I agree that the electrons are not "marked" and that is what I was saying.
Leave the property. Okay, although there is something to say about this word .... but here it is not a question of ownership but of service.
Now what are we paying for? a service right? or a development of so-called renewable energy?
the 1st: a service: as you say it is better not to look at the property because already it has nothing to do and on the other hand we meet there is no proof of "green" energy arriving at us.
enercoop you say that he militates for a reduction of consumption, what they do, but you used the right word: to militate and for that there is other association and movement which militates for that: then why pay more expensive (even if I know very well that the KW is cheaper than expected;)) is better to give your money to other movements which also militate for that, because it is not those who will go to enercoop who are to convince them are already.
when I speak of social: I simply say thatercoop is linked to the French administrative system and that we do not find the advantages of the latter other aid ... you can consider that it is not social (and actually I could join you), but today and now, for a lot of people and I was part of it, it’s good when you are on the top of the dips at the level of money to be able to get your nose out of the shit (even if you stay in it).
You talk about social to lower the price of those who consume little I would be "for" if we all had the same ability to reduce our consumption, which is not the case. When you are a tenant, you do not choose your energy to heat yourself and even less the quality of your insulation (I would also like to remind you that the mandatory thermal balance did not lower the price of certain accommodation, but increase those who were better), you take what we offer you because your situation means that you cannot claim more ... if you want to decrease and be more autonomous, this forces you to leave the current habitats which means that you cannot will not go through enercoop or even EDF, limit you will have the dogs of the service of the Ministry of the Interior to your ass or those of the municipality.
So this choice is limited to the owner, unless it already exacerbates the current problem of a lot of tenant, who does not heat up and who is in a damp housing and harmful to their lives.
So social can be for the employees of the box then that would be understandable.
so for me enercoop is not a solution because precisely as biocoop and also the nave too linked to the system and for me it is a fundamental problem, and that on an individual point of view the common goods: water, electricity air, there is a limit and that only a whole and deep movement for a change of the system can make things happen.
Because after lowering its electricity and water consumption there are no other solutions: even looking at the self production of electricity or water recovery this at a significant cost for the environment if these acts were to be multiply by the number of inhabitants: only the common can be interesting (of course by reviewing the current statism and the centralization of its common goods).
This is why enercoop is far from being a real solution for me.
For the rest, I notice that Biocoop and the nave have changed a lot, that's why I take tweezers with cooperatives with a national brand, this does not jeopardize cooperation but only, the fact that it is obvious that 'at a time people who get into it become disinterested in the future (either because of other things to manage, or out of habit of current consumption or we go somewhere and then we don't care) who lead who rightly lead ...
I think that cooperation must be in large numbers and small.
Because what will happen is gradually an energy oligarchy as before:
http://www.france.attac.org/spip.php?article1839 .
It would be good in my humble opinion to change instead of redoing what has already been done because it is on, as the NEF wants to be soon the European bank of ethics or whatever, tomorrow there will be l '' teaches nuclear, hydroelectric and nuclear, renewable, wind and nuclear with a mixture of made in germany (which is not a concern yet for neighboring towns) or made in Spain.
And to finish I specify that I do not reproach anything in enercoop as such but that it would be good to verify the choice, when in reality I think that these are false choices.
The positive point of Enercoop, the nave and Biocoop is to prove that cooperation, at least at the start, is really interesting.
hoping to have been clearer.
;-)