Hulot, Minister at 100 Liters on time?

[perplex]

An oversized ego, and a charisma close to none.

I think the opposite ... a guy who takes off from Machu Pichu with 46 kg of gear on the back, a sail of 90 years and an aerology of shit imposes respect and therefore the charisma ...

I think you will never have 1 gossip of his charisma ... or so you have to prove it.

But we know that you are part of selfish venals ...

Say that a guy has charisma because he jumps from Machu Pichu with 46 k, we are close to anything, close to the oyster charisma version ...


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisme_(psychologie)


it's been more than twenty years that we carry around "the pilot of the extreme" in tf1 version .... the greens, holland, and now macron, stop it's good like that ....

Rather ask Michel Drucker same origin "TV circuit", (helicopter pilot) but with much more charisma the boy ...

A ++

[Ahmed]

In the letters from the readers of "Reporterre", I note this humor:

Nicolas Hulot: first case of biodegradable minister. It disappeared on its own without having had any impact on the environment.
Aurélie

[Did67]

Superb (albeit slightly exaggerated - but it is characteristic of humor) !!!

[Christophe]

Hulot dared to accuse the capitalist system ... but only 1/2 words away ... not à la Mélenchon therefore ...



Article in the same subject: https://www.econologie.com/croissance-p ... n-energie/

[Ahmed]

The content of this video is obscure, the faulty chopped editing and other style effects ...
Is Hulot would have been wrong, according to the presenter, or not? In the first case, it would not be "liberal capitalism" which would be guilty, but "the functioning of our societies", which is to speak to say nothing ...

What about Mélenchon, he is content to advocate a popular capitalism, which does not make sense but brings back voices: the privilege for all is a unifying slogan if not to be coherent ...

* Whether liberal or not does not change much the reality of capitalism in terms of its impact on the biosphere ...

[Remundo]

"capitalism" is already difficult to define, but let's say that capitalism is a financial extractivism.

So the fault of capitalism? Capitalism is only a reflection of basic human behavior: the human being is a short-term extractor of goods and services in order to improve his comfort of life as quickly as possible. What sets it apart from animals is its intelligence that led it to be the first species on the planet capable of having global and measurable impacts.

The whole of humanity does nothing else, and will never be anything other than a few billion extractivist souls in search of "immediate happiness". We therefore have the choice between making an energy transition and living fairly decently, or continuing to waste our hydrocarbons and returning to a standard of living similar to the 1900s.

I will even be provoked to think that it is capitalism that could ultimately turn the tide and finally move towards renewable energies when fossils will no longer have enough profitability for extraction; but the danger is indeed of delaying this deadline too much and of compromising the transition, not to mention the climatic effects which are already a legacy.

In addition, I invite you, for those who do not know, to read my little synthetic post on energy slaves well exposed by Jancovici.

[Did67]

At the moment, on FRance2, ends a "13:15 pm Sunday" which had turned when he became minister, and which puts in perspective the event of these last days ... I think there is a "replay".

[Ahmed]

Remundo, the criticism I wanted to make of your message is included in this one!
Indeed, you write this:

capitalism is an extractivism for financial purposes.

Then this:

..the human being is a short-term extractor of goods and services in order to improve his comfort of life as quickly as possible.

There is therefore a contradiction between the first statement, which is very relevant, and the second, which in no way implies the stage of capitalism. From Greek antiquity, Aristotle castigated the taste for lavish spending and the pomp of the most opulent.

[Remundo]

in a society that has become market and monetized, the two statements are on the contrary quite compatible.

money and the market are only an extension of the need for more comfort and faster, which led humans to develop trade and money to accelerate trade, which gave such importance to money, and also to the extraction of goods and services initially provided by Nature *, the two go hand in hand.

* even if what are called workers ** transform raw materials into very different products.

** Nowadays, moreover, there are many more "mechanical slave" workers than human workers.

[Did67]

We always come up against a clear - and shared - definition of the word "capitalism".

When, in an African village, during a small famine, the small merchant of the village, who was able to accumulate a stock of millet, distributes it "on credit" - but the term is usurped - to the villagers, and recovers these "advances "with a 50% or even 100% margin [we are talking about wear] during the following season, is he" capitalist "or not ??? No monetary exchange, but a bond of domination through the possession of a commodity that has become vital ... No doubt also "acquired advantages" - he still has reserves because these previous activities have enabled him to accumulate them. ..

It is in this sense that I think, but one will quibble me on the words, that the "capitalism" is consubstantial with the exchanges and finds its roots in the barter (what I described elsewhere by the image of the fisherman of trout smarter than its neighbor the wild boar - or vice versa).

"Abstract" or "philosophical" capitalism, I have no control. Not cultivated enough. Not enough philosopher or too down-to-earth. For me, capitalism is like God or religions, a creation of men. And it is "because of capitalism" becomes "it is because of men". Without having the naivety to put the poor and the wealthy in the same bag! What I mean, in the example above I'm not at all sure that the poor borrowing to survive would do any differently if he was the one with inventory! Therefore, it is part of the system, it works. Unfortunately for him he is on the wrong side. Or has the wrong role.