New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!

[Rajqawee]

No no, we read you. Attentively.

But you are only in the conviction, not the demonstration. Note that some of your convictions, we share them. But we also sometimes have to admit that we have convictions which it can be difficult to prove the feasibility of, by personal incompetence: I admit it myself quite willingly.

Right now, what you're doing is throwing around ideas. Like hydrogen, plant cover, etc. All of these are possible technical solutions. What does it look like when we implement them on a large scale? Or even global scale? For that, it is necessary to make calculations of large masses, to see what is the output, the productivity, the industrial brakes, and others.

Typically, hey. How does your 100% renewable, organic, zero pesticides model look on world cereal production, in terms of purchasing power? The kilo of flour remains at about the same price, it is multiplied by a factor of 0 or 2 ... or 3 or 20? or 30? Obviously, it's impossible to answer like that. But these are the questions that we must consider answering if we want to convince companies.

Regarding your question and your framework: we answered you. But you only denigrated our answers without explaining to us why we would be wrong.

"In what way would increasing the purchasing power of the poor, with an authoritarian price arrow encouraging them to buy organic food (or other more virtuous agriculture), would promote growth and would be filially harmful?"
1) To increase purchasing power is to increase consumption. So growth.
2) If you arrow this consumption, that poses obvious problems of freedoms. But even if we do, if you don't want to generate growth, if you pull on one side, you have to take on the other (and suddenly in fact, you no longer increase purchasing power. You just orient it without modifying it)
3) Or do you take this increase in purchasing power to compensate? And how do you decide?
4) Can you take this increase in purchasing power without depriving your same subsidiary of the prerequisites necessary for its existence?

[izentrop]

In what way would increasing purchasing power ... be filially deleterious?

Rajqawee answered it, it corresponds to more growth >> more fossil consumption >> more greenhouse gases [

Good to go trash, another one who did not read anything of the initial question, nor of the framework of this question.

Question:
changement-climatique-co2/nouveau-rapport-du-giec-on-est-parti-pour-1000-ans-t2991-260.html#p469185

Frame:
changement-climatique-co2/nouveau-rapport-du-giec-on-est-parti-pour-1000-ans-t2991-260.html#p469194

I understood well but she understands a dogma, a lure: the organic and the dictatorship of a minority.
It is you who stick to your dogmas.

[Janic]

paradise

Typically, hey. How does your 100% renewable, organic, zero pesticides model look on world cereal production, in terms of purchasing power? The kilo of flour remains at about the same price, it is multiplied by a factor of 0 or 2 ... or 3 or 20? or 30? Obviously, it's impossible to answer like that. But these are the questions that we must consider answering if we want to convince companies.

a distorted view of the reality linked to organic farming because you only take into consideration countries with industrial cereal production, precisely for "poor" countries.
The role of organic is to promote local production, not international trade.
There is a saying that goes something like this: "do not feed the hungry, rather teach him to cultivate what he needs "

[Janic]

I understood well but she understands a dogma, a lure: the organic and the dictatorship of a minority.
It is you who stick to your dogmas.

and co ... nard bis which goes there from his speech of stupid.
ALL societal changes start small, in the minority, including petrochemicals, which you fiercely defend! However, there are more and more "conventional" people who are going organic, to the great despair of your petrochemical employers. So it's you who sticks to your largely outdated dogmas!

[Rajqawee]

paradise

Typically, hey. How does your 100% renewable, organic, zero pesticides model look on world cereal production, in terms of purchasing power? The kilo of flour remains at about the same price, it is multiplied by a factor of 0 or 2 ... or 3 or 20? or 30? Obviously, it's impossible to answer like that. But these are the questions that we must consider answering if we want to convince companies.

a distorted view of the reality linked to organic farming because you only take into consideration countries with industrial cereal production, precisely for "poor" countries.
The role of organic is to promote local production, not international trade.
There is a saying that goes something like this: "do not feed the hungry, rather teach him to cultivate what he needs "

Oh no, that wasn't my vision, it was just to suggest a way to write the question. Let us then admit, same question, in a national or regional model.

[Janic]

paradise

Oh no, that wasn't my vision, it was just to suggest a way to write the question. Let us then admit, same question, in a national or regional model.

Local, regional or national it is the same thing. Poor human societies have been made dependent, voluntarily, on the production surpluses of industrialized countries and this mainly affects the cities, less the countryside which can be self-sufficient.
Regions and nations must relearn how to reclaim their food autonomy, not dependent on Monsanto et cie, and facilitated by organic farming. It will just take a few years as for all conversions or reconversions as for our industrialized countries too!

[Ahmed]

Rajqawee, Humus Has already explained to you that he did not want to increase purchasing power, but to redistribute it by cutting high incomes for the benefit of the less well off. For the moment it is the high incomes who run our society and universal suffrage does not change anything, the nobility has simply become elective and nothing is in the direction of any redistribution, except a minimum, so that people are keep quiet ...

I do not believe that the decisive point is knowing how to calculate the effects of a particular measure: experience has amply shown that this has hardly ever been the case (and when it has been done, it is not sure that the results were reliable) in all the major previous decisions, from the wars of religion to the conquest of space, including the brand new promotion of hydrogen ...

Eclectron nurtured the idea of ​​an industrial civilization, but not too much, which would be relatively stationary to ensure its stability and durability; I think this is a very optimistic view that greatly underestimates the reality of what is possible. The concern, once again, is that the current operation has completely changed the situation, particularly at the demographic level; Of course, adjustments are possible in this last area, they are probably in progress, but their slowness is not in line with the urgency of the situation. Even a "cavernous" flashback, dear to the zealots of the "right in the wall" is no longer possible, even if we stick to a less caricatured vision. Waiting for automatic constriction is certainly the worst-case scenario, and even a rough anticipation would cushion the constraint.
We can also, way Zemmour, finding scapegoats, that obviously does not solve anything, quite the contrary, but it avoids making "knots in the brain" (which seems to worry more than one).

[Rajqawee]

Hmm. There, it elevates.

"redistribute by cutting high incomes for the benefit of the less well off. For the moment it is the high incomes who run our society and universal suffrage does not change anything, the nobility has simply become elective and nothing goes in the direction of 'any redistribution, except a minimum, so that people keep quiet ... "

Maybe this is not what is wanted, including by the population. I have been making the postulate for several years that cities have only one possible evolution, to increase inequalities (in these cities). The way of life "sold" by the cities (accessibility of everything, soft and distant transport, diversity and variety), is in reality accessible to some only because others provide cheap labor, and n 'have no access to this supposedly pleasant way of life (small accommodation, expensive living, distance from interesting places). But I wonder how much everyone is ready to play this game: I try to be part of the X%, even if it means not succeeding ... so I'm not sure that everyone shares our views of redistribution .

"Waiting for automatic constriction is certainly the worst-case scenario and even a rough anticipation would cushion the strain."
Yes. Very probably. In particular because it is very likely that to maintain the best standard of living, we need fossils and nuclear power to transform the mega machine (into a less powerful mega machine). If we consume everything without reinvesting it in a transformation, we will have all the problems and very little energy to overcome them.

Zemmour is an intelligent guy, who has handled and talked about a concept all his life, that of immigration. He drew conclusions that are his own and remains very solid on his arguments in this area. But that's the only thing he talks about, the rest, he hasn't shown anything consistent so far. So I would say he's pretty limited in his analysis.

[Ahmed]

Less inequality would be desirable as a prerequisite for dialogue, which can only take place between relatively equal people. Consultations organized from above to politely collect suggestions from those below were ignored and carefully buried in the archives; as for the yellow vests ... the reception was, let's say, less cordial.
However, the question of "purchasing power" is a bad way of considering the social question, since it refers to a terminological category specific to a system ...
You write:

The way of life "sold" by the cities (accessibility of everything, soft and distant transport, diversity and variety), is in reality accessible to some only because others provide cheap labor, and n do not have access to this supposedly pleasant way of life ...

It is a fractal and can be read as the relationship between the countries of the center (developed) and the periphery: without this inequality, nothing would be possible; it is one of the conditions of industrial modernity. A kind of blindness to this phenomenon is quite widespread which has led some to speak of a post-industrial era: yes it is the time when industry, more omnipresent than ever, became invisible, relegated to Asia ...

Zemmour may be smart, but spends his time saying bullshit and also writing bullshit. Intelligence does not prevent pathology, unfortunately ...

[humus]

No time to answer, Rajqawee in his personal delirium, ABC fashion . See you later...