Barack Obama: The President of Sustainable Development

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7

Re: Obama: President of Sustainable Development




by highfly-addict » 15/01/09, 18:35

Elec wrote:Do you think the USA has the potential to become a model in terms of sustainable development?


Without wanting to tease, what exactly is sustainable development?

Because if it is to maintain the same standard of living and overcrowding using renewable energy (impossible amha), then there is really nothing sustainable, development!

:frown:

Good evening ...
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET
"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
User avatar
benring
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 29
Registration: 06/01/09, 19:39




by benring » 15/01/09, 19:47

I think everyone interprets "sustainable development" in their own way, a bit like that suits them.
In my opinion for the powerful it means to pollute a little less to look pretty and especially to have the possibility of polluting longer to continue to reap profits.
And even when it comes to taking 1/2 scoops which will be insufficient to change the course of things, they cannot agree.

"Sustainable development" is on a large scale only a unifying concept, which makes it possible to pass even bigger pills.
It is only on a small scale that some courageous people try to make sense of these words through their daily actions.
0 x
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38

Re: Obama: President of Sustainable Development




by Elec » 17/01/09, 02:41

highflyaddict wrote:Because if it is to maintain the same standard of living and overcrowding using renewable energy (Impossible amha), then there is really nothing sustainable, development!


Do you mean that the potential of renewable energies is too low for you?
This point of view is based on precise studies?

A data table which we can debate, if you want.

Benring wrote:It is only on a small scale that some courageous people try to make sense of these words through their daily actions.
Yes, of course there are people who are active on a small scale, at the home or business level. Yes, there are plenty of visionary "small" entrepreneurs who are embarking on their own scale in green business and creating wealth and jobs.

But there are active people at all levels and in all circles: scientific, economic, legal, political. Look for example at the exemplary work accomplished by Al Gore, James Hansen, Nicholas Stern, Shaï Agassi or Wangari Maathaï. Or in France by Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet.

"They didn't know it was impossible so they did it" -Mark Twain
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7

Re: Obama: President of Sustainable Development




by highfly-addict » 17/01/09, 18:48

Elec wrote:Do you mean that the potential of renewable energies is too low for you?
This point of view is based on precise studies?

A data table which we can debate, if you want.


No, I don't mean that. I just think that maintaining our current standard of living only thanks to renewable energies, while taking into account the development of the rest of the world which legitimately aspires (?) to this same standard of living, is quite simply unrealistic because it will not be profitable for a long time (price of fossil E).

This point of view is not based on precise studies, it comes from a vision of the world refined every day by the avalanche of information available everywhere.

I only like numbers to give orders of magnitude. I don't know where the ones in your table come from, I also don't know how they were calculated then ....

However, these data do not seem to me to demonstrate what the gigantic effort it should implement, on what time scale, under what conditions, etc .....

In short, you will have to seriously argue if you want to see me change my mind but why not? : Cheesy:

Greetings.
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38

Re: Obama: President of Sustainable Development




by Elec » 17/01/09, 19:04

highflyaddict wrote:
Elec wrote:Do you mean that the potential of renewable energies is too low for you?
This point of view is based on precise studies?

A data table which we can debate, if you want.


No, I don't mean that. I just think that maintaining our current standard of living only thanks to renewable energies, while taking into account the development of the rest of the world which legitimately aspires (?) to this same standard of living, is quite simply unrealistic because not profitable for a long time (price of fossil E).


Not profitable?
Clean Energy 2030:
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1

Here is a scenario that saves 820 billion !
- Green investment of 3860 billion dollars
- Savings on the oil bill of 4680 billion dollars

"The financial bottom line: Although the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is significant (about $ 3.86 trillion in undiscounted 2008 dollars), savings are even greater ($ 4.68 trillion), returning a net savings of $ 820 billion over the 22-year life of the plan."

Image

See as well:
www.repoweramerica.org (Al Gore)
http://www.repoweramerica.org/plan/



This point of view is not based on precise studies, it comes from a vision of the world refined every day by the avalanche of information available everywhere.

I sincerely advise against reading the French press in the energy field, or else with a very critical look.

I don't know where your painting comes from

Stanford, Department of Energy and Atmosphere

However, these data do not seem to me to demonstrate what the gigantic effort it should implement, on what time scale, under what conditions, etc .....
A great opportunity in terms of wealth creation and jobs.

In short, you will have to seriously argue if you want to see me change my mind but why not? : Cheesy: Greetings.

Count on me. Greetings;)


NB - A flagship article that I recommend:
The Climate for Change, by Al Gore, NewYorkTimes, November 9, 2008

(...) Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis (...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opini ... ef=opinion
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 17/01/09, 22:17

@elec

Thank you very much.

As I am not, to my great regret, "fluent in English", I am almost sure (or at the cost of a disproportionate effort that I am reluctant to make, I humbly admit) of not being able to do an analysis constructive criticism of the links you suggest. : Cry:

I note however that the majority of your sources come from the USA and deal with the problem in the USA. You would not have under your elbow documents concerning Europe or Asia (or even South America and Africa) in French?

Because they, for the moment, they have money (not sorry ... credit) and space, which is not necessarily the case for the rest of the world.

And then the "savings from efficiency", I find them very optimistic (always on the cusp, eh!).

Has the cost of dismantling / reconverting the facilities that run on fossil fuels been taken into account? Ditto for the nuke.
The google forecast foresees the reduction to 0 of the use of coal and oil for the generation of electricity by 2030: that I do not believe half a second at the global level.
The problem of using fossil fuels is global.

On the other hand, do the forecasts take into account the very probable increase in the number of extreme climatic episodes which, I think, will significantly change the figures extrapolated from a stable situation?

A+
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 18/01/09, 01:47

highflyaddict wrote:@Elec Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

As I am not, to my great regret, "fluent in English", I am almost sure (or at the cost of a disproportionate effort that I am reluctant to make, I humbly admit) of not being able to do an analysis constructive criticism of the links you suggest. : Cry:
OK, too bad. English is essential.

I note however that the majority of your sources come from the USA and deal with the problem in the USA.
Yes, the thread is on Obama, President of Sustainable Development.

You would not have under your elbow documents concerning Europe or Asia (or even South America and Africa) in French?
The same reflection can be carried out at the level of China or Europe.

Because they, for the moment, they have money (not sorry ... credit) and space, which is not necessarily the case for the rest of the world.
Switching to a Green Economy leads to huge savings for all oil importing countries: USA, China etc.

And then the "savings from efficiency", I find them very optimistic (always on the cusp, eh!).

The potential for reducing consumption through energy efficiency is very significant. The% retained is based on NREL data (see the library ... in English).

Has the cost of dismantling / reconverting the facilities that run on fossil fuels been taken into account?

A coal-fired power station is a boiler, a turbine and an alternator: completely recyclable (copper, etc.).

Ditto for the nuke.

I will re-look at this subject in the CE 2030 scenario. There are lots of documents in French on the subject, France is world champion;)

The google forecast foresees the reduction to 0 of the use of coal and oil for the generation of electricity by 2030: that I do not believe half a second at the global level.

It is not a question of believing or not believing: it is a question of studying whether the scenario is realistic on the technical and economic plna.

The problem of using fossil fuels is global.
Yes: the release of fossils is therefore a huge opportunity for clean techs on a global scale.

On the other hand, do the forecasts take into account the very probable increase in the number of extreme climatic episodes which, I think, will significantly change the figures extrapolated from a stable situation?


I think it's a good question. Indeed, there is an urgent need to act in an attempt to limit the extent of future warming.

This is even the purpose of these scenarios.
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 18/01/09, 10:50

Elec wrote:
I note however that the majority of your sources come from the USA and deal with the problem in the USA.
Yes, the thread is on Obama, President of Sustainable Development.


Of course, but in your first post you talk about a "sustainable development model" and therefore solutions that can be generalized on a global scale, right?


Switching to a Green Economy leads to huge savings for all oil importing countries: USA, China etc.


On the condition of course of making IMMEDIATELY and SUSTAINABLY to major investments whose spinoffs will not be immediate, far from it. It seems to me that this is precisely the kind of investment that frightens "our rulers", especially since our countries are not necessarily very "at ease" financially speaking.

A coal-fired power station is a boiler, a turbine and an alternator: completely recyclable (copper, etc.).

Yes indeed I do not dispute that. But the operations in question will consume energy, will it be "Green"? Yes ? It will be necessary to produce even more then ....


It is not a question of believing or not believing: it is a question of studying whether the scenario is realistic on the technical and economic level.

There, I do not agree: if if if it is well to believe! Studying, trying to predict the future is a little (a lot) an act of faith. Predicting consumer behavior over 20 years seems very, very ambitious to me! Likewise your judgment is based on studies, these are only studies, necessarily limited in their representation of the reality of the world.

And when I see Chinese energy policy, I laugh softly! (They build coal-fired power plants, well, according to my sources, I haven't been to see!).


Indeed, there is an urgent need to act in an attempt to limit the extent of future warming.

This is even the purpose of these scenarios.


Well always at random (see above how my pifometre works), I think for a few years now that it is simply too late. We would have had to wake up and seriously roll up our sleeves for at least 20 years given the inertia of the system.

We come back to the question of faith!
For a long time optimistic and "techno-confident", I am no longer it at all and I do not believe that more technology (even green) will get us out of the mess in which we have stuck ourselves (and the rest of the world with us, incidentally. !).

Greetings!
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 18/01/09, 17:49

highflyaddict wrote: And when I see Chinese energy policy, I laugh softly! (They build coal-fired power plants, well, according to my sources, I haven't been to see!).


Is China the next leader in renewable energy in the world? - According to the new report prepared by the Worldwatch Institute, entitled Powering China's Development: The Role of Renewable Energy, external China could meet, or even exceed, the target of producing 2020% of the energy necessary for its production by 15 functioning thanks to renewable energies against 8% today. For 2050, this share could be 30%.
http://www.planete-energies.com/contenu/6_30_chine.html
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 18/01/09, 21:03

Last edited by highfly-addict the 18 / 01 / 09, 21: 12, 1 edited once.
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 143 guests