How many CO2 to earn 1000 € at work?

[Christophe]

Is that so? And explain to us why there is double counting? I do not speak to you to redo a calculation CO2 GDP (since your employer gives you much less than what you produce as wealth in term of GDP of course).

I speak to you to make a concrete case for Mister everybody ... On the contrary I think it is a method ULTRA minus which takes into account only the way ...

The corrolaire is the following: on these 1000 € how much will you be able to save per year and reinvest ... in solar PV for example?

[Elec]

Let's go to the end of the reasoning proposed:

To earn 5 000 euros at work, the person in question must actually eat, stay, move. It should therefore be included in the calculation:
- the CO2 impact of food crops, but also take into account the fact that people have worked to produce these foods ... etc ...
- the CO2 impact of the construction of the house, but also take into account the fact that people have worked to build this house ...
- the CO2 impact of the construction of the car ...
Etc. ..

But the person in question is working directly or indirectly in the transport sector, housing, industry or services ... It works well in one of these sectors ...

[Christophe]

That's good for what I saidtaking into account only the transport work-dodo the results are ULTRA reduced ...

But you have to eat well, whether you work or not, so some shows are not directly related to your work ... just like the gray energy of your car because you use it for something else too.

However, the heating (or air conditioning) of the workplace should be fully taken into account ...

The purpose of this calculation is to show whether the investment in certain so-called "green" technologies is really wise or not ...
Example: solar photovoltaic because there is a chance that the investment (CO2 and primary energy spent) is higher than the panels will earn during their life ...

[Elec]

The only method that makes sense to obtain the carbon intensity of economic activity per capita is to reason in grams of CO2 per point of GDP or per HDI point (the latter also includes GDP).

http://www.populationdata.net/index2.ph ... =1&nom=idh

The problem is not to have a Human Development Index (which includes life expectancy, educational level, GDP) high (!)

The problem is CO2 emissions, the destruction of biodiversity, and so on.

[Christophe]

Yes but no because in GDP you have, for example completely virtual stock market speculation so, and more: it is too vague for most people ...

[Elec]

I agree with you: the HDI is richer index (by its very definition)

But whether one thinks in terms of carbon intensity per point of GDP or point of HDI, the conclusions are broadly the same.

And this is understandable: the HDI is the integration of life expectancy, educational attainment and real GDP. However, life expectancy and educational attainment are themselves correlated with real GDP ...

[Woodcutter]

[...] The decreasing approach proposes to go back [...]

Unsubstantiated statement.
Value of the affirmation?

[Elec]

Bucheron, have a look here:
https://www.econologie.com/la-secte-econ ... -1482.html

The decreasing, by definition, pronounces the fall of the GDP ("de-growth"; the growth, it is the positive variation of the GDP, and by extension of the HDI the 2 being correlated). It is indeed a step backwards on the Kuznets curve. From a return to pre-industrial economies, see prehistoric for the most radical of them.





A second approach is to go forward (to move towards the post-oil economy), it is the strategy for example of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama:

"The only way for this century to be a new American century is to finally face the cost of our dependence on oil ... We know that the country that will harness the power of clean energy and renewable will guide the 21 st century. "

[Woodcutter]

Bucheron, have a look here:
https://www.econologie.com/la-secte-econ ... -1482.html

And so ? What's this ? Proof of your assertion? Do you go into "little fun" mode or what?

Seriously, do you really think that studies tell you that the more you consume and the less you have an impact on the environment are serious?

I do not know those people for whom you put some links, but are they not economists?

Besides, I think your definition of "degrowth" is really "narrow-minded" and very narrow.
Why can't "degrowth" be seen quite simply as a different way of consuming, which breaks this infernal spiral which IMPOSED to consume more and more (to be happy, to support our economy, to pay pensions, ...)

Finally, and I have already told you several times: no need to "rehash" by putting x times the same links, illustrations and other curves, it affects the clarity of your speech, like your many changes after the fact. You better think about when you post an answer.

[Christophe]

And so ? What's this ? Proof of your assertion? Do you go into "little fun" mode or what?

Quiet Bucheron, I think he just wanted to ride the stupidity of some decreasing ... and on this point, I can only join him ...