Limiting Global: How CO2?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I do not answer this kind of question because they are completely subjective ....

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

[humus]

I don't answer these kinds of questions because they are completely subjective, so someone else's answer is irrelevant to you.

The value is figuring out which type of character responds to me.
does not answer me in this case while the answer was free, despite the initial framing on my part.
So I see a and something beautiful talkative, defeatist, happy and proud of it, a brake on any development.
Sorry to say, I see a harmful, a useless one.
You are not trying to resolve anything, you take pleasure in the fact, which is moreover biased.
I don't see the point of continuing with a closed person.

contrary to what you seem to think, renewable energies are only possible with heavy industry, which is just as "extractive" as fossils.


https://actu.fr/normandie/le-havre_7635 ... 78627.html

And is it serious to use fossils to achieve and set up renewable energies?
Does your religion forbid it?
When fossils are reserved for this use, we remain sober.

[humus]

ah no you do what you want, I just find it weird to have the internet when you advocate a world with only renewables, that's all!

subjective...

it is not a question of "law", it is a question of what is feasible and what is not. Effectively without fossils, it's pretty much the only solution you have left ....

You know absolutely nothing about it except your preconceived defeatist opinion.
Otherwise demonstrate it.

you don't understand my point, it's not a question of imposing it, it's just a question of what is doable or not. The internet doesn't grow in the fields, that's all.

neither the sun nor the wind nor the hydraulics and yet there are renewable sources which produce electricity ....

It is not that I refuse the "contradiction" but the level of your argumentation is close to zero (all or nothing mode, without nuance, caricatural therefore unrealistic), consequently I am wasting my time, I am bored see you.
In addition, you show that you are closed on your certainties, you are not an interesting interlocutor.
I wasn't expecting much but I'm still disappointed.

[ABC2019]

ah no you do what you want, I just find it weird to have the internet when you advocate a world with only renewables, that's all!

subjective...

no it's not subjective, you use a network that produces more CO2 than civil aviation, that's objective .. so if you don't consider that you should do without it, what do you think? should happen?

it is not a question of "law", it is a question of what is feasible and what is not. Effectively without fossils, it's pretty much the only solution you have left ....

You know absolutely nothing about it except your preconceived defeatist opinion.

Otherwise demonstrate it.

there are just 200 years of humanity that show it, but "we know absolutely nothing" . And you do you have what demonstration of the fact that the RC would not be manageable by humanity? what is your "proof"?

but whatever you think, you still agree that your solution is only viable if we know how to maintain an industry without fossils, and if this condition is not met, it breaks the figure, we are d 'OK ?

you don't understand my point, it's not a question of imposing it, it's just a question of what is doable or not. The internet doesn't grow in the fields, that's all.

neither the sun nor the wind nor the hydraulics and yet there are renewable sources which produce electricity ....

they produce electricity as long as they make things with concrete, steel, copper, transport, insulators, lubricants, rare earths ... all these things that are made with fossils.

Without them, they are just farming.

[humus]

ah no you do what you want, I just find it weird to have the internet when you advocate a world with only renewables, that's all!

subjective...

no it's not subjective, you use a network that produces more CO2 than civil aviation, that's objective .. so if you don't consider that you should do without it, what do you think? should happen?

it is not a question of "law", it is a question of what is feasible and what is not. Effectively without fossils, it's pretty much the only solution you have left ....

You know absolutely nothing about it except your preconceived defeatist opinion.

Otherwise demonstrate it.

there are just 200 years of humanity that show it, but "we know absolutely nothing" . And you do you have what demonstration of the fact that the RC would not be manageable by humanity? what is your "proof"?

but whatever you think, you still agree that your solution is only viable if we know how to maintain an industry without fossils, and if this condition is not met, it breaks the figure, we are d 'OK ?

you don't understand my point, it's not a question of imposing it, it's just a question of what is doable or not. The internet doesn't grow in the fields, that's all.

neither the sun nor the wind nor the hydraulics and yet there are renewable sources which produce electricity ....

they produce electricity as long as they make things with concrete, steel, copper, transport, insulators, lubricants, rare earths ... all these things that are made with fossils.

Without them, they are just farming.

You say things that are generally true BUT don't hold to never take into account what I have said before which would modulate your decided position.
Your speech is a perpetual backtracking, so STOP, not really want to participate in Graham Circus, you go back to effective "ignored".

[ABC2019]

this one is good ... I note the contradictions in your speech, you admit that I am generally right ... and suddenly you ignore me!

skillful !!!


I would still like you to make the effort to answer just this question:

but whatever you think, you still agree that your solution is only viable if we know how to maintain an industry without fossils, and if this condition is not met, it breaks the figure, we are d 'OK ?

[humus]

In his time (he was very innovative), Ivan Illitch the problem of technology had arisen and he strove to distinguish those he called "friendly" (soft technologies, in the sense of appropriate) and others. It was a nice step, but perhaps difficult to apply ... René Barjavel, in a different genre which is that of the novel, had also rubbed shoulders with this important aspect and had tried to work out a compromise between cutting-edge technos, but of very limited uses and usual technos, of less ecosystem impact
I can hear your arguments, but whether it's fab lab, more robotic units or craft, all this currently calls for a terribly complex logistics chain (human, material) and the fact that the finality tilts towards the sole satisfaction of needs does not fundamentally change the means implemented. I don't believe in the neutrality of technology; I rather see it as a whole which has positive (very publicized) and very negative (it goes under the radars, or it is presented as improving ...) aspects, which necessarily coexist, like the tails side and the tails side of a coin.

There must be a way out for technology, other than catastrophic or other than alienating, and that is what it would be interesting to highlight.
Before answering I am addressing:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich
et
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8 ... eloppement

It is funny to see the difference in treatment of Ivan Illich between wiki.en and wiki.fr.
Usually the English version (with which I started) is the most provided and there it is the opposite. A model of thought to protect?

External imperatives require me to postpone this learning and the response, but it is much more interesting than the poison clown. if an s is missing, it is not an oversight.

[ABC2019]

There must be a way out for technology, other than catastrophic or other than alienating, and that is what it would be interesting to highlight.

it all depends on what you call technology. Agricultural civilizations were not devoid of technique, if you have the opportunity, go see large preserved mills like that of Delfshaven in Rotterdam, it's impressive:



but afterwards, you can take a tour of the port to realize the enormity that separates this technique from the modern industrial world, in terms of the volumes of energy and of the goods transported.

https://www.cyberhistoiregeo.fr/?Visite ... -rotterdam

And it is this enormity that allows us all, humus like the others, to have a life that is not too tiring, to have hospitals that treat us (even if we complain about it), to be able to study up to 25 years old without working in the fields, and typing on a computer all day long and in the warmth all the bad things one thinks of industrial society ...

[humus]

No relation with the engaged sub-subject but it's nice, it's a gift.
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/meteo/clima ... 13401.html

Climate change: Total had been alerted for 50 years
...
These French companies would also have denied the impact of human activities on the climate, until the beginning of the 2000s,

[ABC2019]

No relation with the engaged sub-subject but it's nice, it's a gift.
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/meteo/clima ... 13401.html

Climate change: Total had been alerted for 50 years
...
These French companies would also have denied the impact of human activities on the climate, until the beginning of the 2000s,

There was an interview with Philippe Chalmin on France Inter who said that this accusation was quite ridiculous because before the 2000s, nobody worried about RC as a major problem, the big concerns of the 70s were the shortage of oil (cf. Mad Max for example), and therefore the oil companies were doing what the company implored them to do, to find it elsewhere than in Arabia! (hence the North Sea, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, etc.)

and now we say it's their fault that they accepted

oh yes, and then, no longer need to look for oil, on the other hand, when the prices at the pump go up, it's a real scandal, and we all go down to the street with colored vests to break everything !!!