How to consume less and save?

[GuyGadebois]

......

Always the same answer: "Let’s do nothing, we cannot regulate (otherwise it’s communism), let’s continue like this because that’s how man is, but let’s lower purchasing power, impoverish everything the world (a poor man does not spoil) ".
More silly and smelly as a program, you die!

[sen-no-sen]

Let us suppose a kind of new night of August 4 in France where all the rich would decide on the abolition of inequalities, the sharing of all wealth among all ...
Would that reduce consumption, overconsumption? I do not think so.

The distribution of wealth so dear to anti-capitalists would in fact have no positive ecological effect, in reality it would even be a fantastic way to relaunch (very) temporarily growth with the consequences that we know on the biosphere. moreover indirectly posed with universal income.

Waste is the natural child of purchasing power.

Waste is the offshoot of societies with high energy dissipation power.
The coming energy contraction will quickly lead us to a better use of resources.

[GuyGadebois]

The coming energy contraction will quickly lead us to a better use of resources.

There will be no energy contraction in the next 100 years, on the contrary, we are constantly finding new sources of energy, new technologies allowing us to use them. As for oil, we will still have it for centuries (perhaps not at this rate of consumption) because we are constantly discovering new deposits and increasing hydraulic fracturing. This could be proven (the energy contraction) only through political decisions and not by an alleged shortage which is only a delusion, a source of speculation and growth.

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

The distribution of wealth so dear to anti-capitalists ...

In this case, the term altercapitalists should be preferred, since a consistent anticapitalist cannot wish for the distribution of this category * specific to this system.
* That is to say according to its specific criteria for defining "wealth" ...

Further:

Waste is the offshoot of societies with high energy dissipation power.

Certainly, but this sentence constitutes a tautology; furthermore, the term "waste" is a misrepresentation which is therefore misleading. Capitalism (whether private or state-owned) has been shown to be the most effective at present at dissipating energy, in the sense that the productivity gains that result from competition constantly decrease the abstract value per unit of product. , which imply ever increasing quantities produced. There is therefore no waste (no more than "pollution") strictly speaking, intrinsically to systemic functioning.

[sen-no-sen]

There will be no energy contraction in the next 100 years, on the contrary, we are constantly finding new sources of energy, new technologies allowing us to use them. As for oil, we'll still have it for centuries (perhaps not at this rate of consumption) because we are constantly discovering new deposits and increasing hydraulic fracturing. This could be proven (the energy contraction) only by political decisions and not by a supposed shortage which is only a delusion, a source of speculation and growth.

And what makes it possible to affirm with such certainty this kind of information?

In this case, the term altercapitalists should be preferred, since a consistent anticapitalist cannot wish for the distribution of this category * specific to this system.
* That is to say according to its specific criteria for defining "wealth" ...

By definition "anticapitalism" is a product of reaction to capitalism, a phenomenon of rejection inherent in it.
There is therefore nothing to expect from this kind of movement, which only simulates protest within a performing society.
We are always helpless anti-capitalist (or "green"), that is to say that those who really opt for a sober way of life by freeing themselves from the system do not care about this kind of ideological considerations.

There is therefore no waste (no more than "pollution") strictly speaking, intrinsically to systemic functioning.

From a systemic point of view, effectively but humanly speaking, one cannot deny the uneconomical character of individuals in the face of false abundance.

[GuyGadebois]

There will be no energy contraction in the next 100 years, on the contrary, we are constantly finding new sources of energy, new technologies allowing us to use them. As for oil, we'll still have it for centuries (perhaps not at this rate of consumption) because we are constantly discovering new deposits and increasing hydraulic fracturing. This could be proven (the energy contraction) only by political decisions and not by a supposed shortage which is only a delusion, a source of speculation and growth.

And what makes it possible to affirm with such certainty this kind of information?

Observation, feeling, common sense, reality.
https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribu ... 79913.html

[sen-no-sen]

Observation, feeling, common sense, reality.

Yes or quick search on the internet ....

The article you have linked is not very objective, it is a strictly economic analysis.
To announce an end of petroleum for the next century consists in creating a confusion between petroleum theoretically present on earth and economically and technologically exploitable petroleum.
The nuance is size.
In addition it is noted that:An absolute record and a figure up 9% compared to 2008 when the peak oil theory was making the headlines.
Here the author confuses scientific theory and belief, the conventional peak oil has been reached, it's official (IEA), over the period 2006/2008, this is not a hypothesis as it seems understood in Article.

In the 1'42 "video the speaker shows a graph of proven oil reserves by extrapolating 48 years of reserves to come. This kind of reasoning has no value, you never exploit a resource to the last drop .
The oil fields considered to be exhausted still contain a large quantity of oil, but it is far too energy-consuming to exploit them, technical innovation or not.

A more serious article on the subject:

Oil peak likely * by 2025, according to the International Energy Agency
To prevent a decline in world oil production by 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announces that it will be necessary to multiply by 2 or 3 the extraction of shale oil. However in the United States, shale oil continues to lose money…

The consequences of the supply crunch envisaged by the IEA promise to be particularly harsh for Europe. Waking up?

https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/petrole/2019/02/04/pic-petrolier-probable-dici-a-2025-selon-lagence-internationale-de-lenergie/

Note that past predictions were consistent with observations.

*: That is to say "peak all oil"

[GuyGadebois]

Ah when it comes to believing what suits you, you're fortunate! It is counting without disinformation, blackmail (it works for unemployment), real / false shortages and wars, speculation, the stranglehold of large groups, widespread corruption and complicity of states. All this circus is pure pipeau.

[sen-no-sen]

It is counting without disinformation, blackmail (it works for unemployment), real / false shortages and wars, speculation, the stranglehold of large groups, widespread corruption and complicity of states. All this circus is pure pipeau.

No, the pipe is to make believe that we are going to be able to still consume a maximum of oil to always make more growth.
Note that the current doxa leans in your favor ...

[GuyGadebois]

It is counting without disinformation, blackmail (it works for unemployment), real / false shortages and wars, speculation, the stranglehold of large groups, widespread corruption and complicity of states. All this circus is pure pipeau.

No, the pipe is to make believe that we are going to be able to still consume a maximum of oil to always make more growth.

You say it, not me. I am simply saying that there is no shortage of oil, that there never has been, and that it is not about to happen. The best proof is that unlike ANY product that is becoming scarce, the price of oil is only falling * (by the barrel, not at the pump) ...

* Must well (among other reasons) suffocate Poutine and Maduro to have the free cubits.