4 ms·

I've become convinced that decisive action will never be taken as long as it requires a decrease in the standard of living (that is, less energy use). I am out

I've become convinced that decisive action will never be taken as long as it requires a decrease in the standard of living (that is, less energy use). I am out of ideas for how to convince the world to drastically draw down our fossil fuel use. Everything has been tried. It has become a cliche that our problems cannot be solved by technology alone, but this one really may be up to technology alone. Human nature is not going to change.

Diederich 9y ago
Our nature can change at evolutionary time scales. Our ability to 'do things' used to be so limited, but is now growing quickly. The gap between our nature and our ability to change the environment around us is, I think, the root of many of our problems.
Winterflow3r 9y ago
It seems we already have a large chunk of the tech as well (nuclear, wind, solar, biomass etc), but still seem to stick with fossil fuels for reasons of convenience(?).
- bryananderson 9y ago
  No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. This is what I was alluding to about technology. If we can make clean energy significantly cheaper to use at scale than fossil fuels, then the world will use it. More realistically, we need to make it cheaper to build new renewables than to keep using existing fossil fuel sources.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    >No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. So why aren't we using nuclear?
    - graeme 9y ago
      People got afraid of it and replaced it with fossil fuels. Near term visible risk vs. long run invisible risk. Also, cost overruns and regulatory issues played a role I think. We could conceivably swap out carbon for nuclear though. Just not carbon for [more expensive energy source]. People get antsy even when economic growth slows. A drop in the standard of living is political suicide. I don't think we're very well psychologically equipped to deal with this.
      - bryananderson 9y ago
        That and the expense of initially building nuclear energy facilities. Even though it's cheaper once it's built, the initial capital cost can be daunting.
        StillBored 9y ago
        A large part of the capital costs is satisfying all the environmental studies and inevitable lawsuits. The core technology is pretty cheap (concrete and pumps). Nuclear power is literally orders of magnitude cleaner/safer than anything else, and yet the fear mongering continues and the idealistic environmentalists are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere with every NG turbine installed to backup the wind/solar plants. Just the other day I heard a talking head repeatedly referring to "the old dirty coal and nuke plants".
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. This makes 2 assumptions which I find to be false. 1) Any drop in the standard of living is bad. e.g. I don't need to be freezing in a store in the middle of summer. 2) Less energy use necessitates a drop in the standard of living. e.g. using energy more efficiently via lights and insulation.
    - bryananderson 9y ago
      1) I agree, but most of the population does not agree and will vote accordingly. This isn't about what's rational - taking a hit to our standard of living to stave off catastrophe is definitely rational. This is about what the masses will support and vote for. 2) Efficiency gains can help, but shaving off some excess here and there will not prevent a climate catastrophe. It will take drastically less fossil fuel use. I don't see that happening unless technology makes renewables cheaper than fossils. It's hard, but it's possible.
  - crispinb 9y ago
    Anything can be made to seem superficially 'cheap' if corruption is used to enforce subsidies on populations. Fossil fuels are only 'cheaper' because governments have become irredeemably corrupted by fossil fuel interests, so none have to face public liabilities for the damage caused by their products. The apparent 'cheapness' is a consequence only of fraudulent accounting. This is a specific case of the more general 'Pollution Paradox', viz. "The more polluting a company is, the more money it must spend on politics to ensure it is not regulated out of existence" (George Monbiot).
    - refurb 9y ago
      No, fossil fuels really are cheaper than competing energy sources. No corruption needed!
      - crispinb 9y ago
        You think they are cheaper when the actual physical consequences of CO2 emissions are priced in? No-one else does, including the fossil fuel companies. They haven't invested the vast sums they have into lobbying and science-interference out of charitable inclinations towards lobbyists, amateurish scientists and think-tank careerists.
atomi 9y ago
There's a great Documentary[1] about the recent mass Coral Reef bleaching too. Our leaders who do nothing about this and those of us who elect them are screwing up royally. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6fHA9R2cKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6fHA9R2cKI
omegaworks 9y ago
It will take focused, continual political will to invest some of our vast stores of capital in technologies that preserve our standard of living yet have a smaller carbon footprint. Elon Musk and co are proving that we can build luxury and eco-friendly at scale. Entrenched, monied, existing political ties to fossil fuel and extraction industries still exert control. I'm not willing to take the position there's nothing we can do until we've fully shaken them off the backs of our political system.
- bryananderson 9y ago
  Do you see the population clamoring to reduce fossil fuel use, only to be stymied by lobbyists? I don't. I don't see the people clamoring at all. I agree completely that tech investment is a much easier political sell than reducing the standard of living.
  - omegaworks 9y ago
    Just because you don't see people doing it now doesn't make it impossible. People passively use fossil fuels because they are the norm. It will take investment from both our government, from private industry, and from grassroots activists pressuring both to make the norm clean and sustainable.
    - bryananderson 9y ago
      Scientists, celebrities, activists, and politicians have been screaming at the public for decades about this. They have used logical and emotional appeals. They have appealed to data, to our common humanity, to our long-term prosperity, to our duty to our children. None of it has worked. What exactly do you propose? The "norm" is whatever is cheapest. That is what we have to do: make renewables cheapest.
      - omegaworks 9y ago
        I think we're talking about the same things. I'm just trying to make the case for how we should make renewables cheaper. The existing non-renewable oil & gas norm historically depended upon heavy investments in infrastructure: 1. Interstate expressway system 2. Oil and gas pipelines 3. Fracking R&D 3. Direct tax subsidization of private refining and exploration. We need that level of effort applied to renewables development.
Recurecur 9y ago
My stance is that if society has decided it's serious about CO2, it is necessary to put a whole lot more effort into next-gen nuclear than has been done so far. Even so, small companies like ThorCon, Terrestrial Energy and others are making good progress. The next step is a plan for a major, worldwide rollout of (mostly modular) nuclear reactors. That avoids the issue of a possible decrease in the standard of living, and provides an affordable mechanism that doesn't involve coal for India, Indonesia and other countries that need to build out their electric grid. Lots of good info here: http://thorconpower.com/news http://thorconpower.com/news Video from ThorCon CEO making his case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xjQWBw7i0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xjQWBw7i0&feature=youtu.be
- fencepost 9y ago
  One of the problems with thorium nuclear reactors is that they seem to be a perpetual "10 years" thing, and even with a huge increase in development funding we're probably 20+ years from viable commercial builds - and a lot further from getting a significant percentage of energy from them. By the time that can happen we're likely to see huge changes in renewables and even bigger changes in energy storage and usage efficiency. Thorium may end up as a good viable option eventually, but I suspect that it'll probably never be more than a niche option for as long as most of us are likely to be alive. Oh, and that 20 years? "Hi regulatory body, we'd like approval to build a brand new type of nuclear reactor in your state, close enough to a major population center for transmission losses to not be too high. What do we need to do to make that happen?"... And that's before you get to the billion+ of construction costs even if the new reactors only cost 10% of current designs.
- StillBored 9y ago
  Why wait for next gen nuclear? I will eat my words if in a few days South Texas Nuclear generating station melts down (because its being hit by a category 4 hurricane as I type this).. But right now the technology we _HAVE_ is sufficiently safe.
  - flgb 9y ago
    But not sufficiently cheap, compared to alternatives.
ams6110 9y ago
I think you're right. Assuming everything we think we know about carbon, methane, and global warming is true, we're sunk. And there's nothing we can do about it. The party's been great.
quakeguy 9y ago
You cannot solve social problems with a technical approach.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  You can sometimes solve social problems with a technical approach.

Diederich 9y ago

Our nature can change at evolutionary time scales. Our ability to 'do things' used to be so limited, but is now growing quickly. The gap between our nature and our ability to change the environment around us is, I think, the root of many of our problems.

Winterflow3r 9y ago

It seems we already have a large chunk of the tech as well (nuclear, wind, solar, biomass etc), but still seem to stick with fossil fuels for reasons of convenience(?).

bryananderson 9y ago
No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. This is what I was alluding to about technology. If we can make clean energy significantly cheaper to use at scale than fossil fuels, then the world will use it. More realistically, we need to make it cheaper to build new renewables than to keep using existing fossil fuel sources.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. So why aren't we using nuclear?
  - graeme 9y ago
    People got afraid of it and replaced it with fossil fuels. Near term visible risk vs. long run invisible risk. Also, cost overruns and regulatory issues played a role I think. We could conceivably swap out carbon for nuclear though. Just not carbon for [more expensive energy source]. People get antsy even when economic growth slows. A drop in the standard of living is political suicide. I don't think we're very well psychologically equipped to deal with this.
    - bryananderson 9y ago
      That and the expense of initially building nuclear energy facilities. Even though it's cheaper once it's built, the initial capital cost can be daunting.
      - StillBored 9y ago
        A large part of the capital costs is satisfying all the environmental studies and inevitable lawsuits. The core technology is pretty cheap (concrete and pumps). Nuclear power is literally orders of magnitude cleaner/safer than anything else, and yet the fear mongering continues and the idealistic environmentalists are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere with every NG turbine installed to backup the wind/solar plants. Just the other day I heard a talking head repeatedly referring to "the old dirty coal and nuke plants".
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. This makes 2 assumptions which I find to be false. 1) Any drop in the standard of living is bad. e.g. I don't need to be freezing in a store in the middle of summer. 2) Less energy use necessitates a drop in the standard of living. e.g. using energy more efficiently via lights and insulation.
  - bryananderson 9y ago
    1) I agree, but most of the population does not agree and will vote accordingly. This isn't about what's rational - taking a hit to our standard of living to stave off catastrophe is definitely rational. This is about what the masses will support and vote for. 2) Efficiency gains can help, but shaving off some excess here and there will not prevent a climate catastrophe. It will take drastically less fossil fuel use. I don't see that happening unless technology makes renewables cheaper than fossils. It's hard, but it's possible.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Anything can be made to seem superficially 'cheap' if corruption is used to enforce subsidies on populations. Fossil fuels are only 'cheaper' because governments have become irredeemably corrupted by fossil fuel interests, so none have to face public liabilities for the damage caused by their products. The apparent 'cheapness' is a consequence only of fraudulent accounting. This is a specific case of the more general 'Pollution Paradox', viz. "The more polluting a company is, the more money it must spend on politics to ensure it is not regulated out of existence" (George Monbiot).
  - refurb 9y ago
    No, fossil fuels really are cheaper than competing energy sources. No corruption needed!
    - crispinb 9y ago
      You think they are cheaper when the actual physical consequences of CO2 emissions are priced in? No-one else does, including the fossil fuel companies. They haven't invested the vast sums they have into lobbying and science-interference out of charitable inclinations towards lobbyists, amateurish scientists and think-tank careerists.

atomi 9y ago

There's a great Documentary[1] about the recent mass Coral Reef bleaching too. Our leaders who do nothing about this and those of us who elect them are screwing up royally. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6fHA9R2cKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6fHA9R2cKI

omegaworks 9y ago

It will take focused, continual political will to invest some of our vast stores of capital in technologies that preserve our standard of living yet have a smaller carbon footprint. Elon Musk and co are proving that we can build luxury and eco-friendly at scale. Entrenched, monied, existing political ties to fossil fuel and extraction industries still exert control. I'm not willing to take the position there's nothing we can do until we've fully shaken them off the backs of our political system.

bryananderson 9y ago
Do you see the population clamoring to reduce fossil fuel use, only to be stymied by lobbyists? I don't. I don't see the people clamoring at all. I agree completely that tech investment is a much easier political sell than reducing the standard of living.
- omegaworks 9y ago
  Just because you don't see people doing it now doesn't make it impossible. People passively use fossil fuels because they are the norm. It will take investment from both our government, from private industry, and from grassroots activists pressuring both to make the norm clean and sustainable.
  - bryananderson 9y ago
    Scientists, celebrities, activists, and politicians have been screaming at the public for decades about this. They have used logical and emotional appeals. They have appealed to data, to our common humanity, to our long-term prosperity, to our duty to our children. None of it has worked. What exactly do you propose? The "norm" is whatever is cheapest. That is what we have to do: make renewables cheapest.
    - omegaworks 9y ago
      I think we're talking about the same things. I'm just trying to make the case for how we should make renewables cheaper. The existing non-renewable oil & gas norm historically depended upon heavy investments in infrastructure: 1. Interstate expressway system 2. Oil and gas pipelines 3. Fracking R&D 3. Direct tax subsidization of private refining and exploration. We need that level of effort applied to renewables development.

Recurecur 9y ago

My stance is that if society has decided it's serious about CO2, it is necessary to put a whole lot more effort into next-gen nuclear than has been done so far. Even so, small companies like ThorCon, Terrestrial Energy and others are making good progress. The next step is a plan for a major, worldwide rollout of (mostly modular) nuclear reactors. That avoids the issue of a possible decrease in the standard of living, and provides an affordable mechanism that doesn't involve coal for India, Indonesia and other countries that need to build out their electric grid. Lots of good info here: http://thorconpower.com/news http://thorconpower.com/news Video from ThorCon CEO making his case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xjQWBw7i0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xjQWBw7i0&feature=youtu.be

fencepost 9y ago
One of the problems with thorium nuclear reactors is that they seem to be a perpetual "10 years" thing, and even with a huge increase in development funding we're probably 20+ years from viable commercial builds - and a lot further from getting a significant percentage of energy from them. By the time that can happen we're likely to see huge changes in renewables and even bigger changes in energy storage and usage efficiency. Thorium may end up as a good viable option eventually, but I suspect that it'll probably never be more than a niche option for as long as most of us are likely to be alive. Oh, and that 20 years? "Hi regulatory body, we'd like approval to build a brand new type of nuclear reactor in your state, close enough to a major population center for transmission losses to not be too high. What do we need to do to make that happen?"... And that's before you get to the billion+ of construction costs even if the new reactors only cost 10% of current designs.
StillBored 9y ago
Why wait for next gen nuclear? I will eat my words if in a few days South Texas Nuclear generating station melts down (because its being hit by a category 4 hurricane as I type this).. But right now the technology we _HAVE_ is sufficiently safe.
- flgb 9y ago
  But not sufficiently cheap, compared to alternatives.

ams6110 9y ago

I think you're right. Assuming everything we think we know about carbon, methane, and global warming is true, we're sunk. And there's nothing we can do about it. The party's been great.

quakeguy 9y ago

You cannot solve social problems with a technical approach.

Simon_says 9y ago
You can sometimes solve social problems with a technical approach.