sen-no-sen wrote:...
No need to heat the entire home to 20C °, one room is enough
Saying that you should eat less is no more utopian than telling an obese person to go on a diet.
But if, to the extent that those to whom you tell are not obese and consume according to their needs and aspirations, which is my case and the case of most people.
This ecological message that you relay is addressed to everyone as if we were all consuming too much, whereas there is no general consensus on this idea that he would like to impose on us. The purpose of this guilt is obviously ideological, but like most people I have no need to live on an ecological sharia.
Useful greening is not asking people to dispense with what they have knowingly chosen, but to win their support by offering something concrete instead, more interesting, cleaner, better , that people will naturally choose.
This is not the case, but then not at all the case today. If political environmentalists, at least in France, have re-elected at each election, it is because there is a reason: their program is zero, and even, negative. Prohibition, taxation, guilt, catastrophism, the promise of planetary destruction if we do not follow them, the denial of the benefits derived from solutions which, moreover, will always pollute more or less, the idea that ecology would be the only finality and would justify all the means whatever the price to pay, are their recurring speeches.
To this is added their dissent between factions which show that their egos take precedence over their cause, and their personal behavior, contrary to their discourse, underlines their lack of ethics. For proof, Mamère affirming that he came by bike to his meeting when we filmed him arriving by car, Hidalgo pronouncing the metro for the others when she uses the car, or Hulot tapping on our "frivolity" when he himself does family walks with a motor boat consuming up to 100l per hour. And it's not just about people.
In ecological matters, their achievements, their personal way of life, their behavior, are close to nothing. Even organic farming is not organic, given the number of chemicals authorized. Personally, I'm not against it, you have to be pragmatic and I still consider it progress. But while the ecologists admit it and say it: yes we can put copper hydroxide or crushed sulfur to grow organic food, yes chemistry is not necessarily useless, yes wandering in a boat is a pleasure and we are going to look for less polluting engines, yes the bicycle is not the palliative of the car ... in short that they are also pragmatic by putting water in their wine to be able to create concrete rather than lessons, sermons and obscurantism.
Ecology is a science, not a policy, it must simply be integrated into politics, it is one parameter among the others. I therefore expect from an ecologist as from anyone else a realistic, reasonable, moderate discourse, in phase with the realities of life in general, not only with those of their only hobby. But from their ranks I especially hear their tartuffes, their political manipulators, generally from the far left, their preachers and their fundamentalists.
Never thus will they win membership, and in addition they will develop in reaction an extremism opposed to theirs, which will be counterproductive for ecology.
This is why you do not have to say that we must consume less, like Hulot reproaching us for our frivolities, unless your message is indeed only political with an ideological concern anti-capitalist or anti-growth, and ecology a pretext .
Ecology is the preferred means to be able to consume according to your desires while minimizing the impact. If consuming less was the solution, then we wouldn't even need an ecologist or an ecologist, it's the same basic level as saying that by reducing the number of km traveled by car we reduce accidents!
).
