7 ms·

Bet : How long until this completely absurd measure shows its first detrimental unexpected side effect ? We french are really kings for disturbing markets beca

by bsaul 4y ago

Bet : How long until this completely absurd measure shows its first detrimental unexpected side effect ? We french are really kings for disturbing markets because of ideology. used to be socialism, now it’s eco-bullshit () () eco bullshit looks just like environmental activism, except it makes 0 environmental impact, is 100% about politics and can destroy economies in less than 10 years.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>We french are really kings for disturbing markets because of ideology. Sorry, but you've been massively overtaken by the Germans. Better luck next time.
- bsaul 4y ago
  Yes ! Absolutely, pardon my chauvinism. Germans have taken the crown on this topic. They’re on another scale.
  - SanjayMehta 4y ago
    Can anyone point a bemused me to any document which explains why Germany decided to shut down their nuclear power plants? I can't understand how wind and solar will provide power 24 hours day.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      TL;DR: clueless German anti-nuclear ideology following the Chernobyl disaster further pushing the industry to gas due to German corrupt leadership meeting Russian gas bribes which further pushed the anti-nuclear propaganda in Germany. "the gray building in the northeastern German city of Schwerin looks innocuous enough — and so does its tenant, the Foundation for the Protection of the Climate and Environment. Yet this regional foundation, created 23 months ago by the local state government, has done little for the climate. Instead, it served as a conduit for at least 165 million euros from the Kremlin-owned energy company Gazprom to build one of the world’s most contested gas pipelines: Nord Stream 2."[1] [1] https://archive.ph/UrygD#selection-633.0-637.297 https://archive.ph/UrygD#selection-633.0-637.297
    - wwqrd 4y ago
      They switched for coal.
pibechorro 4y ago
Top down dictates never work.. when will people learn?
helmholtz 4y ago
Your comment is high on inflamatory polemics but lacking in substance. If you'd listed _what_ side effects you do foresee, that would have been a much more interesting comment.
- bsaul 4y ago
  We've had numerous examples now of how pseudo-environmental policies destroyed economies and energy infrastructure in europe (germany becoming super dependant on gaz and coal, and france leaving its nuclear infrastructure to rust), with absolutely 0 effect on climate, (and 0 is a generous number, if anything those policies did worst for climate change than just doing nothin). I believe it is now time for citizen to ask a little more than just a "it's good for the environment" slogan, whenever state are starting to highly regulate and destroy parts of our economies. Such as serious scientific assessment on the real, numbered impact expected. Hint: it's not going to happen, because this airplane traffic obviously is totally negligible compared to the country CO2 emissions.
  - helmholtz 4y ago
    My man, you still haven't told me what this regulation is going to affect. What are the side effects? I'm not talking about energy infrastructure in Europe, nor am I interested in a wider discussion about 'eco-bullshit' or 'pseudo-environmental policies'. I'd just like to see your take on the unintended consequences of this policy that you are able to foresee. Furthermore, if the airplane traffic is indeed this negligible, then why does it even bother you in the first place? I'm a bit sensitive myself, and apologies if I sound harsh, but HN has a permanent anti-regulation erection and seems to attract know-nothings who love to argue that all regulation is bullshit and the free market will fix everything, every time an article on a government intervention or policy is posted. It drives me bananas.
    - bsaul 4y ago
      I don't understand why you keep asking. I'm saying i expected unanticipated side effects to happen. Just like anytime you disrupt a well established market ( like public transport in france), with arbitrary decisions based solely on politic games.
nraynaud 4y ago
You know staying the 6th GDP in the world with a smallish population and no natural resources, we’re doing not too bad. There was no natural markets there anyways, the airports are paid for by local taxpayers, only really big airports make money.
- bsaul 4y ago
  Well, then there's an easier way to shutdown this traffic, and let the market do its job : stop financing those airports with public money if they're not profitable. And let the ones that manage to actually create an effective business model survive. But that's not how we french like do it, because it sounds too much like "laisser faire". Politicians want to show that they've acted, they like to spend money and regulate, it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
thiht 4y ago
How is this "completely absurd"? Using the train instead of the plane if you can do it in less than 2h30 doesn't seem absurd to me. Honestly if I saw that I could go somewhere in 2h30, it would not even cross my mind to check plane transits. Like really, I would not even think of it. I think I would start considering the plane starting at maybe 4 hours transits.

by bsaul 4y ago

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>We french are really kings for disturbing markets because of ideology. Sorry, but you've been massively overtaken by the Germans. Better luck next time.

bsaul 4y ago
Yes ! Absolutely, pardon my chauvinism. Germans have taken the crown on this topic. They’re on another scale.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  Can anyone point a bemused me to any document which explains why Germany decided to shut down their nuclear power plants? I can't understand how wind and solar will provide power 24 hours day.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    TL;DR: clueless German anti-nuclear ideology following the Chernobyl disaster further pushing the industry to gas due to German corrupt leadership meeting Russian gas bribes which further pushed the anti-nuclear propaganda in Germany. "the gray building in the northeastern German city of Schwerin looks innocuous enough — and so does its tenant, the Foundation for the Protection of the Climate and Environment. Yet this regional foundation, created 23 months ago by the local state government, has done little for the climate. Instead, it served as a conduit for at least 165 million euros from the Kremlin-owned energy company Gazprom to build one of the world’s most contested gas pipelines: Nord Stream 2."[1] [1] https://archive.ph/UrygD#selection-633.0-637.297 https://archive.ph/UrygD#selection-633.0-637.297
  - wwqrd 4y ago
    They switched for coal.

pibechorro 4y ago

Top down dictates never work.. when will people learn?

helmholtz 4y ago

Your comment is high on inflamatory polemics but lacking in substance. If you'd listed _what_ side effects you do foresee, that would have been a much more interesting comment.

bsaul 4y ago
We've had numerous examples now of how pseudo-environmental policies destroyed economies and energy infrastructure in europe (germany becoming super dependant on gaz and coal, and france leaving its nuclear infrastructure to rust), with absolutely 0 effect on climate, (and 0 is a generous number, if anything those policies did worst for climate change than just doing nothin). I believe it is now time for citizen to ask a little more than just a "it's good for the environment" slogan, whenever state are starting to highly regulate and destroy parts of our economies. Such as serious scientific assessment on the real, numbered impact expected. Hint: it's not going to happen, because this airplane traffic obviously is totally negligible compared to the country CO2 emissions.
- helmholtz 4y ago
  My man, you still haven't told me what this regulation is going to affect. What are the side effects? I'm not talking about energy infrastructure in Europe, nor am I interested in a wider discussion about 'eco-bullshit' or 'pseudo-environmental policies'. I'd just like to see your take on the unintended consequences of this policy that you are able to foresee. Furthermore, if the airplane traffic is indeed this negligible, then why does it even bother you in the first place? I'm a bit sensitive myself, and apologies if I sound harsh, but HN has a permanent anti-regulation erection and seems to attract know-nothings who love to argue that all regulation is bullshit and the free market will fix everything, every time an article on a government intervention or policy is posted. It drives me bananas.
  - bsaul 4y ago
    I don't understand why you keep asking. I'm saying i expected unanticipated side effects to happen. Just like anytime you disrupt a well established market ( like public transport in france), with arbitrary decisions based solely on politic games.

nraynaud 4y ago

You know staying the 6th GDP in the world with a smallish population and no natural resources, we’re doing not too bad. There was no natural markets there anyways, the airports are paid for by local taxpayers, only really big airports make money.

bsaul 4y ago
Well, then there's an easier way to shutdown this traffic, and let the market do its job : stop financing those airports with public money if they're not profitable. And let the ones that manage to actually create an effective business model survive. But that's not how we french like do it, because it sounds too much like "laisser faire". Politicians want to show that they've acted, they like to spend money and regulate, it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

thiht 4y ago

How is this "completely absurd"? Using the train instead of the plane if you can do it in less than 2h30 doesn't seem absurd to me. Honestly if I saw that I could go somewhere in 2h30, it would not even cross my mind to check plane transits. Like really, I would not even think of it. I think I would start considering the plane starting at maybe 4 hours transits.