Study on the future cost of global warming

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(Poor sen-no-sen who did not understand that he was talking to a reincarnation of Einstein ...)

[humus]

...
What mark is the crystal ball about fusion?

Einstein, 1905.

And dishonest in addition, I speak of course of the date of the merger operational on earth and its massive diffusion to replace fossils, which crystal ball do you use?
Find out from those who work there:

[ABC2019]

However, the drop in production (not to be confused with exhaustion!) will create a long period of economic and social instability which is expected to extend for a long time.

but no see, the IPCC assures us that reducing the consumption of fossils by 5% per year can be done with very little inconvenience, are you not aware?

[humus]

However, the drop in production (not to be confused with exhaustion!) will create a long period of economic and social instability which is expected to extend for a long time.

but no see, the IPCC assures us that reducing the consumption of fossils by 5% per year can be done with very little inconvenience, are you not aware?

Hence the interest in decreasing voluntarily but in a thoughtful way and not just decreasing in an economic model which calls for the exact opposite.
This implies reviewing points of the economic model.

What you are both sketching is the decrease undergone.

Hence the interest in the face of any disaster, to prepare seriously and not to go ostrich, or stupidly apply salutary instructions in contradiction with the economic model.

[ABC2019]

However, the drop in production (not to be confused with exhaustion!) will create a long period of economic and social instability which is expected to extend for a long time.

but no see, the IPCC assures us that reducing the consumption of fossils by 5% per year can be done with very little inconvenience, are you not aware?

Hence the interest in decreasing voluntarily but in a thoughtful way and not just decreasing in an economic model which calls for the exact opposite.
This implies reviewing points of the economic model.

I do not know very well what "points of the economic model" you intend to review and what you expect from them, since you do not answer anything as soon as you are asked questions that are a little concrete, but it was to say that nothing says that "the decline in production ... will create a long period of economic and social instability which should extend for a long time.", if there is a way to lower production without it being a problem.

[humus]

but no see, the IPCC assures us that reducing the consumption of fossils by 5% per year can be done with very little inconvenience, are you not aware?

Hence the interest in decreasing voluntarily but in a thoughtful way and not just decreasing in an economic model which calls for the exact opposite.
This implies reviewing points of the economic model.

I do not know very well what "points of the economic model" you intend to review and what you expect from them, since you do not answer anything as soon as you are asked some concrete questions,

Beforehand:
Do you already agree with the assertion that degrowth and the economic model are antagonistic?
Do you agree with the need to decarbonize or at least carbonate the atmosphere less?

[ABC2019]

Beforehand:
Do you already agree with the assertion that degrowth and the economic model are antagonistic?

it's bigger than that, I think that the degrowth is antagonistic with the desires of the population. All economic models are made to respond at least in part to the wishes of the population, so I think degrowth is antagonistic with all economic models

Do you agree with the need to decarbonize or at least carbonate the atmosphere less?

no I don't think it will be necessary to ask the question, in my opinion the available resources are not sufficient to make it worthwhile to restrict them even more.

[humus]

Beforehand:
Do you already agree with the assertion that degrowth and the economic model are antagonistic?

it's bigger than that, I think that the degrowth is antagonistic with the desires of the population. All economic models are made to respond at least in part to the wishes of the population, so I think degrowth is antagonistic with all economic models

Do you agree with the need to decarbonize or at least carbonate the atmosphere less?

no I don't think it will be necessary to ask the question, in my opinion the available resources are not sufficient to make it worthwhile to restrict them even more.

Perfect, how would you be interested in solutions to what you feel is either not a problem (CO2) or an insurmountable problem (people's desire and economic model)?
You don't feel concerned.

[ABC2019]

Perfect, how would you be interested in solutions to what you feel is either not a problem (CO2) or an insurmountable problem (people's desire and economic model)?
You don't feel concerned.

It's not that I don't feel concerned, it's that I think the problem is badly posed, and that you always talk about "solutions", when in reality you don't have any. Thinking about that doesn't mean you don't care.

[sen-no-sen]

However, the drop in production (not to be confused with exhaustion!) will create a long period of economic and social instability which is expected to extend for a long time.

but no see, the IPCC assures us that reducing the consumption of fossils by 5% per year can be done with very little inconvenience, are you not aware?

The IPCC is based on a model of decoupling of the economy by renewable energies (MCKinsey report style already mentioned), let's say it's nice to believe it!
The Covid episode is quite symptomatic of what awaits us: the accordion effect: periods of economic breakdowns, then very strong recoveries, with commodity prices making the yoyo ... and central banks playing to the sorcerer's apprentices.

it's bigger than that, I think that the degrowth is antagonistic with the desires of the population. All economic models are made to respond at least in part to the wishes of the population, so I think degrowth is antagonistic with all economic models

Degrowth is effectively antagonistic to the desires of economic agents* in growth periodThis is the principle of reinforcement. The conditions for this growth will be met less and less in the years to come, we should therefore see a reorientation, willingly and especially by force.

* It would be fallacious to assert that populations have "desires" for consumption, as if all this were part of our DNA.
If you give sugar to a rat it can quickly become addicted, however evolution has not produced rats to be satiated with sugar, there are simply substances (and the consumption society can be classified among those). ci) who are able to exploit the flaws in our behavior.