progressive tariffs on domestic energy 2013?

[sen-no-sen]

if it was only a store we would have already emptied it for a long time: it is rather a factory which produces regularly: we can therefore take as long as we do not take too much

Better and better! A factory! Who says better?

a wild forest destroys everything it produces: a well-exploited forest is much more useful:

It is a purely anthropocentric vision!

there is no longer a wild forest in France: the most beautiful forests that we see are human cultures!

I absolutely do not agree.
In terms of beauty, a primary forest has nothing to do with an exploited forest.
Of course, forests can be exploited, but it is necessary to leave spaces entirely natural.
The exploitation obligatorily induces nuisances on the biodiversity, moreover the man in his will to want everything profitable with tendency to select only the essences most advantageous to his advantage.

with us in France there is a lot of abandoned area that could be transformed into a productive forest ... I think of the areas where there is too much risk of forest fires: we could transform scrub and brush into productive forest

The areas affected by forest fires are simply a state of affairs.
In nature there is no one to put out the fires, this allows you to renew the essences and allow the young shoots to develop.
Given global warming (anthropogenic or natural), it would be very naive to want to change the inevitable, it's like wanting to green the desert on one side and massively deforesting on the other.

[Ahmed]

There is a (not innocent) paradox in utilitarianism, it is that, aiming at the production of abundance, it creates scarcity ...

[chatelot16]

you will exasperate me a little with your main principles to criticize the possible solutions!

wood heating is a better way to lower the price of heating than intellectual masturbation on the price of electricity

to develop means of making energy wood by cutting fire-resistant zones in the forests at risk of fire would be better than to let all leave in smoke useless

there is no quick fix but there are a multitude of small solutions

energy is too expensive ... there are lots of renewable energy to exploit ... it requires labor .... we have labor in unemployment .... or is the problem

[Ahmed]

To criticize the possible solutions is to show their limits, not to condemn them: wood is already used for this purpose, simply an intensification would very likely be very harmful, we must be aware of this.

Naturally, if strong tensions appeared in the energy supply, the limits of the reasonable would be quickly crossed and these unfortunate consequences would be felt very quickly.

[chatelot16]

if we don't do the right thing it could be that anyone cuts anything anyway and that we cut the branch where we are sitting

kind of easter island

this is why I insist on all the solutions allowing to make forest more productive

to cut what's available I don't worry there are some who can do

we should also insist on the means of burning wood with the best possible yield

OKOFEN boilers or other expensive brands push to settle for crappy boilers that waste wood

it is urgent to make good efficient boilers! yet another activity for Peugeot who no longer knows how to occupy its factories

[Did67]

On the one hand, I regret having "derailed" this thread with my digression which took an amplification that I did not suspect ...

On the other hand, this clearly shows the complexity of a debate on energy issues, if we go to the roots ... We see where a few people are thinking about a pricing policy that would be social and / or ecological !!!

Between us, at 3 or 4, we quickly see positions that are extremized. So imagine the government with 60 million French people !!!

I'm not raising, even if I still have a lot to say. But I find it quite interesting!

[sen-no-sen]

On the other hand, it shows the complexity of a debate on energy issues, if we go to the roots ...

Right, Did!
Each subject is often much more complex than we imagine at first sight!

Between us, at 3 or 4, we quickly see positions that are extremized.

No! no! just common sense.
To consider natural spaces as a simple store / factories / construction site (the choice is yours!) Is to forget the place of our species in nature (vast subject!).


chatelot16 & writes:

you will exasperate me a little with your main principles to criticize the possible solutions!

Sorry, but if we ignore the main principles too quickly, hello the damage!
The use of forest biomass is an excellent choice, however, it must be part of a logic of respect for biodiversity.
My criticism was not on the use of forests, but on your remark about the "usefulness" of the wild forest.
This implies that, if it is not useful to man, well it is not used for much ... and I find it very sad.

Last little "forest digression":
If we want to optimize the forests as much as possible, we must tackle agriculture and animal husbandry, in fact very large areas are used for cultivation in order to feed livestock, by reducing the consumption of meat. , its surfaces could be reforested.

[sen-no-sen]

There is a subject Wood, forests and energy :

https://www.econologie.com/forums/forets-et- ... t2030.html

[chatelot16]

your link to wood energy does not work

these discussions on energy of all kinds is not irrelevant: my goal is above all to point out that subsidizing energy to help certain people in difficulty is not the right way ... social assistance for those who are in difficulty yes ... aid to waste no

give a fish it will help one day, learn to fish it will help definitively ... this good principle dates from a time when natural resources seemed limitless

now there is a third step to this reasoning: not only is it better to learn to heat wood than to subsidize waste ... but the third step is to organize the territory so that nature produces more

when I say that the wild forest is useless: it has been criticized as anthropocentric: absolutely! as long as we do not use euthanasia to get rid of all the men who clutter the earth we must organize ourselves well to live properly

criticize the breeding of meat animals, less effective than the vegetarian diet is part of the debate on energy

should we reduce livestock, eat less meat, and put energy crops instead? we may do it one day, but I find it easier to decide immediately to exploit currently unproductive forests

it is not the solution, it is only one among others, there is no need to choose the best one must use them all

we are in a situation where we must save fossil fuels to pay a high price, and where we have natural energy available ... and unused labor

and there is no choice between forest, solar and wind: it will be necessary to develop all these solutions to both lower the price of energy, and give work to everyone

Peugeot slows down and gets rid of Aulnay? no problem there is to make a windmill factory! or cogeneration heating

[sen-no-sen]

https://www.econologie.com/forums/forets-et-bois-energie-t2030.html

So much for the forest and energy link.