Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[ABC2019]

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.

yes of course, to be nice and leave it to others, anyone can do it.

But that will not have an impact on the climate if, on the side, we do not restrict the perimeters of the fossils that we are going to extract (which nobody does because that means prohibiting producing countries from extracting what they are going to extract. have under their soil, something that no one has the capacity to do).

So in the end for CO2 it won't change anything.

[GuyGadebois]

yes of course, to be nice and leave it to others, anyone can do it.

What is this nutty sentence again ??? Who talks about being "nice" ??? "Everyone" does not do it, precisely, that is the problem ... (I'm hallucinating, I have the impression of being confronted with a machine ...)
Guys can extract whatever they want from the ground, if there's no one to buy, the oil is -27 $ a barrel.

[sicetaitsimple]

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 ...

Ah, Ahmed AOC!
But if the answer to the first or the second question is "yes, maybe", it still opens up some horizons ..... At least time for a few generations to think about it and find or deepen solutions.While you and I eat organic dandelions by the root.

[Ahmed]

Cheers!

[ABC2019]

yes of course, to be nice and leave it to others, anyone can do it.

What is this nutty sentence again ??? Who talks about being "nice" ??? "

Ben you: if you make an effort to save fuel, for example by driving slower, you are kind because you allow others to consume it for you. Which is very commendable.

"Everyone" does not do it, precisely, that is the problem ...

not everyone does it, but everyone could do it,

(I'm hallucinating, I have the impression of being confronted with a machine ...)

we see that it must not have happened to you often then ..

Guys can extract whatever they want from the ground, if there's no one to buy, the oil is -27 $ a barrel.

sure, but that's why they only do it when asked, in general.

[sicetaitsimple]

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.

CHAMPAGNE, I agree!
Even if this is not enough and we need restrictive and often "costly" regulations in the short term. But these are all the more accepted the more or less the individual path has already been covered.

[Ahmed]

All the same, we must distinguish between what is effective and what is ethical, these are two different orientations, even opposed.

[Paul72]

obviously you didn't get what i said ...
Well, let's say you have a 10 km race to do, you think about taking your car, then finally you change your mind and you take your bike. great you saved 20 km by car, or 1l of gasoline. Does that mean that l of gasoline will stay in your tank and never be burnt? No, that means you're going to burn it a bit later, that's all. The "savings" will just be used to extend the life of the fossils a little longer.

Oh p ... what a nullity .... it's pathetic.

if you thought a little bit, you would understand that this is the real question: what do you do with oil, gas and coal that you have not used?

you do like squirrels: you keep a large stock of provisions underground, and ultimately you only use a small part.
A foolish idea at random: an annual (international) quota of airplane km for tourism, for example. Cumulative if not in use. And no domestic journeys if the train is an acceptable alternative (in terms of time). Just that and long haul takes a hit. Tourism too ...

[ABC2019]

Oh p ... what a nullity .... it's pathetic.

if you thought a little bit, you would understand that this is the real question: what do you do with oil, gas and coal that you have not used?

you do like squirrels: you keep a large stock of provisions underground, and ultimately you only use a small part.
A foolish idea at random: an annual (international) quota of airplane km for tourism, for example. Cumulative if not in use. And no domestic journeys if the train is an acceptable alternative (in terms of time). Just that and long haul takes a hit. Tourism too ...

an annual quota is not enough to limit the total quantity extracted: you must also set a duration of use, that is to say reduce the quota to zero after a while. For example you could base yourself on a theoretical curve of the IPCC to decrease the annual quantity of fossil by 7% per year and to cancel it in 2050, but you would have to tell each producer country; you will only produce X t of coal, gas, and oil each year. The Chinese would have to reduce their coal production by so many tons per year, the Americans too, etc ... And everyone would of course agree on the figures and to impose this on future generations, who they would be so happy to do exactly like those 30 years ago decided ...

I am very confident in this scenario that it is so easy to decide and apply me!

[Rajqawee]

Thank you again for your answers.

Guy, it's clear, if everyone saves, in principle, good. But the problem is also the orders of magnitude. Let's admit, you decide to save on your short distance journeys, rather than doing them by car, you do them on foot / by bike / by scooter / by neon unicycle. Well, you save for example 150km per year. Not bad !
Except that if, moreover, you drive a total of 20000km (no matter why), well you have saved only something negligible in your consumption.

For example, I have a friend who "eats the broccoli trunks rather than throwing them away, it's ecological" but who drives 20000 terminals per year, and does at least 2/3 round trip Corsica / continent + 3/4 flights including long haul, per year. At this stage, we fall into the appeasement of conscience (it's not an attack to say that you too are in there, eh. Just an example)

The reasoning is applicable on a global scale: if such part of the world manages to save 10% of its consumption, but elsewhere, another part of the world (to make life easier, for an equal population) increases its consumption by 100 %, well, in concrete terms, it really hasn't changed much.

Personally, I'm starting to believe that it is appropriate to "save" oil (I already do it myself! I break my ass riding my bike to work every day!), But not for the same reasons as this than I thought before.

It is necessary to save it above all to get out of the dependence that we have, and also because if it allows us to postpone the deadline for a few decades, that's always what wins ... to have more time to get out! It was maybe your message Guy, moreover, to save it on principle to end up not needing it any more? (or negligibly for some activities)

So yes, I ride my bike for my short trips. But not so much to save oil, rather to learn to live without it. And also because I prefer to be on my bike than in my car, it's much more fun.

Quotas, taxes, I don't really believe in them (yet I agree with a lot of things from Jancovici's speech), because unfortunately these are very imperfect systems. Besides, we gave up the thumbnails! I believe more in pedagogy and the proposal of viable alternatives for people (real usable public transport. Aid for the purchase of less fuel-consuming vehicles, even on occasion. Aid for engine changes? Functional cycle paths and nice, etc)