Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[ABC2019]

Therefore, I am "afraid" that we are not using all the oil currently available anyway, since it is so convenient. Whether you do this in 100 years or in 300 does not change much in terms of the amount of CO² present, 300 years later. On the other hand, we agree that if we decrease by 3 the quantity of oil we use to move around, we will move 3 times longer (we simplify it again, but you see the idea?). What makes the change more gradual, and leaves more time to find alternatives?

Basically, I am wondering if it is relevant, from a CO² point of view, to seek to limit the consumption of oil by some, if it is ultimately to simply use it elsewhere in a duration that doesn't change much?

you understood the problem, unlike Mr 100%. It's exactly that.
What counts is the total you extract, it's not what you use it for. Saving "savings" only serves to prolong it, or to be able to do other things with it. But as long as we do not limit a priori the perimeter of the deposits that we exploit (which nobody knows how to do), that does not have the consequence of lowering the final concentration of CO2. That said, it is always interesting to extend the life of the reserves as long as there is no replacement solution, so it is not useless in itself to save money. It's just useless for the climate.

[GuyGadebois]

Either an average person who made 10km by car, who changes his car for a bike for the same trip, that doesn't change anything according to the genius ABC. That is to say 100 people who do the same, that does not change anything either. "You drive, you don't drive, you pollute the same." I bow
"What do you do with the oil, gas and coal that you haven't used?" ... Well NOTHING, I won't use them.

[Ahmed]

In the concept of energy saving, there are two ideas. The first is that a global slowdown decreases the rate of modification of the biosphere, which is rather an excellent thing. The second effectively underlines the fact that an economy practiced on an individual basis in a context of hyperconsumption only displaces (in homeopathic dose!) The use of this energy: what I save, the beauty next door will grill it as dry in its big SUV ... (well, it's a picture: do not take it literally).
The assumption that a priori all fossil resources are doomed to be dissipated naturally falsifies any reflection on the role and use of energy; However, it is certain that there is such a link between the economy and energy that as long as the first is imposed without discussion, this a priori unfortunately seems fairly justified, in the sense that it follows from the general context ...

[ABC2019]

Either an average person who made 10km by car, who changes his car for a bike for the same trip, that doesn't change anything according to the genius ABC. That is to say 100 people who do the same, that does not change anything either. "You drive, you don't drive, you pollute the same." I bow
"What do you do with the oil, gas and coal that you haven't used?" ... Well NOTHING, I won't use them.

so if you don't use them, you will let someone else use them, either somewhere else or later. Don't worry, there will always be amateurs.
Do you want an illustration? consumption of fossils from the OECD for 15 years just goes down, and global consumption only increases. In other words, all the savings we make are immediately swallowed up by Chinese and Indians, who have very good reasons for doing so, given the difference in living standards.



But hey it's good to save money, by taking the train, seriously: it allows a Chinese to warm up better.

[Ahmed]

Multiplying our consumption would only accelerate the overall increase, I see the reasoning badly ... unless you say, quickly let's really consume a max, will always be as much as the others will not have ... (it depends of the time scale on which we place ourselves, but remains quite specious as logic).

[GuyGadebois]

so if you don't use them, you will let someone else use them, either somewhere else or later. Don't worry, there will always be amateurs.

I'm not talking about that, I don't care about that ... I'm just telling you that at our level, everyone can save fossil fuels.

[sicetaitsimple]

Multiplying our consumption would only accelerate the overall increase, I see the reasoning badly ... unless you say, quickly let's really consume a max, will always be as much as the others will not have ... (it depends of the time scale on which we place ourselves, but remains quite specious as logic).

No better, nothing understood ...
We can talk endlessly about this or that mode of development and / or decrease, we (collectively, at least on this forum) will never agree.
But I still thought that having the objective of limiting the consumption of fossils, given their by definition finite volume, could be a common objective, not to mention the CO2 impact, just "we are trying to limit type in a stock that we know is finished ".

[Rajqawee]

Multiplying our consumption would only accelerate the overall increase, I see the reasoning badly ... unless you say, quickly let's really consume a max, will always be as much as the others will not have ... (it depends of the time scale on which we place ourselves, but remains quite specious as logic).

No better, nothing understood ...
We can talk endlessly about this or that mode of development and / or decrease, we (collectively, at least on this forum) will never agree.
But I still thought that having the objective of limiting the consumption of fossils, given their by definition finite volume, could be a common objective, not to mention the CO2 impact, just "we are trying to limit type in a stock that we know is finished ".

Of course, as a first approach. (Thank you all for your responses)

But what I wonder is if we are able to:

-to gradually limit ourselves until we no longer use it (or negligibly), in which case, this is very good.
-to limit ourselves gradually, but in all cases, we will consume the stock that we know, in which case, unless we use this stock over 1000 years or more, it does not "change much" from a CO² point of view (but that changes everything point of view slow decrease and possibility of new discoveries. It leaves time)
-to limit ourselves altogether ....

We agree, not consuming oil is ... pretty good. And perhaps that could create sufficient emulators, in the "growing" countries, so that they too follow in the footsteps of declining consumption. But do we believe in this scenario where we really stop using oil? Because if the existing stock makes it possible to hold, for example, 50, 60, 70 years, then I never believe in a scenario where we do not consume everything. We will consume everything, that is clear, because we will never have time to find a replacement for such a part of our energy mix.

In which case the discussion is no longer "how to save oil" but "how to use it wisely" (in other words, how to save it here in order to consume it down there. A priori, when you cannot do otherwise? ), and we can stop looking at the CO² it emits.

[Ahmed]

The answer to your third question is "no", because we do not collectively decide anything at all (unless we look at things through the small end of the telescope), but we conform to economic determinisms, and these lead to consumption since there is a strong correlation between energy and financial flows ...

[GuyGadebois]

I have only one vision of the problem: The less I consume, the more I am useful. What other people are doing I'LL FUCK! If the idiots leave their trash in the wild after a picnic, I don't. If the idiots throw their masks in the wild, I don't, etc, etc. Better than nothing. Small streams make big rivers.