Weather consequences of global warming on your life (and faster than you think)

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Sometimes, in extreme cases, it is advisable to arrange a makeshift shelter to let the storm pass, instead of daring to think that you can stand there, to brave it.

[humus]

Sometimes, in extreme cases, it is advisable to arrange a makeshift shelter to let the storm pass, instead of daring to think that you can stand there, to brave it.

Public chat forum, are tempetounettes. so we can stand or sit

[Ahmed]

Humus, you write:

... a truly sustainable society (not green washing). Take inspiration from Gunter Pauli's blue economy

Because the "blue" economy is not green washing?
And my paper / sawdust log press project, isn't that a good thing? Well, that is not part of the "blue" economy, nor "green"; in fact it is not a matter of economics. The idea would be to make it a sufficiently reliable and practical tool for communities to appropriate it and make it available to users ...

[humus]

Because the "blue" economy is not green washing?

Prove what you're implying.

And my paper / sawdust log press project, isn't that a good thing?

It is not generalizable * on a large scale but I will not use your darklogic , it is a punctually positive solution to be added to all the others.
And I salute your intention, like all the intentions of G Pauli and his team

[Ahmed]

I don't want to prove anything to you, I just draw your attention to this point and you can go beyond appearances if you wish.

It is a punctually positive solution to be added to all the others

I completely agree! but you suspected it, eh? The accumulation of waste is only temporary and only due to the difficulty in generating abstract value, which leads to trying to compensate by the multiplication of the mass of goods ... Most of the waste will disappear with this negative dynamic.

[ABC2019]

I do not understand well there, except to award yourself certificates of good conduct

I explain my path, that's all

Can you tell me how your actions will determine the quantity of fossils that we will extract in the future?

Amusing
You have the gift of shirking your own responsibilities by posing the problem to others in a perverse or perverted way.
I'm not going to waste time responding to this diversionary manipulation, the answer to which doesn't matter to you, anyway.

I'm only asking the question about what you claim to do, that's all: how do your actions change the total number of fossils that we will consume in the future?

I am not saying that they are bad or that you are wrong, you can be right for a lot of good reasons, I am just curious to know the influence that you think you have on the total of fossils consumed, since it is of that we were talking about.

[sicetaitsimple]

I'm only asking the question about what you claim to do, that's all: how do your actions change the total number of fossils that we will consume in the future?

The question is totally stupid ....
The energy future (and in particular the consumption of fossils) will be the result of technological innovations, deployment of renewables and nuclear power, low-carbon mobility, technical "sobriety" (more efficient processes, thermal standards, etc.) ), of "individual" sobriety certainly also, I forget tons, and in particular all the financial instruments (taxes, CO2 certificates, ....)
Humus will do what it can with this whole panoply, directly (by insulating its home, for example) or indirectly (by consuming less carbon-intensive energies). Same for me. And you certainly do too.
It is the sum of all this that should be brought under control, without delusional illusion because there cannot be a miracle overnight, but with perseverance, over decades.

[ABC2019]

I'm only asking the question about what you claim to do, that's all: how do your actions change the total number of fossils that we will consume in the future?

The question is totally stupid ....
The energy future (and in particular the consumption of fossils) will be the result of technological innovations, deployment of renewables and nuclear power, low-carbon mobility, technical "sobriety" (more efficient processes, thermal standards, etc.) ), of "individual" sobriety certainly also, I forget tons, and in particular all the financial instruments (taxes, CO2 certificates, ....)

it’s funny, because it’s the talk propagated everywhere and in which everyone believes, but a little bit of thought is enough to realize that it is completely wrong.
A little comparison: you have 50 bottles of a certain vintage from a certain year (say, a Gevrey Chambertin 2018, excellent year). Will the number of bottles drunk in the end by you or your descendants, or someone else, depend on the rate at which you consume them? or if not, under what condition alone will the total drunk be less than 50?

[humus]

I'm only asking the question about what you claim to do, that's all: how do your actions change the total number of fossils that we will consume in the future?

The question is totally stupid ....

It reassures me in case I needed it , but how does he do it ??? (ABC2019)

[ABC2019]

I'm only asking the question about what you claim to do, that's all: how do your actions change the total number of fossils that we will consume in the future?

The question is totally stupid ....

It reassures me in case I needed it , but how does he do it ??? (ABC2019)

well answer the above question anyway, which can be rephrased in another way: how does the fact of not spending fossils now ensure that your descendants will not burn it in your place?
I have already experienced that, the “waste hunt” of the 70s, after the first oil shock. We started telling people to be careful, we replaced fuel oil plants with nuclear power plants, and that had a very clear impact on oil consumption, there was even a moment in the 80s a " against oil shock "where consumption decreases significantly, and afterwards, it grew much less quickly than before

energies-fossil-nuclear / evolution-of-production-and-consumption-of-global-oil-t2761.html

but that did not in any way prevent it from growing, deposits such as the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea have run out, and new deposits have been put into production (Brazil, Angola, shale oil), which we would also have put into production otherwise, but earlier. It only delayed the peak date for a decade or two, that's all.

So no visible impact on the total burned. Nobody said anywhere: ah this deposit would have already been exhausted 10 years ago if we had not made savings, but as we did, there are still some, so we will close the well and leave what is left underground.

Surprising, no? ah, if it was simple ...