These are in fact the questions that I had prepared for the Complementary program of 15 days ago (see: https://www.econologie.com/forums/complement ... t3072.html )
1) Humanity has consumed about as much Oil since 1980 as before 1980 and consumption is accelerating. Planetary inertia is estimated to be around 20 years. We are therefore only at the very beginning of the phenomenon of global warming, is it not urgent to seriously address the resolution of the problem (ca.d otherwise than by studies and symposia which
characterize the climate problem)?
2) Why has there been (and still is) such a flippancy and inability to recognize the responsibility of man for global warming?
3) What is the capacity of carbon capture / absorption by the terrestrial ecosystem compared to our fossil emissions? Can this fixation be accelerated durably (the
reforestation is very limited because it is limited to the growth of the tree)?
4) In constant 2004 dollars, the sale of crude oil brought in more than 40 billion dollars from 000 to 1920, including 2006 in the last 30 years. This figure only takes into account the
sale of crude oil (and therefore in no way the creation of wealth that has allowed the exploitation of this crude oil). The $ 5500 billion of the Stern report published last fall aren't they
ridiculous in comparison? Especially since the figure of 40 MM will be greatly exceeded during the 000st century due to the increase in demand.
5) The increase in crude prices tends to develop alternative energy solutions but also to make profitable oil exploitation which was not (or no longer) before. This
Isn't it paradoxical in the fight against the greenhouse effect? What are the possible economic alternatives?
6) Is public subsidization of renewable energy materials really the right solution? It biases profitability calculations, allows control of market growth and in some cases, overcharging of equipment (a large part of the premium going directly into the seller's profit). Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize industrial research for truly profitable energy solutions?
7) Political ecology is guilty. Many people turn their backs on ecology for this reason. Isn't it time to change this behavior by no longer blaming polluters but by
rewarding environmental efforts (at all levels of our society).
8) Do the actions of the environmental activists not do more wrong than anything else in the defense of the environment in public opinion?
9) Could our generation be accused of crimes against humanity (or the environment) by future generations?
10) The Permian extinction is the greatest mass extinction that the Earth has known: 95% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species have disappeared. Studies have shown that it would have been initiated by natural releases of greenhouse gases in large quantities during a very short geological time. Is it conceivable that man has started a mass extinction
11) How can the influence and the economic weight of fossil fuels be reduced as quickly as possible?
12) The State launches awareness campaigns against global warming, but it disadvantages eco-responsible behavior. Example: does it make sense to subsidize solar panels when business trips are largely tax exempt?
13) Can you estimate the human and animal cost for 2050 and 2100 of global warming? Order of comparison with the wars of the 20th century?
14) Does the end of the massive exploitation of fossil fuels not mean the end of capitalism as we know it? Isn't it time to prepare for this shock by starting to
think about a more “econological” society?
15) Can we trust the big car manufacturers to fight against the greenhouse effect? The average mass of the vehicles increases, their lifespan of the vehicles decreases and especially the
park is just growing. What should we think of their behavior with regard to biofuels in the short cycle (pure vegetable oil)?
Some of these questions could be retained to make the 1st CyberEconoAction? What do you think?