Christophe wrote:Ah well you talk about the energy intensity there, or rather carbon intensity?
I have read the two documents well but I am not sure that it corresponds to what I meant.
To get to the bottom of my thinking, I would take the example of an economist whose name I forgot
.
Overall, she compared the growth of countries to agricultural systems. A field of corn or wheat on one side and a forest on the other.
On the one hand, you need a lot of intrans and you have a growth certainly fast but which is fragile. In the event of a strong gale, falling hail or a fire, you can lose everything quickly without hope of rebirth unless you clean everything and give in intrans in quantity to rebuild everything.
On the other side, the forest, we see very weak growth year after year but this growth is solid and above all it hardly needs any intrans, mainly rain water and sun since layer by layer , all the waste of some making food for others and each element of the system (fauna and flora) having a very important role but well distributed from the root to the wild boar through the squirrel and the doe (there has no unemployed
).
Of course, there must be regulatory bodies (or vigilance) such as the forest office which regulates the trees to be felled, gamekeepers who limit the proliferation of certain animals and firefighters to monitor and protect the forests from the risks of 'fire but overall, it takes events much more important than a strong gale or a fall of hail to destroy everything. In addition, we all know that in the event of a fire, for example, the forest will rebuild quickly practically without help and fairly quickly we will no longer see any stigma of the fire.
She wanted to apply this principle to the world economy and her point was to say (I hope to transpose it): Why work hard to grow a fragile system when, well organized, a system can be solid and sustainable even when 'he has weak growth ??
Hence my idea of "energy efficiency", which could also translate into how to produce as much or more with less intrans (I have the same comfort in my house with less LPG). It's really about making sure we're using our resources (not just fossils for that matter) properly while getting people to work. It's good for the planet and good for jobs. For example, players in waste recycling have created many more jobs over the past 10 years than those in landfill and incineration. We improve employment, we improve our trade balance (drop in imports of certain products such as paper, metals ...), we reduce the circuits "from mine to factory" ....
I don't know if it's a legend but I've always heard that VW designs its vehicles so that it can recycle at least 80% once it reaches the end of its life (in chains created and maintained by VW of course ).
