4 ms·

Ambitious and completely impractical. All that it requires is that everyone change everything they do. Here's a better idea, invest in efficiency. If we insula

Ambitious and completely impractical. All that it requires is that everyone change everything they do. Here's a better idea, invest in efficiency. If we insulated buildings properly they wouldn't need any heating/cooling - See passivhaus. If we designed cars properly they'd get 50+mpg already (See europe). If we did things bit by bit to improve efficiency we could easily become energy independent and even an exporter. Have a look at the rejected energy portion of that graph. The worry isn't creating more energy, it's doing more with what we already have. 1. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2009/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/en...

beoba 16y ago
There's nothing saying that both approaches shouldn't be pursued simultaneously.
ugh 16y ago
The important question is this: Which kinds of changes are hard, which are easy? The status quo is a powerful and crushing force, fighting it is hard. My suspicion is that tweaks on efficiency won’t cut it. They are important, no doubt, but to get anywhere with tweaks on efficiency many changes in many different areas are necessary, there is no centralized solution of getting every American a passive house. The big flaw of climate change is that it creates no incentives for individuals and businesses to change their behavior. Climate change is a nice example for the tragedy of the commons. My suspicion that tweaks which require many changes in many different areas won’t cut it is somewhat founded on that. Incentives work wonders if you want all people to do something differently, like renovating their house to add better insulation. Governments could try to create incentives but have generally been unwilling to. It’s also very hard to get incentives right and it is very hard to get them implemented without being overrun by lobbyists. I don’t know why but I somehow arrived at the conclusion that a big infrastructure push by governments with a rather singular focus would have a bigger chance at success.
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
"All that it requires is that everyone change everything they do" Can't really be reconciled with "If we designed cars properly they'd get 50+mpg already" But, then we'd have to make everyone change every notion of style, hot-rodder fantasy, and living-room comfort that everyone wants out of their galactic-sized vehicles. It might just be easier to sell them on a plug-in than make them give up SUVs for mini eurocars.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

beoba 16y ago

There's nothing saying that both approaches shouldn't be pursued simultaneously.

ugh 16y ago

The important question is this: Which kinds of changes are hard, which are easy? The status quo is a powerful and crushing force, fighting it is hard. My suspicion is that tweaks on efficiency won’t cut it. They are important, no doubt, but to get anywhere with tweaks on efficiency many changes in many different areas are necessary, there is no centralized solution of getting every American a passive house. The big flaw of climate change is that it creates no incentives for individuals and businesses to change their behavior. Climate change is a nice example for the tragedy of the commons. My suspicion that tweaks which require many changes in many different areas won’t cut it is somewhat founded on that. Incentives work wonders if you want all people to do something differently, like renovating their house to add better insulation. Governments could try to create incentives but have generally been unwilling to. It’s also very hard to get incentives right and it is very hard to get them implemented without being overrun by lobbyists. I don’t know why but I somehow arrived at the conclusion that a big infrastructure push by governments with a rather singular focus would have a bigger chance at success.

muhfuhkuh 16y ago

"All that it requires is that everyone change everything they do" Can't really be reconciled with "If we designed cars properly they'd get 50+mpg already" But, then we'd have to make everyone change every notion of style, hot-rodder fantasy, and living-room comfort that everyone wants out of their galactic-sized vehicles. It might just be easier to sell them on a plug-in than make them give up SUVs for mini eurocars.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]