it necessary ???

As for global taxation ... Mwouaih, of course ... But if we wait for it, we will never do anything! Cf Kyoto, for measures which are only "political objectives" ...

[Did67]

Imagine in a while, if the European Union decides to create a carbon tax for Europe ...

What will we do then in France? We will pay 2?
One for a good cause and the other to lighten the burden on employers!

Hey slowly! No matter what ...

Europe does not have the authority to create a C tax in France! It is an area of ​​sovereignty. Nor can it prevent Luxembourg from hosting funds used to launder money and to escape taxation on capital! Or force Germany to act against tobacco (low taxation, free sale, absence of laws against smoking in public places ...).

An isolated country can at a given moment be in a weak position to negotiate something else, because "ridiculous" ...

If Europe issues a directive asking states to introduce a C tax and there is already a tax in France, we will be ... in advance. May be required to "adapt" the device ...

As the AOC regulations have been taken over in the Protected Geographical Indications ... Of course, this is done with "adaptations" to find a consensus between what exists in the different countries ...

No, this argument does not convince me, because it seems to me without foundation (very principle of the European Union). Let's have the ambition to be ahead and show the way!