3 ms·

Move somehere you can ride a bike, walk, or take electrified transport, heat and cool your extremely efficient NZEB timber-frame home with a solar or wind-fuell

Move somehere you can ride a bike, walk, or take electrified transport, heat and cool your extremely efficient NZEB timber-frame home with a solar or wind-fuelled heat pump, eat little meat (restore the grazing land to peatland, forest, etc. too), have 2 or fewer children, and take holidays via rail instead of plane, and you're mostly there.

pharke 7y ago
That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US. I count 4 major infrastructure projects and 3 massive tax incentives that would need to be implemented in order to convince most people to do all of that. Not possible nation wide within a time frame of less than 30 years. Suggesting the majority of a large country's population move to regions where this is possible is also a non-starter without huge economic incentives and would have many unintended side effects due to depopulation of some areas and massive immigration to other areas. The only approach I see working in the US is a decentralized one that takes into account the unique geography and population distribution. Move the efficiencies out to the edges, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, small scale nuclear, more fibre rollout for remote working, incentives for local farms and land management. Work with the existing infrastructure and culture rather than against it and you'll get a lot further. As far as less cattle and more forest/peat, the US actually had a trend of decreasing agricultural usage and increase in forest cover for most of the last century. Forest cover began to diminish again with increased urbanization and timber cutting so encouraging migration to the regions with the highest population density, the coasts, would further increase deforestation since that's also where the majority of forests are. If you look at maps showing rangeland vs forest and peatland there isn't much overlap in the US, it turns out the best cattle producing areas in the US are those that were already grassland to begin with, go figure.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  "That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US." I don't think it's possible in the US. It's why I left the US. Sadly, the US makes it illegal to build what I describe. "huge economic incentives..." Change zoning laws to allow high density building near transit. SB50 in California for instance. It's pretty obvious people _want_ more homes like this since the cost of living in places like this is already astronomical. Not sure what incentives you need when people are already paying insane amounts to enjoy living like this? Finally, nothing in my comment referenced the US.

pharke 7y ago

That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US. I count 4 major infrastructure projects and 3 massive tax incentives that would need to be implemented in order to convince most people to do all of that. Not possible nation wide within a time frame of less than 30 years. Suggesting the majority of a large country's population move to regions where this is possible is also a non-starter without huge economic incentives and would have many unintended side effects due to depopulation of some areas and massive immigration to other areas. The only approach I see working in the US is a decentralized one that takes into account the unique geography and population distribution. Move the efficiencies out to the edges, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, small scale nuclear, more fibre rollout for remote working, incentives for local farms and land management. Work with the existing infrastructure and culture rather than against it and you'll get a lot further. As far as less cattle and more forest/peat, the US actually had a trend of decreasing agricultural usage and increase in forest cover for most of the last century. Forest cover began to diminish again with increased urbanization and timber cutting so encouraging migration to the regions with the highest population density, the coasts, would further increase deforestation since that's also where the majority of forests are. If you look at maps showing rangeland vs forest and peatland there isn't much overlap in the US, it turns out the best cattle producing areas in the US are those that were already grassland to begin with, go figure.

CalRobert 7y ago
"That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US." I don't think it's possible in the US. It's why I left the US. Sadly, the US makes it illegal to build what I describe. "huge economic incentives..." Change zoning laws to allow high density building near transit. SB50 in California for instance. It's pretty obvious people _want_ more homes like this since the cost of living in places like this is already astronomical. Not sure what incentives you need when people are already paying insane amounts to enjoy living like this? Finally, nothing in my comment referenced the US.