3 ms·

This is honestly the wrong angle to take. I’m a raging environmentalist and your decrementalist comment is making my blood boil. Advocating for a reduction in s

This is honestly the wrong angle to take. I’m a raging environmentalist and your decrementalist comment is making my blood boil. Advocating for a reduction in standard of living is not the way to go about environmentalism. Using science and technology to make Manhattan project tier changes to energy generation and transportation are. There is a way to reduce your impact almost completely while still maintaining the existing standard of living.

krapp 3y ago
The existing standard of living requires exponential growth and unbounded resource consumption. It isn't possible to maintain that while reducing energy consumption "almost completely." This isn't Star Trek where you can just outsmart the laws of thermodynamics and run everything on free energy and vibes. A "raging environmentalist" should understand that, particularly given that climate change and the collapse of the ecosystem is already underway. The window for "Manhattan project" scale solutions passed decades ago, the only solutions available now are damage mitigation. The future is going to be about maintaining our survival and civilization, not a reasonable standard of comfort.
- huytersd 3y ago
  Hard disagree. China and India are adding massive amounts of renewable energy in the form of solar, wind and nuclear energy every year. Electric cars are basically selling like crazy in Europe and Asia and to a reasonable extent in the US. Our challenge in the US is simple. Destroy the oil lobby. This should be followed by large scale renewable energy installations and nuclear power plants. Use natural gas as a transitional energy source or in peaker plants to back up the renewables. You having one less room contributes almost nothing to the solution. A cruise ship is going to offset a 100 of your “hardship” gains in about 10 minutes of emissions.

krapp 3y ago

The existing standard of living requires exponential growth and unbounded resource consumption. It isn't possible to maintain that while reducing energy consumption "almost completely." This isn't Star Trek where you can just outsmart the laws of thermodynamics and run everything on free energy and vibes. A "raging environmentalist" should understand that, particularly given that climate change and the collapse of the ecosystem is already underway. The window for "Manhattan project" scale solutions passed decades ago, the only solutions available now are damage mitigation. The future is going to be about maintaining our survival and civilization, not a reasonable standard of comfort.

huytersd 3y ago
Hard disagree. China and India are adding massive amounts of renewable energy in the form of solar, wind and nuclear energy every year. Electric cars are basically selling like crazy in Europe and Asia and to a reasonable extent in the US. Our challenge in the US is simple. Destroy the oil lobby. This should be followed by large scale renewable energy installations and nuclear power plants. Use natural gas as a transitional energy source or in peaker plants to back up the renewables. You having one less room contributes almost nothing to the solution. A cruise ship is going to offset a 100 of your “hardship” gains in about 10 minutes of emissions.