bardal wrote:
But there is still more annoyance, in my humble opinion. The very issue of GHG emissions seems to be forgotten in this debate, as if it were only a very secondary problem; Yet it is this criterion that Nicolas Hulot put forward - in a very relevant way it seems to me - to justify his postponement of the schedule. It is not the question of "peak oil" (moreover there will remain gas and coal, as our neighbors say), it is indeed the urgent obligation to stop burning CO2-emitting energies which constitutes the priority of priorities.
Is this the same priority for everyone here? Or would there be another one?
The preservation of the biosphere is obscured by the concept of global warming, it is a subtlety to grasp in the sense that the question of RCA * is reduced to a question solely accounting.
We speak of "emission rights", "emission reductions" etc ... this approach which may appear to some as pragmatic in reality hides a fundamental problem of a philosophical order which is that of transformation of the world and of humanity's role in preserving life on earth.
It is therefore quite strange that a government like ours (which aims to revive growth) does not address issues like peak oil, which seems more in line with the aim pursued.
Le
RCA thus plays a role of "moral guarantee" for our industrialized societies, by using a disaster to come as a lever for a new industrial impetus aimed at perpetuating whatever the cost of the growth effort.
To take up your remark, the priority of priority is to slow down the flow of energy through our society.
Reaching our fears on fossil fuels alone it is costly to orient us when the time comes towards other forms of destruction.
*
CAR = anthropogenic global warming
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.