5 ms·

Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy

Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy consumption, or the consequences of climate change will force us to do it. The difference is in the first case, we have more control over it, and it might cause less human suffering.

yiyus 6y ago
There is some low hanging fruit in that department. To begin with, properly isolating old buildings would make a huge difference. But I agree it won't be easy.
goatinaboat 6y ago
It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more But is it obvious? Let's say that fusion becomes commercially viable and vast amounts of emission-free energy become available cheaply. Would reducing the usage of it still matter? I would say the driving factor is the side-effects of energy production by current methods, not the energy itself.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. Even if everything around us would become 10x more efficient - which already would require many scientific breakthroughs - that's just multiplying the exponential growth curve by a constant factor of 0.1. A little bit of relief, but it fundamentally doesn't change anything. And that's ignoring the reality that if you make something 10x efficient, it tends to become used more - sometimes much more, cancelling the gains. Our economy is self-regulating; altering one factor only makes all others readjust to compensate. Permanent change will require more complex approach. Energy efficiency is definitely a very important part of dealing with climate change, but it isn't a silver bullet.
- sitkack 6y ago
  > Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. We need to get off this exponential! Any modification of Capitalism is painted as an attack on basic human freedoms so that the rich can go down with the ship, rather than pass it on for the rest of humanity and the world. How do we change what we optimize for? Because it currently isn't working. > 10x efficient, it tends to become used more https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox
thehappypm 6y ago
Um, this is already happening, in a big way. Cars are more fuel efficient than ever. I own an SUV and average 30.1 MPG. Imagine that in 2000. Light bulbs are overwhelmingly LED these days. New homes are much more insulating than ever. Smart homes are less wasteful.
- vixen99 6y ago
  Not quite such a rosy prospect given the short and long terms problems with LED lights. They have a phototoxic effect on the eyes causing macular degeneration after chronic exposure to lower-intensity sources - the blue light relationship. The efficacy of filters (yet more cost) has still to be established.
- freeflight 6y ago
  Tho it seems like a lot of these increases in efficiency we traded-off by being more liberal in using the tech; Light bulbs are overwhelmingly LED these days, but we now also stick LEDs in all kinds of places where a light bulb would never have fit/made sense before. Smarthome might theoretically work, but as of right now most people are just throwing even more IT and IoT devices, constantly drawing power, into their homes. As these come from a myriad of different vendors, there is no unified platform to utilize and manage all that for electricity efficiency, it's just going on, drawing additional power.
ben_w 6y ago
> It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more I think this is because energy consumption is directly related to our ability to manufacture things, and the ability to manufacture things is directly connected to both wealth and military power. (I’m half-remembering someone else’s explanation, so I assume this is an oversimplification).
ovi256 6y ago
> why it isn't talked about more Because reducing energy use reduces quality of life at constant dollar income (at least medium term), and reduces economic growth (energy's an input in all economic activities), with all the social negative consequences that produces. It's a third rail, politically. No one's going to get elected by saying "your children have to live worse than you". The Western world is already (slowly, over decades) reducing this (look at per capita energy use dropping nicely since the 90s), and there's significant pushback even at this rate (gillets jaunes, cost of living protests). All future energy use growth is elsewhere (Africa, China, India) with no plans to stop and if the Western world tries to impose their views on them, it'll look a lot like neocolonialism for environmental reasons.
mcjiggerlog 6y ago
Electricity generation is responsible for only 27% of US greenhouse gas emissions - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis.... If we are serious about tackling climate change then we need to decarbonize these other sectors by moving them off of fossil fuels and onto clean electricity. We are going to need to generate a lot more energy, not less.

yiyus 6y ago

There is some low hanging fruit in that department. To begin with, properly isolating old buildings would make a huge difference. But I agree it won't be easy.

goatinaboat 6y ago

It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more But is it obvious? Let's say that fusion becomes commercially viable and vast amounts of emission-free energy become available cheaply. Would reducing the usage of it still matter? I would say the driving factor is the side-effects of energy production by current methods, not the energy itself.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. Even if everything around us would become 10x more efficient - which already would require many scientific breakthroughs - that's just multiplying the exponential growth curve by a constant factor of 0.1. A little bit of relief, but it fundamentally doesn't change anything. And that's ignoring the reality that if you make something 10x efficient, it tends to become used more - sometimes much more, cancelling the gains. Our economy is self-regulating; altering one factor only makes all others readjust to compensate. Permanent change will require more complex approach. Energy efficiency is definitely a very important part of dealing with climate change, but it isn't a silver bullet.

sitkack 6y ago
> Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. We need to get off this exponential! Any modification of Capitalism is painted as an attack on basic human freedoms so that the rich can go down with the ship, rather than pass it on for the rest of humanity and the world. How do we change what we optimize for? Because it currently isn't working. > 10x efficient, it tends to become used more https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox

thehappypm 6y ago

Um, this is already happening, in a big way. Cars are more fuel efficient than ever. I own an SUV and average 30.1 MPG. Imagine that in 2000. Light bulbs are overwhelmingly LED these days. New homes are much more insulating than ever. Smart homes are less wasteful.

vixen99 6y ago
Not quite such a rosy prospect given the short and long terms problems with LED lights. They have a phototoxic effect on the eyes causing macular degeneration after chronic exposure to lower-intensity sources - the blue light relationship. The efficacy of filters (yet more cost) has still to be established.
freeflight 6y ago
Tho it seems like a lot of these increases in efficiency we traded-off by being more liberal in using the tech; Light bulbs are overwhelmingly LED these days, but we now also stick LEDs in all kinds of places where a light bulb would never have fit/made sense before. Smarthome might theoretically work, but as of right now most people are just throwing even more IT and IoT devices, constantly drawing power, into their homes. As these come from a myriad of different vendors, there is no unified platform to utilize and manage all that for electricity efficiency, it's just going on, drawing additional power.

ben_w 6y ago

> It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more I think this is because energy consumption is directly related to our ability to manufacture things, and the ability to manufacture things is directly connected to both wealth and military power. (I’m half-remembering someone else’s explanation, so I assume this is an oversimplification).

ovi256 6y ago

> why it isn't talked about more Because reducing energy use reduces quality of life at constant dollar income (at least medium term), and reduces economic growth (energy's an input in all economic activities), with all the social negative consequences that produces. It's a third rail, politically. No one's going to get elected by saying "your children have to live worse than you". The Western world is already (slowly, over decades) reducing this (look at per capita energy use dropping nicely since the 90s), and there's significant pushback even at this rate (gillets jaunes, cost of living protests). All future energy use growth is elsewhere (Africa, China, India) with no plans to stop and if the Western world tries to impose their views on them, it'll look a lot like neocolonialism for environmental reasons.

mcjiggerlog 6y ago

Electricity generation is responsible for only 27% of US greenhouse gas emissions - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis.... If we are serious about tackling climate change then we need to decarbonize these other sectors by moving them off of fossil fuels and onto clean electricity. We are going to need to generate a lot more energy, not less.