progressive tariffs on domestic energy 2013?

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, you dare to write, miserable! :

Rest the wood ... now, if all the Parisians were heating with wood ...

Our poor forests would not resist! It is necessary to integrate this notion, that current waste is only possible by the extraction of a fossil biomass whose mass is the cumulative of a production spanning millions of years * ...

* This was before the appearance of bacteria capable of recycling carbonaceous matter.

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, you dare to write, miserable! :

Rest the wood ... now, if all the Parisians were heating with wood ...

Our poor forests would not resist! It is necessary to integrate this notion, that current waste is only possible by the extraction of a fossil biomass whose mass is the cumulative of a production spanning millions of years * ...

Me miserable, no I would say rather disbelieving!

I just wanted to point out the fact that whatever energy choices there were, there were monumental problems to overcome.

Small parenthesis HS: the great smog of London made more than 4000 dead in 1952 !!!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_smog_de_Londres

[Ahmed]

Good, disbeliever, it can go!

It is true that the equation is inextricable: for the credit of the States to remain affordable, it "must" be rigorous; but harshness leads to recession and for the most disadvantaged to get out of it, we need palliative measures, but these measures are insufficient without overhauling the conditions linked to housing (and not only that).
That is to say, reconversion of most of the fleet of electric heaters and somewhat serious insulation: we are not talking about the first and the second requires funding which, unfortunately, is lacking.

In any case, reconciling "socialism" and a market economy is in itself absurd; fortunately (?), our government leans much more towards the second than the first! However, he still has the obligation to delude ...

[Janic]

it's the dog running after the tail! it makes him dizzy and if unfortunately he bites it, it is to him that it hurts!
now, "the French" wanted this left of the right and must assume it until the return of the other right.

[chatelot16]

these discussion rigor or revival growth or decay are sterile

it's like driving a car with only the brakes or accelerating in mind!

what is more important is to choose the right direction

rigor or growth ???

you need both at the same time! reduce or even suppress all that is useless and harmful ... and redeploy human and financial means for a growth of useful activity

right to left whatever! none of the 2 presents the solution, however obvious: to simplify the trade and the finance to put in unemployment the gribouillard absorb all the human means in a completely sterile way

hire everyone in factories instead of offices ... and also hire in the countryside to relaunch abandoned cultures

it would be enough to no longer have the cannonballs to feed to lower the price of labor and restore profitability to all productive activity

I say scribble, because it is not only the officials, it is also all the sterile activity imposed on private companies

even in a mechanical factory you can have more people in the administrative or commercial office, than in the workshop or the design office!

chasing waste is not just looking for an engine that consumes 3% less gasoline than the previous one: it is above all to suppress the regulations which complicate trade and do unnecessary work in all businesses

[sen-no-sen]

these discussion rigor or revival growth or decay are sterile

it's like driving a car with only the brakes or accelerating in mind!

what is more important is to choose the right direction

rigor or growth ???

Hop hop hop! I will arrest you immediately!

From a semantic point of view, growth has its antonym: decrease.
However, rigor is not the opposite of growth, it corresponds to failure in the search for growth (this one being inscribed in an ideology of search for exponential growth).
It is therefore an observation failure.

Decrease, from a political point of view, corresponds to a deliberate search for a reduction in levies and the search for profits.
It therefore results from consent.

Rigor and austerity induce the notion of failure and submission to an unwanted situation.

The revival of growth is nonsense in industrial societies, it is an ideology in total contradiction with the physical and social reality of the world.

The huge current dilemma (which is a scam) is that the more we seek growth, the more we rush towards austerity!

You need both at the same time! reduce or even suppress all that is useless and harmful ... and redeploy human and financial means for a growth of useful activity

We must therefore speak of reorganization.

[chatelot16]

Hop hop hop! I will arrest you immediately!
From a semantic point of view ...

do not stop me for details on my way of criticizing what does not work ... what matters is the explanation on what to do

The revival of growth is nonsense in industrial societies, it is an ideology in total contradiction with the physical and social reality of the world.

of course it would be crazy to wish for general growth

when I want growth in useful activity, it is by having clearly marked that they have been seriously reduced in recent years

it is therefore easily possible to revive what is useful without general growth ... it is enough to reduce what is harmful

same remark on working time: the reduction in working time from 39 to 35 hours is derisory: what is more serious is to assign more than half of the worker to unnecessary tasks

reassign everyone where it takes will be much more productive

the strong growth in productive activity a long time ago masked the increase in harmful activity: as long as the result was still positive we were happy: now it's too much harmful activity eats more than the benefit, and causes productive activity to flow !

We must therefore speak of reorganization.

give it the name you want, but it needs a big change

he said the change is now ... blah I'm afraid the good change is not yet well understood
revolution? reorganization? restructuring? all these words end up taking on bizarre meanings

my approach may be asking to invent a new word

[Ahmed]

Chatelot16, you write

... it's like driving a car with only the brakes or accelerating in mind!
what is more important is to choose the right direction.

The most important thing is to know how to drive ...

I will translate what you express next, in terms which are closer to me.
The frenzied extractivism of the “glorious thirties”, together with an increase in productivity had allowed a strong development of tertiary activities which are “parasitic” activities in the sense that they appropriate part of the industrial gains, constituting as many “false” fresh "(what you call unnecessary activities).
This trend was amplified, following the fall in the rate of profit (which results from the rise in productivity) because the solution was to relocate industrial production where the possibility of further gains existed.
By playing on the fall in production prices, it became very interesting, for a time, to sell what was manufactured far away.

This process cannot last long because of the economic short circuit it causes: less creation of value, therefore fall in purchasing power, partially concealed by artificially low prices and the massive recourse to borrowing.

We are at this phase; to believe that it is enough to encourage "useful" activities is an illusion: utility in our system is that of producing value and only that, and the industrial system, even (hypothetically) restored, is not more capable..
True utility has nothing to do with this concept of "production of value", if not to muddle the cards between these two concepts.

It is also a mistake to believe that it suffices to lower the cost of labor in order to restore financial margins: on the contrary, the reasons for the post-war economic "boom" result from a joint increase in productivity, wages and payroll.

It is very likely to think that a national redeployment would make it possible to remedy the current evils: the economist Mr. Allais (who had the favors of Dedeleco) and the demographer E.Todd, currently well in court with the new government, are delusional about the fact that a national framework could exempt us from the rules that govern the world.

[RV45]

Hello everybody

I find this project extremely badly treated or badly prepared.

In my opinion there are several extremely coarse or even dangerous anomalies to name a few:

- the electric car, which in 2014, the application of the measure will begin to be a reality in the automotive landscape, is absolutely not taken into account.
this project would put France out of this inevitable development. In addition to Peugeot we would sacrifice Renault now!
de facto the electric car would be a sucide on the overall electric bill.

For your information, we have had an electric vehicle under test for 15 months since the end of August. I know it is not the case for everyone but it is the meaning of the story.

- you have a large house of 100 years or 200 years of age see more you are going to be taxed in a more important way than if you have a more habitable house and much better insulate even if for 20 years you have realized enormous investments on your insulation, your thermal solar heating, your heat pump on water table and so on and better. This project is completely stupid.

the state would do better to look at its electricity consumption of its schools and other administrative buildings before giving us lessons!

- you have been in your house for more than 20 years you had three children, they grow up, they study, they leave the family home and there you are only two in the house and we will tax you again more. Should you burn your house in this case?

That we encourage and that we help with the energy transition I totally agree and that is that I have been doing for years at my home and at my work. My electricity consumption has still dropped by 20% this year but it remains significant.

But let this new government make a mistake! it gives a very bad signal by making us believe that it can lower the price of fuel, rather than making it clear that it will inevitably be more and more expensive and that it is essential to drastically reduce our consumption and other share that it is for 75% responsible for our trade deficit. it is essential to stop this deadly bleeding for our country. Precisely by reducing our consumption of gas and fuel oil in priority. But not by making electricity artificially more expensive!

The signals are completely catastrophic Basically, we are told will continue to consume fuel for our cars and gas and fuel oil for our heating.

They are really falling on their heads

[Did67]

Our poor forests would not resist! It is necessary to integrate this notion, that current waste is only possible by the extraction of a fossil biomass whose mass is the cumulative of a production spanning millions of years * ...

* This was before the appearance of bacteria capable of recycling carbonaceous matter.

We have to qualify a little: the production of biomass from the French forest, used correctly (ex: pellet boilers with more than 90% yield), if we eliminated all the chimneys, old stoves, would allow to heat 2 million dwellings, without harming any of the other uses of wood, and of course as part of sustainable management (without cutting down the forests) ...

If we isolate by a factor of 4 (switch to BBC), it is an important part of the park which can theoretically be ...

Of course, technically, it's a different story.

This is just to locate orders of magnitude of the amount of energy. The forest is huge. Except it's wasted (not expensive enough?). And since the middle of the previous century, it has continued to invade us!

Photosynthesis is a roughly "developed" mechanism !!!