The latest figures and weather consequences of global warming

[GuyGadebois]

Why necessarily with 0 fossils? Wasn't the question rather something lasting? If we consume enough of these fossils, can we not have them for long enough for this mode to be considered sustainable?

because Guy said "zero"

I never said that, I said "less and less to zero". This implies that before arriving at this ideal result, we will have found alternatives if not non-polluting, at least much smaller. You are REALLY painful by dint of taking people for idiots by playing dumb yourself.

[ABC2019]

Why necessarily with 0 fossils? Wasn't the question rather something lasting? If we consume enough of these fossils, can we not have them for long enough for this mode to be considered sustainable?

because Guy said "zero"

I never said that, I said "less and less to zero". This implies that before arriving at this ideal result, we will have found alternatives if not non-polluting, at least much smaller. You are REALLY painful by dint of taking people for idiots by playing dumb yourself.

yes but I'm talking about the stationary solution so well of the final state. I don't quite understand what you mean, if we have alternatives, it's good to get to zero right?

I do not play idiot, and I do not take people for idiots, I would just like to understand what we really imagine with zero fossils, because all the societies without fossils that I know, historically or geographically, it is with a standard of living comparable to the Middle Ages (itself not very different from the Neolithic in fact).

[GuyGadebois]

Zero fossil, zero nuclear, zero chemistry, zero pollution is an IDEAL to achieve, an ABSOLUTE towards which to strive, a UTOPIA ... is it clearer?

[sicetaitsimple]

Zero fossil, zero nuclear, zero chemistry, zero pollution is an IDEAL to achieve, an ABSOLUTE towards which to strive, a UTOPIA ... is it clearer?

By the way, is your new and second (gas) car working well? It's just to know, there is still little feedback on gas cars in France.

[GuyGadebois]

(And the other c .. which has been looping since my first post ...)
And always these contemptuous and indirect attacks. His trademark. "King of hypocrisy".

[sicetaitsimple]

( "King of hypocrisy".

Of course .... But I don't write "zero fossil".

[GuyGadebois]

( "King of hypocrisy".

Of course .... But I don't write "zero fossil".

But me, yes. As ideal. And when I fill my tank with biogas, it's zero fossil.

[Paul72]

to move towards zero fossil while still using organic fuel ... it would be necessary to manage to produce it with a sufficient yield (energy produced compared to production energy) so as to no longer need any fossil at all. but without this being taken at the expense of food resources (agricultural land). not obvious, but perhaps not infeasible. A bit like the merger, we know that in theory it should be possible but we are not yet sure we can get there.

[GuyGadebois]

to move towards zero fossil while still using organic fuel ... it would be necessary to manage to produce it with a sufficient yield (energy produced compared to production energy) so as to no longer need any fossil at all.

There are methanogenic bacteria, algae also (if we want to avoid talking only about the recovery of waste produced by human activity) which are very promising. In short, this exploitation has only just begun.
https://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/articl ... genese.xml
https://www.rtflash.fr/algues-et-hydrat ... er/article

[sicetaitsimple]

. And when I fill my tank with biogas, it's zero fossil.

Ah, are you filling your tank with biogas? It's new?