New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!

[humus]

1) To increase purchasing power is to increase consumption. So growth.

As Ahmed underlines, it is only a truncated vision of the initial question that I asked, which necessarily gives a remark which taken in isolation is moreover true but beside the subject, therefore false. it was enough to read me carefully.

I repeat so Increase in purchasing power among the poor by taking from the rich AND by taxing more food from conventional agriculture, which naturally directs this increase in purchasing power of the poor towards organic.
Organic which would not be taxed but which is currently more expensive and inaccessible to the poorest.
Clearly the poor have not seen a real increase in their purchasing power since they go to organic food more expensive than their past food. They eat as much but better.
Now, they eat organic food and promote the organic sector, which is developing.
Conventional agriculture is gradually fading away, that's all.
Nothing complicated to understand?

This is in substance what Sandrine Rousseau proposed.

[ABC2019]

1) To increase purchasing power is to increase consumption. So growth.

As Ahmed underlines, it is only a truncated vision of the initial question that I asked, which necessarily gives a remark which taken in isolation is moreover true but beside the subject, therefore false. it was enough to read me carefully.

I repeat so Increase in purchasing power among the poor by taking from the rich AND by taxing more food from conventional agriculture, which naturally directs this increase in purchasing power of the poor towards organic.
Organic which would not be taxed but which is currently more expensive and inaccessible to the poorest.
Clearly the poor have not seen a real increase in their purchasing power since they go to organic food more expensive than their past food. They eat as much but better.
Now, they eat organic food and promote the organic sector, which is developing.
Conventional agriculture is gradually fading away, that's all.
Nothing complicated to understand?

It is also not complicated to understand that in the end, the global purchasing power fell (stagnated among the poor and fell among the rich), but that the world consumes more resources, because the marginal wealth of the poor consumes more than that of the rich. So you have a world that is generally less wealth-producing but more wasteful of resources (a situation that has arisen when we compare the Soviet bloc to the West, for example).

[humus]

... the world is consuming more resources ...
... So you have a world that is less a producer of wealth but more a waste of resources ...

You remain in the abstraction of general words.
Take specific examples, because I don't see at all why the world would consume more resources and waste them?
How organic (or any other more virtuous agriculture) would lead to the consumption of more resources?

For example, even if the absence of chemical weedkillers would involve more machine work, the fuel can be 100% renewable and there is no volume constraint * on 100% renewable, except the current price. .


The Soviets, a caricature of another era (a regime of terror and hyper centralized therefore doubly ineffective), did not have the ecological issues in mind at all.

* under reserve not to encroach more on the wild nature.

[ABC2019]

... the world is consuming more resources ...
... So you have a world that is less a producer of wealth but more a waste of resources ...

You remain in the abstraction of general words.
Take specific examples, because I don't see at all why the world would consume more resources and waste them?
How organic (or any other more virtuous agriculture) would lead to the consumption of more resources?

it is not organic that consumes more resources, but it is obvious that if you give more money to a poor person, he will not devote 100% of his surplus to buy organic and do nothing other with.

Unless you know how to control consumption - the only way I know of is to replace money with ration tickets, is that what you suggest?

For example, even though the absence of a chemical weedkiller would involve more machine work, the fuel can be 100% renewable and there is no constraint on 100% renewable, except the price.

of course, if there is a constraint, it is the overall production capacities.

The Soviets, a caricature of another era (a regime of terror and hyper centralized therefore doubly ineffective), did not have the ecological issues in mind at all.

it is not to say that it was for ecological reasons, it is to say that it is quite possible to be inefficient and to produce less wealth with more energy. And even after the fall of communism, the inefficiency of the energy system remains, for example Ukraine consumes about as much energy as France for a comparable population, but with a much lower standard of living.

[humus]

it is not organic that consumes more resources, but it is obvious that if you give more money to a poor person, he will not devote 100% of his surplus to buy organic and do nothing other with.

It's wrong.
When the increase in income of the poor corresponds exactly to the additional cost of organic food.

Unless you know how to control consumption

A political measure and the associated pedagogy is not for dogs.
Even if the result is imperfect it will always be better than biocidal and unsustainable agriculture.

of course, if there is a constraint, it is the overall production capacities.

What limits to production capacities?
One more factory to transform agrofuel reserved for agriculture? Big limit indeed.

that is to say that it is quite possible to be inefficient and to produce less wealth with more energy.

Well done, interesting and constructive information.
You must be able to do worse too, I trust you. Is this your goal?

[ABC2019]

it is not organic that consumes more resources, but it is obvious that if you give more money to a poor person, he will not devote 100% of his surplus to buy organic and do nothing other with.

It's wrong.
When the increase in income of the poor corresponds exactly to the additional cost of organic food.

there you assume that the consumptions will remain unchanged if the cost of food increases, but that has no reason to be the case. It is obvious that you can buy more or less things, more or less expensive, according to their price, and the trade-offs that you make in your consumption.

In addition, only wanting to redistribute the surplus money corresponding to the difference between organic and conventional, to gain only the energy gain between organic and conventional (which is not that great, in particular because organic remains mechanized), this plays on orders of magnitude much smaller than the efforts which are announced as necessary. You are very far from offering realistic solutions to the problems you claim to solve.

[ABC2019]

of course, if there is a constraint, it is the overall production capacities.

What limits to production capacities?
One more factory to transform agrofuel reserved for agriculture? Big limit indeed.

simply the cultivable areas and the need to keep natural spaces. Much of the deforestation in the Amazon is made for the cultivation of sugar cane, which is the most efficient crop for agro-ethanol, and in Indonesia for palm oil, which is the most efficient crop. to produce agro-diesel.

[Ahmed]

It would indeed be dangerous to imagine exonerating oneself from fossil fuels, necessarily limited (notwithstanding the question of CO2), by a massive switch to biofuels. The embarrassing word here being the term "massive". Industrial society cannot easily escape (is it so desirable?) From the framework which made it possible.

[Janic]

My poor humus you did not come out of unnecessary debates with this kind of gugus. You say white, he says black and if you recognize that it is black, he tells you that it is white as he does on all subjects including vaccines.

humus »01/10/21, 08:00
ABCon wrote:

it is not organic that consumes more resources, but it is obvious that if you give more money to a poor person, he will not devote 100% of his surplus to buy organic and do nothing other with.

Humus:

It's wrong.
When the increase in income of the poor corresponds exactly to the additional cost of organic food.

The objective is not to give more means to spend, but rather to target these expenses towards sectors more respectful of the living and this is the initial goal of organic: to preserve the surrounding environment by re-establishing more favorable conditions. to biodiversity, animal and human health in the same way because even if this had an impact on one aspect of the economy, it would not result in an economy resulting from better overall health of populations and a drop in production for all chemicals, including medicated drugs, which would give a positive final toll!

ABCon wrote:

Unless you know how to control consumption

humus

A political measure and the associated pedagogy is not for dogs.
Even if the result is imperfect it will always be BETTER THAN BIOCIDAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE.

Obviously that would be better, but all the political measures go in the opposite direction even by giving the impression of the opposite and it is not from this with dimensions there that one should expect a pedagogy which would go against a certain economy. Except, possibly locally!
However, the awareness of citizens to organic products, shows a change of parameters on the meaning of biocidal agriculture and even the manufacturers of products formerly loaded with chemicals are turning to the more natural, even organic in their products, it is an excellent indicator of societal change, which anti-organic people take a dim view!

ABCon wrote:

of course, if there is a constraint, it is the overall production capacities.

humus

What limits to production capacities?
One more factory to transform agrofuel reserved for agriculture? Big limit indeed.

Very just ! Even if it was only limited to agriculture!

ABCon wrote:

that is to say that it is quite possible to be inefficient and to produce less wealth with more energy.

Humus

Well done, interesting and constructive information.
You must be able to do worse too, I trust you. Is this your goal?

Yes, this sad character refuses to go to organic production sites to realize his reality, far from his abstract speeches.

[humus]

ABC2019, I hear your remarks, which like all the others, are remarks of principle so as not to remain dry in the face of a measure of disconcerting simplicity, which upsets your habits of thought.

As a reminder from the beginning I say that it is only a question of food and the activities related to its distribution.
There was never any question of supplying the world's automobile fleet with agrofuel, nor of perpetuating the worldwide suicidal activity identically.
It is simply a question of converting so-called conventional agriculture into virtuous and painless agriculture.
And it is not a question either of solving the RCA with this measure but simply of participating in its reduction and especially of ensuring the sustainability of the diet without fossils, without chemical inputs and by respecting nature better.

Now if we want to generalize the principle of this fiscal measure (taxation of "to flee" and subsidy of "virtuous") it is quite possible, as for transport.
Jancovici measure: Cart at 2l per cent free for everyone and doubling of the price of gasoline by additional taxation.
At the same cost of use, we are reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we are reducing our CO2 emissions.
And for the big liberal richard, it will always be possible to have a big SUV

Unless there is a remarkable intervention, I switch to second quotation mode.