3 ms·

That's not the only technologically plausible scenario, we can use nuclear now. It's also way more realistic from a human point of view to have populations acce

That's not the only technologically plausible scenario, we can use nuclear now. It's also way more realistic from a human point of view to have populations accept this rather than a drastic and sudden lifestyle change.

mrpopo 6y ago
"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results. À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months. Suddenly remote work and visio conferences are acceptable alternatives to driving 2tons of metal through 30km of asphalt 2x a day. Change is possible.
- hatboat 6y ago
  I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure. We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions. Using this as evidence to suggest that people will adjust to a "new normal" is arguing against your point.
  - mrpopo 6y ago
    I see what you mean, and I don't think it's gonna be easy either, I don't have false hopes. Technically though, being locked down is more restrictive than forcing people to move in small electric cars or e-bikes. Just like remote work has jumped up in the lead few months, if proper measures are taken and enforced, demand for bike /rail infrastructures will increase immediately. People can adapt. How many will resist to change, is the question.

3 ms·

That's not the only technologically plausible scenario, we can use nuclear now. It's also way more realistic from a human point of view to have populations acce

by renaudg 6y ago

mrpopo 6y ago
"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results. À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months. Suddenly remote work and visio conferences are acceptable alternatives to driving 2tons of metal through 30km of asphalt 2x a day. Change is possible.
- hatboat 6y ago
  I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure. We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions. Using this as evidence to suggest that people will adjust to a "new normal" is arguing against your point.
  - mrpopo 6y ago
    I see what you mean, and I don't think it's gonna be easy either, I don't have false hopes. Technically though, being locked down is more restrictive than forcing people to move in small electric cars or e-bikes. Just like remote work has jumped up in the lead few months, if proper measures are taken and enforced, demand for bike /rail infrastructures will increase immediately. People can adapt. How many will resist to change, is the question.