State of mind for a viable future

[Obamot]

Indeed, when their vision of a salt is only table salt (NaCl), we can understand and excuse that some tell only bullshit.

yes obviously if Guytou and Obamot thought since the beginning that we used cooking salt, that explains some quiproqos ...

... you're delaying!

...as usual

[eclectron]

On the "green" currency by Alain Grandjean.
A little painful to listen to in diction (from my point of view), his book is undoubtedly interesting.

Although free from material constraints, monetary policy has unfortunately not yet freed itself from the dogmas which restrict it. However, history has repeatedly shown that monetary mechanisms can be used in a targeted and effective way to respond to the great challenges of the moment. The climate is one.

Alain Grandjean, economist, President of the Nicolas Hulot Foundation and founding partner of Carbone 4 presents his new book "Ecological currency", as part of the Shift Workshops of June 9, 2020.

A currency is quite possible in a sustainable world / economy.
"right to" or "money" is the same.
The concern is to want or demand that his money pays. (It's capitalism ...)
This requires material growth to meet this requirement of financial gain.
It is this requirement, this desire, which is incompatible with a finite planet.
It is this requirement which has the perverse effect of the fall in value, dear to Ahmed.
-> Increased productivity gains, to lower production costs and gain market share compared to others, all this to sell and acquire money, phew!
We end up with goods, certainly not expensive, but not very durable, which is absolutely not economical with resources, including energy. ((it's always capitalism ...)

[Obamot]

Do not 'mix' a few points:
- monetary creation.
- monetary creation according to the “money / debt” indicator
- the “right to” => RMI / RU
- the speculation.
- capitalism.

And besides if there are rights, there are also duties ... Which ones?
Another point that I wanted to address then besides: taxation ... how do you see it in your model?

[sicetaitsimple]

Specially designed for efficient solar power plants

cerebos.jpg (5.7 KB) Viewed 1080 times

Recommended by Obamot & Guygadebois Solar Consulting Ltd

[Obamot]

73504806-1238-4BEB-B860-76E1672B3C92.gif (1.48 MiB) Viewed 1077 times

[eclectron]

So much for some modest leads! I have to go water the garden ... there ...

No urgency to answer me, we have time.
The torpedoing no longer appears to me, so I don't see what you're talking about.

1) We have to see if we take an economic point of view or an environmental point of view exclusively ...
=> I think it is a little offensive to talk about the environment and put in the balance a thorium power station, mebon ... Putin would do it for Russia if he could ... so let's go. (no, I'm kidding ...)

The idea is simply to try not to go down in comfort for an average European and that this comfort is sustainable, that is to say sustainable by nature.
My opinions evolve over personal experiences, exchanges (sometimes confrontations ) and general information.
Possible that going down in comfort of life is not so dramatic (decrease) but it is a little scary. Where will this drop in comfort end?
With ABC, it's the dried mud hut and the day in the fields, it doesn't worry him. Me a little bit…
According to him, no need to fight to find a better compromise, the path is set
It is certain, he will probably no longer be there to see / live it.
I think it's worth finding solutions for a better compromise.
Thorium is an option, it's not as bad as current nuclear… .but it's not great.

2) it turns out that the growth of which you speak, was launched as much for questions of extreme optimization as for “neutralizing countries which would have dictatorial inclinations”, because the capitalist system would be very demanding for the autocrats (I read a paper well woven on this subject ...) it is not useless, whatever the country, to remember that this growth is done on the back ... of nature! So for nuclear it is new again since there are alternatives ....

Yes, we can probably find lots of reasons for growth. The first is the desire for comfort in each of us, when we know that it exists and that it is possible.
Many tribes cut off from the world aspired to nothing in terms of comfort, as long as they were cut off from the rest of the world.
The driving force is desire, envy, in each of us.
Then you have to know how to be reasonable (so not a liberal ), be limited by law or by a new self-limiting system in place ("rights a", sustainable identifiable recyclable), so that the economy is sustainable.
Sustainable, which can be defined as: without damage to nature, which risks collapsing everything. It absolutely does not mean that everything is frozen in time, including progress.
Progress would be reasoned, channeled like a fiery horse, by direct democracy.

4) But this emancipation could not take place in autarky.,. (from my point of view) there are laws, so fundamental reforms are needed! Based on fundamental reflections ... and then it would be stupid to proclaim: “all together ... all together... ”if it is to live alone in a corner!

. Alone in its own right, individual desertion would only be the time that the desertion of economic war faced the scale of a significant community, or even of a country.
It's a bet .....

After we could bring in notions like seeing what interactions could have the measures taken, there are often side effects (I took the Chinese example above and its policy, which as Guy says is already in economic war) ... which proves that it is already hot boiling.

A community, a country inscribed in the sustainable would be relatively autonomous in everything, therefore would be a relative deserter from the economic war. China would have no hold except to send the real army.

But there is also the USA which has been doing this for more than half a century ...! and who do not want to lose their leadership at any cost (even if this is de facto the case) ...

Yes, but opposite, with the sustainable, it is no longer playing your game, do what you want.
If the example of sustainability is attractive, the American population will not hesitate to change.

So in there you can find elements that match what I said, and we discover that renewable energies are not only questions of technology but above all geopolitics!

Yes, I understand what you mean. It allows a community / country to desert the imposed economic war. We don't play anymore, or less.
The Putin in me says that the stock of Thorium, at the national level, we already have, it's tempting ...

We could also talk about wood and forests, there are a lot of things to do, jobs to maintain and develop them ... neglected today ... it is THE biggest deposit in the making (habitat, energy , objects, recycling, carbon storage, it's a whole world in itself possible ...)

I admit not knowing ... Intuitively I will try to enrich the forests (bodies of water, fruits, edible plants or not), so that wild life develops and that it can possibly serve as a pantry if necessary but above all not systematic exploitation. A little wood no doubt, but really reasonable ...
There is already a lot of buildings deserted and to rehabilitate in the countryside, I think that we can limit new construction, therefore growth.

[Obamot]

I don't see what “loss of comfort” you're talking about ??
Today we have everything we need for a 100% renewable energy “comfortable” world:
- Passive (and even energy-producing) houses with “sustainable” insulation. Old buildings that you can “passivate” Those that you can't, wood heating with mass stove ...
- Thermodynamic and photovoltaic solar (up to 48% efficiency ...), geothermal energy. Biofuels ...
- Energy storage is solved in many ways ...
- Graphics tablets replace computers, Li-ion batteries will make way for Na-ion, graphene ...
- transport with electric bikes or not ... Electric cars ... And soon electric drones with 1 passenger ...

Honestly there's all the comfort you need, just want it, political decisions ...

For civics, I feared that ... until confinement ... there it would not be impossible ... But we must reach a critical mass which makes politicians waver ... Who would then fear for their re-election ... It's not tomorrow.

For the Americans, they are too stupid, as long as the energy is at low cost ... and vogue the galley ... It is what there is detestable at home!

For the rest, everything is debatable but words are not acts ...

[eclectron]

And besides if there are rights, there are also duties ... Which ones?

On this point I would be quite liberal , everyone participates in activity up to what they think is right.
But that remains to be discussed.

Another point that I wanted to address then besides: taxation ... how do you see it in your model?

with the "rights a", there is no taxation.
Joint projects are made according to the resources available or not, sustainable or not.

[ABC2019]

With ABC, it's the dried mud hut and the day in the fields, it doesn't worry him. Me a little bit…
According to him, no need to fight to find a better compromise, the path is set
It is certain, he will probably no longer be there to see / live it.
I think it's worth finding solutions for a better compromise.
Thorium is an option, it's not as bad as current nuclear… .but it's not great.

uh ... i never said that it was not a problem, for months that i explain, i have the impression that you are all the time spent next to what i said! I just said that there was no example of a company that was industrial enough to allow itself to build power plants (not just thorium) without massively using fossils, that's all.

I did not say that to do without it would not pose a problem, it is even quite the opposite: I think that the disappearance of the fossils will be the biggest problem that will have to face humanity in all its existence (seen at what height they brought it, the fall will be the most brutal ever known in its history!)

And it is precisely the attachment that you express to the Western way of life that will make its disappearance very painful.

[ABC2019]

with the "rights a", there is no taxation.
Joint projects are made according to the resources available or not, sustainable or not.

if you do not have an arbitration mechanism (which is currently provided by money, including public money), you have no way of deciding how you distribute the work, unless you impose, as with the Incas , working days in the service of the community, but we are in agricultural societies operating on very different principles.
You see in money only financial speculation, when its main role is not that one, but that of materializing rights and duties of production and consumption, knowing that we can only consume what is product, and therefore producers must be motivated by giving them consumption rights ... which is called money.