Slashdot Mirror
Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
Lasrick writes Dawn Stover looks at unrealistic expectations and the distribution of limited energy resources: 'This is a question that should move from the fringes of the energy debate to its very heart. Economists and energy experts shy away from issues of equity and morality, but climate change and environmental justice are inseparable: It's impossible to talk intelligently about climate without discussing how to distribute limited energy resources. It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now—which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living, according to a calculation by University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. The sooner policy makers accept this reality, the sooner they can get to work on a global solution that meets everyone's needs. First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.' Not something most people even think about.
Also, I bet computer gaming uses a lot less carbon than most pre-computer leisure activities.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
While environmental studies professors continue to pump out ready excuses for imposing increasing economic feudalism in Europe and North America, China and India are going to build out nuclear power and produce energy. I doubt they'll be dissuaded from trying because of anything this professor says.
When people like this say, "the world can't" remember that they actually mean, "we aren't going to let you."
Yep, good luck convincing everyone that they should live on only what they "need" to survive, because the mud-hut dwellers in third world countries "deserve" to live like 2010-era Americans.
Another thing to keep in mind is that living on 2010 American standard doesn't necessarily require 2010 American levels of energy consumption.
First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.
i.e.
We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!
Shit, I *WISH* I could live like Al Gore. The guy has a fleet of SUV's, a mansion with a power bill that makes mine look like a joke, and closets full of nice clothes, rooms full of expensive shit, etc. Were that we could *ALL* live as "sustainably" as environmentalists like Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now
We could if environmentalists and NIMBY's would stop blocking new nuclear power plant construction.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Guess what? Your consumption and all the other houses in your area are just a rounding error.
And where will these LEDs and insulation come from when the fossil fuel fiesta stops?
You better get used to insulating with animal hair and mud, if you can afford to raise animals by candlelight, that is.
Ahh, but fossil fuels won't just suddenly 'stop', they'll just get more and more expensive as it becomes harder and harder to extract from the ground. As fossil fuels rise in price, making changes to use less fuel becomes more attractive. Of course, it's much cheaper and easier to make the switch now while fossil fuels are plentiful, but there's no reason to believe that fossil fuel production will suddenly stop and we'll all be raising animals by candlelight.
Most forms of recreation don't consume much natural resources compared to production of food and other basic necessities. On the other hand, unchecked population growth is the most fundamental cause of today's social and environmental problems. We need to get serious in combatting religious and cultural superstitions that prevent billions of people from using effective birth control. Then wealthy nations need to make access to condoms and birth controls pills free and ubiquitous worldwide. Then we just have to desperately hope this will work, else the future is tens of billions of people living and dying in misery.
We need to stop thinking of this like a disaster that's suddenly going to happen. There's no magic date where the climate is going to be "destroyed". What's going to happen is the climate is going to change, and much of our way of life and infra-structure is going to suffer because of that. We can't "destroy" the climate, we can only make it harder on ourselves and have to do a lot of work to adapt. But there's not exactly an armageddon that's going to unfold. Food production is going to be harder, and the places to grow crops are going to shift.
The article itself is a little silly. Climate scientists don't debate whether global warming is real, and human caused. But they DO debate like hell about what's going to happen, how much carbon is "too much", etc. So to make any decisions about "30 more years" or making some silly prediction about everyone living like Americans in just 20 years is incredibly stupid, and counter-productive. Those issues are FAR from settled, unlike the clarity that the article presents.
As far as wants and needs, that'll be settled like it always has, through cost. It's already happening. The SUV craze of the 90s through the 2000s is already on the wane. Gas is more expensive and is going to remain so for a while, and that gas-guzzling Suburban is not only expensive to fuel, it makes you look like a bit of a pig now. People in European countries aren't somehow more altruistic, and care about others more than the US (and therefore drive smaller cars), it's just that gasoline is quite expensive, and the streets are smaller. So the giant car thing is totally impractical. Eventually Americans are going to start driving smaller cars just like they do in much of Europe.
AccountKiller
Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
Oh my god! Whatever will we do?!? We'll have to come up with some way to allocate scarce resouces based on competing wants! If only there were a science that studies economic activity to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an economy. If we had that, then it would imply we already have an enormous, global system for handling this exact problem.
Not that it doesn't need tweeking, and we need to internalize the cost of carbon emissions, but this isn't just a solved problem; it is one of the most intensely studied and tested fields of sociopolitical theory that there is. And it doesn't mean we banned recreation. As it turns out, some recreation is actually good for the system, because it increases productivity.
And can we produce five times as much energy? Ummm, yeah. Real easy. There is a shitload of energy falling out of the clear blue sky at all times. If we have the resources, we can grab more of it. So that completes the whole "productivity" loop back to increasing production of energy.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The number one investment you can make is in insulation. Most homes throw away over half of all the heat they generate or have to cool FAR too much because of heat let in during the summer. You should not even think of doing PV work until you have done the insulation work. Insulation pays back faster and does not have the same kinds of damage issues as PV does.
The second investment would be in more efficient devices. Most furnaces are fairly bad and most electric devices in the house are pretty bad. Why run your AC more in the summer because your refrigerator is doing more to create heat than it should?
PV is the last step I would take not the first. First insulate the hell out of the house, then make devices more efficient. Depending on climate an attic fan is a great investment to clear out the extremely hot air in the summer. PV mostly just looks flashy but that is about all it is.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Am I correct in assuming here that YOU have absolutely no intentions of lowering your own standard of living?
As to striving for American 2010 standard of living, what the world should be doing is aiming higher than that, rather than lower than that....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In 1890 a similar egg-head "predicted", Manhattan will be feet-deep in horse manure by 1930. A similar prediction was made for London of 1950 — the number of horses required to bring in supplies necessary for the growing population and its growing demands was calculated, along with the amount of excrement the beasts produced. The volume was then divided by the area of the city's streets to produce the depth of "coverage". An easy mathematical problem, a high-schooler solve it, so it had to be correct — and any attempts to argue against the conclusions were, of course, "anti-science".
Of course, as we know now, the automobile arrived to save the environment. But the fear-mongering did not cease...
Why exactly is humanity "highly unlikely" to be producing as much electricity as it wants to by 2035? Even today's technologies allow for that, and in 20 years we are bound to see improvements in both electricity production (higher) and consumption (lower).
I for one refuse to feel guilty about my recreation.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.