2 ms·

You'll note in my original post I talked about 'changing our lives' that doesn't necessarily mean wearing hair shirts. So, energy consumption can certainly be h

You'll note in my original post I talked about 'changing our lives' that doesn't necessarily mean wearing hair shirts. So, energy consumption can certainly be helped by mandating insulation standards in building codes, by outlawing incandescent light bulbs, by introducing stringent emission standards for cars or introducing carbon fee and divided regulations. None of those mean "austerity", or unemployment, but they do mean adjustments. Moreover fee and dividend produces a nice market-driven mechanism to speed up the adoption of clean energy.

dalbasal 7y ago
You're right. These are not terribly austere, though some are hard/costly in some circumstances (eg insulation). I do think we should do these both as personal choices and as mandates, but.. These aren't what I'd consider solutions. They don't add up to enough. Austerity (I still think we should do a little of this, temporarily) follows shortly after these "freebies." Travel fewer kms. Have fewer houses. Even with a little austerity, I don't think we can (or should) achieve negative growth in our energy consumption. A "solution" would be a clean grid, using technologies that have the potential to improve over time and allow us to consume more energy. This means getting to cleaner and cheaper. Also, at least here (Ireland/EU), people are very willing to talk about this level of inconvenience. More than willing. It's even at a point where politicians are promoting relatively pointless minor inconveniences (eg ban straws, divide recycling more) for political points. I may have gone somewhat overboard with my comment though, reacting to other conversations I've had with other people (always a poor choice).
- Angostura 7y ago
  Thanks for the debate, I don't think we are that far apart and I absolutely agree about green theatre being ultimately damaging. Don't get me wrong, I also agree about the need for clean and cheap energy. I'm less convinced that growth in energy is actually needed (at least for us rich people in the West). It would be interesting to see countries at least consider Gross Domestic Happiness rather than Gross Domestic product as a mesasure of success.

dalbasal 7y ago

You're right. These are not terribly austere, though some are hard/costly in some circumstances (eg insulation). I do think we should do these both as personal choices and as mandates, but.. These aren't what I'd consider solutions. They don't add up to enough. Austerity (I still think we should do a little of this, temporarily) follows shortly after these "freebies." Travel fewer kms. Have fewer houses. Even with a little austerity, I don't think we can (or should) achieve negative growth in our energy consumption. A "solution" would be a clean grid, using technologies that have the potential to improve over time and allow us to consume more energy. This means getting to cleaner and cheaper. Also, at least here (Ireland/EU), people are very willing to talk about this level of inconvenience. More than willing. It's even at a point where politicians are promoting relatively pointless minor inconveniences (eg ban straws, divide recycling more) for political points. I may have gone somewhat overboard with my comment though, reacting to other conversations I've had with other people (always a poor choice).

Angostura 7y ago
Thanks for the debate, I don't think we are that far apart and I absolutely agree about green theatre being ultimately damaging. Don't get me wrong, I also agree about the need for clean and cheap energy. I'm less convinced that growth in energy is actually needed (at least for us rich people in the West). It would be interesting to see countries at least consider Gross Domestic Happiness rather than Gross Domestic product as a mesasure of success.