3 ms·

> what other options are there? Use less energy? The assumption that using less energy means a deteriorated quality of life needs to stop.

_hypx 4y ago
That's not going to happen in the short run. It's even skeptical it ever happened in any real significance on the large scale. Every improvement in efficiency just meant a dramatic increase in use of that technology.
theandrewbailey 4y ago
Let's go over some things in many people's lives that need energy: We're using electronic devices with a world-spanning communications network. That requires a lot of electricity to keep running, not to mention the materials in the devices themselves (not just the endpoints, but the routers, servers, etc in between) need lots of resources and energy to produce. Each part mentioned in this paragraph requires its own manufacturing and delivery supply chains and energy intensive industrial processes. People and things need to get around. That usually involves some vehicle made of metal, which needs ore extracted from the ground, processed, forged, and delivered. Metal can be recycled, but it probably won't be in vehicle form, so someone will need to transform it, which is more energy. That's not counting the energy needed to operate the vehicles, usually involving oil extraction or electricity generation. Each part mentioned in this paragraph requires its own manufacturing and delivery supply chains and energy intensive industrial processes. Let's delve into more corporeal needs: Humans need food to continue living. Most don't produce their own food, and rely on some form of industrial food production. In order to increase production efficiency, ever more food is produced in ever smaller spaces, requiring lots of fertilizer and pesticides. When harvested, some is processed (depending on the intended final product), then put on a truck and delivered to a warehouse (or moved through a series of warehouses), and finally to a store. Each part mentioned in this paragraph, particularly fertilizer, requires its own manufacturing and delivery supply chains and energy intensive industrial processes. Humans want to be clothed. Some clothing is made of natural fiber, which follows a similar path to the food production mentioned above. (Cotton is particularly energy intensive.) Other clothing is made of synthetic fiber, fed from any variety of materials. Due to cost, most clothing is manufactured in poorer areas of the world and shipped to wealthier ones, resulting in a long (and by definition, energy intensive) supply chain. Humans seek comfort from the weather in shelter, often in structures made of wood, concrete, brick, and/or metal. Those materials can be sourced locally, but concrete manufacturing is a particularly intensive process. Assembly involves a negligible amount of energy to be done. Humans also want to control the temperature inside the shelter, which also involves energy. Let's not forget the electrical and plumbing systems, with their requisite material requirements. And that's only what I can think of in 30 minutes. There are more things that I haven't thought of. With all that said, some areas can be optimized for energy. However, most things are optimized for cost, so moving away from that will cause poverty and massive overhauls to the way everything is done for billions of people, i.e. quality of life deterioration. Because of physics, some things can't be optimized, like metallurgy and the Haber process. The easiest way to use less energy is to go without some things (i.e. no computers or internet), but that means quality of life deterioration. Let's not forget there's over a billion people on earth that don't have many of these things, but want them. Good luck in dissuading them. So please, enlighten me about where my assumptions about less energy means less quality of life are wrong.
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  You are assuming that keeping up with the Jones' is a high quality of life. That excess consumerism is a high quality of life. That eating food from far away all year round is a high quality of life. Leasing a new car every 3 years is a high quality of life. Maybe you are right. We don't have to agree.
  - theandrewbailey 4y ago
    Agreed, that's an extremely high quality of life! I was thinking of a working class lifestyle in the USA, whose lives would include all of the points I mentioned (driving a barely running clunker, eating cheap food from a discount grocery store, etc). Residents of the global south live much less energy intensive lives, but that comes at a cost: they don't have lifestyles of the developed world. When masses of working class people in developed countries hear 'we need to reduce energy consumption', they fear that third world poverty will be forced on them because of the points I mentioned. Increasing costs justify their fears. That might be why climate proposals haven't gotten as much traction that many would have hoped.

_hypx 4y ago

That's not going to happen in the short run. It's even skeptical it ever happened in any real significance on the large scale. Every improvement in efficiency just meant a dramatic increase in use of that technology.

theandrewbailey 4y ago

Let's go over some things in many people's lives that need energy: We're using electronic devices with a world-spanning communications network. That requires a lot of electricity to keep running, not to mention the materials in the devices themselves (not just the endpoints, but the routers, servers, etc in between) need lots of resources and energy to produce. Each part mentioned in this paragraph requires its own manufacturing and delivery supply chains and energy intensive industrial processes. People and things need to get around. That usually involves some vehicle made of metal, which needs ore extracted from the ground, processed, forged, and delivered. Metal can be recycled, but it probably won't be in vehicle form, so someone will need to transform it, which is more energy. That's not counting the energy needed to operate the vehicles, usually involving oil extraction or electricity generation. Each part mentioned in this paragraph requires its own manufacturing and delivery supply chains and energy intensive industrial processes. Let's delve into more corporeal needs: Humans need food to continue living. Most don't produce their own food, and rely on some form of industrial food production. In order to increase production efficiency, ever more food is produced in ever smaller spaces, requiring lots of fertilizer and pesticides. When harvested, some is processed (depending on the intended final product), then put on a truck and delivered to a warehouse (or moved through a series of warehouses), and finally to a store. Each part mentioned in this paragraph, particularly fertilizer, requires its own manufacturing and delivery supply chains and energy intensive industrial processes. Humans want to be clothed. Some clothing is made of natural fiber, which follows a similar path to the food production mentioned above. (Cotton is particularly energy intensive.) Other clothing is made of synthetic fiber, fed from any variety of materials. Due to cost, most clothing is manufactured in poorer areas of the world and shipped to wealthier ones, resulting in a long (and by definition, energy intensive) supply chain. Humans seek comfort from the weather in shelter, often in structures made of wood, concrete, brick, and/or metal. Those materials can be sourced locally, but concrete manufacturing is a particularly intensive process. Assembly involves a negligible amount of energy to be done. Humans also want to control the temperature inside the shelter, which also involves energy. Let's not forget the electrical and plumbing systems, with their requisite material requirements. And that's only what I can think of in 30 minutes. There are more things that I haven't thought of. With all that said, some areas can be optimized for energy. However, most things are optimized for cost, so moving away from that will cause poverty and massive overhauls to the way everything is done for billions of people, i.e. quality of life deterioration. Because of physics, some things can't be optimized, like metallurgy and the Haber process. The easiest way to use less energy is to go without some things (i.e. no computers or internet), but that means quality of life deterioration. Let's not forget there's over a billion people on earth that don't have many of these things, but want them. Good luck in dissuading them. So please, enlighten me about where my assumptions about less energy means less quality of life are wrong.

Kon-Peki 4y ago
You are assuming that keeping up with the Jones' is a high quality of life. That excess consumerism is a high quality of life. That eating food from far away all year round is a high quality of life. Leasing a new car every 3 years is a high quality of life. Maybe you are right. We don't have to agree.
- theandrewbailey 4y ago
  Agreed, that's an extremely high quality of life! I was thinking of a working class lifestyle in the USA, whose lives would include all of the points I mentioned (driving a barely running clunker, eating cheap food from a discount grocery store, etc). Residents of the global south live much less energy intensive lives, but that comes at a cost: they don't have lifestyles of the developed world. When masses of working class people in developed countries hear 'we need to reduce energy consumption', they fear that third world poverty will be forced on them because of the points I mentioned. Increasing costs justify their fears. That might be why climate proposals haven't gotten as much traction that many would have hoped.