alternating traffic: against pollution or pump money?

[dede2002]

Dede2002, you wrote:

We see that Japan has gone from 54 reactors to zero reactors, while Ukraine still has 15.

mea culpa, I knew that a certain number of reactors had been put to sleep, I did not know or did not remember any more, that it was the case for the whole of the park.

However, if nuclear has become a sensitive subject there, that does not fundamentally change the Japanese objectives, modeled on the dominant model ...

Certainly, but the reaction to a specific threat was followed to the end of its logic.
This was obviously not the case in Paris, since the even experience did not even succeed (those who left their car parked one day got their "normal" traffic jams the next day) ...
Yet it is a “handy” way to reduce emissions by many% at once.

Regarding the instant replacement of the vehicle fleet in euro6, admitting that out of the 38 million cars in circulation 8 million are already euro6, that makes 30 million cars to manufacture, at 3 tonnes per tonne of scrap, 90 million tonnes of oil equivalent just for steel.
Roughly two years of consumption of said fleet, it would be better for the factories to be relocated ...

[chatelot16]

I am not convinced that modern diesel with particle filter is the right solution: it reduces the total amount of particles, but does not necessarily reduce the finest which are the most dangerous

anyway these modern cars are too expensive: to pay for them you would have to work more, so pollute more

there is no simple way to allow everyone to buy more modern cars right away: so no need to hope that the state imposes an impossible solution

on the other hand what is possible and which should be the normal work of the state, is to improve the use of the territory to reduce the need for transport: therefore build housing closer to the workplace ... or build place of work near place of accommodation

unfortunately for 40 years we have built housing without work, and industrial zones without housing

we built industrial zones far from housing for industry neither dangerous nor polluting, while we built multiple housing around some old and dangerous chemical factory like AZF

with a good occupation of the territory we could leave the car in the garage and only take it out for vacations!

so the technical progress of cars is a very small solution: the good organization of the territory is the main solution

there would be no need for authoritarian law to force an effective organization: it would be enough to suppress the harmful constraint opposite of what it is necessary: ​​currently the rules of town planning always prohibit to build housing in the industrial zones and always prohibited to work in buildings intended for housing

instead of encouraging the right solution, we continue to ban it!

[Did67]

Another profound difference with Germany, where some world "leaders" are companies located in the countryside ...

[well, they also have "industrial zones"]

[Ahmed]

Chatelot, you say:

... to pay them you would have to work more, therefore pollute more.

+10
As for a better organization of the territory, you are also entirely right ... except that waste is a source of GNP and that it is futile to expect from the rationality of a fundamentally irrational system.

[chatelot16]

if waste is the source of GNP it is that the GNP is miscalculated ... or that the GNP is a stupid crier that means nothing ... a shadock criterion that sucks anything!

sorry for members who have a shadock as an avatar!

[Ahmed]

GNP does not measure anything!
It accounts for the intensity of trade or, if one prefers (sic!) That of waste.

[Did67]

except that waste is a source of GNP ...

More generally, consumption!

Only part of the consumption is "useful", since part of it is simply addictive and supposed to fill a "void" (why change a device that still works for a "more modern", if not that advertising to believe that without it there is nothing; and that it works!]

[Ahmed]

And a large part of "useful" consumption is only useful in relation to something unnecessary: ​​the traffic on the ring road that concerns us here is a good example.

More generally, consumption!

No, the GNP is interested in the whole life of the commodity, it takes into account both the work of production, dissemination and that of consumption: the fetish of value extends its hold over all actors .

[Did67]

Yes, yes, GNP is the sum of the values ​​of goods and services ...

This is not what I wanted to emphasize or do as a contribution ...

I was responding to the notion of "waste" ...

And think that this term of "waste", in its "ordinary" sense is too simplistic to designate "destruction useless of values. ”Much of what is commonly called“ consumption ”can also be classified as“ waste ”: for example, the replacement of perfectly functional objects, just because the ad makes us believe that it is outdated. ..

Economists classify this in consumption.

And a good part of the "economic growth", desired for the "revival", is nothing else!

And indeed, the cars that stagnate in traffic jams consume petrol that counts in the GNP ...

Like the patients we treat in the hospital: brown-hairs, cancers, infarction ...

In short, the more we pollute, the more we go around in circles and the better our GNP will be!

This is what I wanted to emphasize.

[Ahmed]

I understood your message; the ambiguity, which is difficult to avoid, comes precisely from the fact that "the destruction useless of values ​​"contributes to the creation of value ...