Yellow Vests: Is the call of the November 17 justified? #GiletsJaunes

[Christophe]

Disagree, if a fallacious and / or untrue argument is put forward to justify a measure at the level of a country, this is called dishonest intellectual!

And that deserves sanctions ...

Must believe that not enough French pass on this forum to learn

PS: On the comparative point that you evoke, you are right on paper, but because of the rebound effect, the diesel vehicles which were of a very advantageous cost per kilometer were very "voracious" in kms ...

The more km a car has, the more "amortized" it is at the manufacturing level.

I saw German (recent: year 2005-2010) more than 450-000 and still rolling: it's very good for CO500!

Maybe you mean that because it was cheaper, we drove more? This is partly true in some cases, when it is cheap (especially in appearance) we look less at the expense.

But, for example, I ride what I need to ride ... but hey, not everyone is a Jedi Master Econologist

After yes if you know how to put more fuel, you drive more at all ... but it is not the few dozen more budget per month that will happen to this situation, the consequence of this measure will be the expense "luxury" which will suffer (these new taxes are 2 to 3 less "pleasure" restaurants per month ... the government will only have to assume these bankruptcies!).

Finally, as rightly said above: real estate is a much bigger problem for the French budget ... but we have never seen demonstrations for that!

[Exnihiloest]

Hello everyone,

It is amazing how everything we are told is taken literally. I note all the stereotypes of the kind.
Yet :

• CO2 is not a pollutant. It promotes re-greening of the land despite deforestation.
• Anthropogenic CO2 represents a ridiculous part of atmospheric CO2, so any hope of reducing it by a few% with an effect on the climate is completely utopian.
• The warming which all past predictions of the IPCC have proven to be double to triple has nothing catastrophic and the past global warmings have coincided with periods of prosperity for humans. Even the hypothesis of the disappearance of a few islands does not imply that global warming would not be of general interest. Politicians are careful not to ask us whether or not we would be in favor of global warming.
• The development of renewable energies does not solve the energy problem at all, it comes at the cost of the impoverishment of the populations but of the enrichment of the green industry, in particular German, the cost being much higher than that nuclear power (the Australians, in particular, learned at their expense, their bill drastically increasing when they were promised that wind power would reduce it). In addition, the vagaries of this production, the impossibility of storing energy sufficiently and efficiently, and the imperatives of network synchronization imply keeping conventional power plants.
• The green industry is not necessarily ecological. For wind power this is not the case. It kills or disturbs bats and birds. It buries tons of concrete including in cultivable land, concrete which, considering the cost, will never be extracted from the ground when in the probable future we will no longer need wind turbines. And the blades of the wind turbines, which must be changed every 10 to 15 years, are not recyclable.

So :

• continuing to use fuels and conventional nuclear is by far the best solution until all-electric becomes the norm and nuclear fusion is under control (say 20 to 30 years).
• Seeing increases in fuel prices as a boon for alternative energies is an ideological posture harmful to everyone if we do not see all its aspects, the impoverishment of populations having always led to disasters.
• It is normal to complain about these increases, especially artificial ones such as the surcharge on fuels. And let's not forget that one of the causes of the price hike is Trump's measures against Iran. It would be lacking in moral rigor for an environmentalist to rejoice at the measures of a notorious anti-environmentalist, I would call that "to eat all the racks"!
• It is all the more normal to complain about these increases that the government takes the pretext of ecology to justify them, when we know that it is only for him a matter of return of big money.
• Yes to the November 17 call!

[Forhorse]

It was surprising that no lobbyist from Total and Company would tip the tip of his nose on this topic ... so this is a gap filled.

[Ahmed]

Christophe, you write:

Maybe you mean that because it was cheaper, we drove more? This is partly true in some cases, when it is cheap (especially in appearance) we look less at the expense.

Exactly!

Further:

After yes if you know no more fuel, you no longer drive at all ...

Here! Belgianism! You are contaminated!

[Exnihiloest]

It was surprising that no lobbyist from Total and Company would tip the tip of his nose on this topic ... so this is a gap filled.

It must be said that they pay well. I am posting from a beach in Bora Bora, they offered me the "* $% # '(r
sorry sorry, the keyboard slipped from my hands, a vahine paid by them has just brought me refreshment.
they offered me, I said, the trip in A380. At $ 5000 a week to animate social networks, it's easy. And then, to see reactions of indignant people to simple observations, such as Islamists faced with the caricatures of Muhammad, it is always distracting.

And on the merits of the November 17 appeal? Ideas ? Arguments ? An opinion ?
Or only the sidereal void of the argumentum ad personam ?

[izentrop]

Hello,

Anthropogenic CO2 represents a ridiculous part of atmospheric CO2

the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1850 is entirely attributable to combustion gases. This result is not surprising since the isotopic analysis of the Vostok ice core shows that the emission of CO2 following the degassing of the oceans occurs several hundred years after an increase in the global average temperature. https://climatorealiste.com/co2-anthropique/

The warming which all past predictions of the IPCC have proven to be double to triple has nothing catastrophic and the past global warmings have coincided with periods of prosperity for humans.

Pure climate skepticism the latest forecasts predict the oven in 30 years if we do nothing and no major decision has been made yet.

Even the hypothesis of the disappearance of a few islands does not imply that global warming would not be of general interest.

You are not aware of the latest forecasts https://www.bfmtv.com/planete/carte-vis ... 70957.html

wind power this is not the case. It kills or disturbs bats and birds

Urban legend https://www.consoglobe.com/eoliennes-tu ... ux-3617-cg
And so on ... You do not come back to us better informed

[sen-no-sen]

Hello everyone,

It's been a while!

You note this:

CO2 is not a pollutant. It promotes re-greening of the land despite deforestation.

If it is true that CO2 (like oxygen among others) is not a pollutant strictly speaking at the doses that we find in our atmosphere, it is quite simplistic to consider it as beneficial in view of the feedback actions that it can cause (permafrost melting, weakening of marine life etc ... etc ...)
Insofar as deforestation is directly attributable to a set of fuel machines using fossil fuels and therefore emitting CO2, it would still be naive to see the increase in its proportion in our atmosphere as saving!

The development of renewable energies does not solve the energy problem at all, it comes at the cost of the impoverishment of the populations but of the enrichment of the green industry, in particular German, the cost being much higher than that nuclear power (the Australians, in particular, learned at their expense, their bill drastically increasing when they were promised that wind power would reduce it). In addition, the vagaries of this production, the impossibility of storing energy sufficiently and efficiently, and the imperatives of network synchronization imply keeping conventional power plants.

The objective of the ecological transition is not to move from a fossil model to a renewable model, but to counteract the decline in oil and gas production via renewable energies, with the sole and sole aim of maintaining global growth at the same time. increase ... the time necessary to find a solution allowing the hypergrowth phase (via thermonuclear fusion).
The ecological transition is actually only an economic transition that is established through ecological recovery, so it's a pretty screen.

continuing to use fuels and conventional nuclear is by far the best solution until all-electric becomes the norm and nuclear fusion is under control (say 20 to 30 years).

The main problem is not in the technological choice but in the amount of entropy that the biosphere can absorb.
It is therefore useless to think that technology will allow us to abstract ourselves from the problems that we generate,the solution lies in resilience and sobriety.

[Ahmed]

The objective of ecological transition is twofold: in addition to the one you mention, it provides new investment opportunities for the immense accumulation of capital in dire need of profitable outlets. And this, even if this profitability is based above all on subsidies or imposed standards, as is generally the case (capital is as indifferent to the origin of profit as the tree at the origin of the CO² molecule ! ).

On the possibly positive role of an increase in the air content of CO², it is even things through the small end of the telescope: this gas could have a certain stimulating effect (notwithstanding the very relevant remarks of Sen-no-sen), provided that that the other factors influencing the metabolism are optimum: in this matter, the latter is established as a function of the limiting factor; if there is a water deficit, for example, more CO² will be useless. Given this and in practice, the contribution of this gas can only have a useful effect on plant production in an environment in which all the parameters are properly controlled (such as a greenhouse).

[Exnihiloest]

...
Pure climate skepticism the latest forecasts predict the oven in 30 years if we do nothing and no major decision has been made yet.
...
You are not aware of the latest forecasts https://www.bfmtv.com/planete/carte-vis ... 70957.html

Hi izentrop,
Why should we believe these forecasts since the previous forecasts turned out to be false?
But above all, the actions that we take can not be useful. So even if the warming continues, we have no way to stop it, and attempting it will be a colossal and useless mistake.

Bjorn Lomborg used the IPCC's assumptions and models to assess the effectiveness of the measures proposed under the Paris climate agreement. The effects on the climate would be imperceptible at best, but the price to be paid (the grabbing of economic resources in favor of eccentric and useless projects) would be enormous.
"This article examines the temperature reduction impact of key climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even assuming optimistically that the promised emission reductions will be maintained throughout the century, the impacts will generally be small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) would be a reduction in temperature increase of 0,013 ° C by 2100. The pledge made by the United States for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, their contribution known as "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution" (INDC), would reduce the temperature increase by 0,031 ° C. The EU's 20-20 policy would have an impact of 0,026 ° C, the EU's INDC 0,053 ° C and China's INDC 0,048 ° C. All climate policies of the United States, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented between the early 2000s and 2030s and maintained throughout the century, would reduce the rise in temperature of around 0,17 ° C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, the carbon cycle and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 5899.12295

wind power this is not the case. It kills or disturbs bats and birds

Urban legend https://www.consoglobe.com/eoliennes-tu ... ux-3617-cg
And so on ... You do not come back to us better informed

This is not what they say there:
https://eolien-biodiversite.com/impacts ... ves-souris
nor the :
https://www.notre-planete.info/actualit ... uve-souris
So the problem is certainly not as simple as you think.

On the other hand I cited 3 negative impacts of wind turbines on the ecology, starting with the least, the only one that you noted! It must be believed that the other two hamper, already that the objection to the first does not seem to me to be unanimous in the world of ecology ...

[Ahmed]

On the question of the impact of wind turbines on birds: It is possible to minimize the number of birds killed by stoppages in the operation of machines located on flyways during these periods.
However, local raptors are affected insofar as they like high places which are also prime locations for the installation of wind turbines. These are often used as convenient perches to monitor a large area and also provide already killed avian game. (which will therefore not be counted), but is also often fatal to them ...
As for bats, it seems that a consensus recognizes the heavy price they pay in the vicinity of these devices.

In both cases, this must be compared with losses due to agricultural practices and other destruction of the environment (or other technological traps, such as high voltage lines) ...
Difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. Optimists will say that wind turbines "are not that bad", pessimists that "wildlife has no place in a technological world anyway and it is" folded "for it". ..

On global warming, "the actions we take cannot be of any use", because they are derisory or are limited to declarations of intention not followed by effects (for that it would be necessary to give up the model which was the cause!).

... attempting it will be a colossal and useless mistake.

Why indeed fight against the causes when we admire the consequences and when the destruction of living conditions on Earth will allow an ever greater deployment of technologies responsible for indefinitely remedying the successive ills they cause?