ennui2 wrote:GHung wrote:I'm always miffed at the implication that a high-consumption BAU lifestyle is the only way to "enjoy life a lot more".
To some people it is, and you won't be able to sell them on powerdown/austerity.
GregT wrote:ennui2 wrote:GHung wrote:I'm always miffed at the implication that a high-consumption BAU lifestyle is the only way to "enjoy life a lot more".
To some people it is, and you won't be able to sell them on powerdown/austerity.
No need to sell people on power down/austerity ennui2, it will happen on it's own (already is), whether people are sold on it, or not. The choice is for anyone who chooses to make it, or not. Powerdown now and avoid the rush, or wait until it is forced upon you, and deal with the consequences. It is only a matter of time. All good things eventually come to an end.
Sadly true. So instead of relying on bottom up voluntary cuts, we should use top down mandatory cuts. Look at the results of California's water conservation programs. The mandatory programs saw actual cuts in consumption. The voluntary programs saw increases.Outcast_Searcher wrote:It's a shame that education and awareness of the scientific realities (long term) won't get the vast majority of people to VOLUNTARILY live a (at least relatively) powered-down lifestyle. Given the vast propensity of people to buy everything they can afford (and borrow) to "better the life" of their families -- I just don't see that happening. Ever. No matter how bad climate change gets.
Voluntary water conservation not effective, data showCalifornia water agencies with mandatory water conservation rules in place were far more likely to reduce water conservation, according to data gathered by the state. Voluntary conservation measures are not reliably saving water during the worst drought to hit California in a generation. Only mandatory conservation rules, backed by a threat of fines, seem to prompt consumers to save. California water agencies with mandatory rules alone used 5 percent less water from January through May this year, compared to an average over the three previous years, according to a Bee analysis of the data. Agencies with only voluntary conservation measures saw water demand rise 4 percent over the same period. During May, water agencies with mandatory conservation rules alone reduced water use 14 percent. Other agencies saw water use increase slightly.
As a result of that poor showing, the board on July 15 ordered larger water suppliers to impose mandatory restrictions. The action was backed up by a statewide opinion poll released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that 75 percent of those surveyed favor some form of mandatory water-use restrictions, and only 23 percent oppose such a move.
After a two-month grace period, more than 95 percent of residents hit the 25 percent target, said Daniel Smith, director of the city’s operation services, and water use has continued to decline in June and July. He said the mandatory restrictions were a key part of the strategy. “It hasn’t been easy,” Smith said. “It’s difficult to change habits.”
ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2015Energy use for lighting is 0.8 quadrillion Btu in 2040, 1.0 quadrillion Btu lower than it was in 2013 reflecting a 57% decline in energy use despite an increase in lighting services.
Delivered energy consumption by fuel
Lighting Annual growth 2013-2040: -2.9%
GHung wrote:@Pops - They're doing regular posts and articles as well. Maybe some of us need to go over there and jump-start their comments; stir the pot a bit:)
Good summary.
My own initial wave of concern around peak oil was very simplistic in nature. It dovetailed with my concern over the increase in tensions in the middle East and more general political and economic conditions in the early oughts. After a dozen years of near-daily reading on the subject, I’m no less concerned but I have been disabused of the notion that PO is a simple thing, or a process predictable in more than very general manner. Oil and the energy business in general is at the core of our economy (although some will argue even that) but just like the direction and specifics of the broader economy, they are extremely difficult to model.
Which only argues the need for more sites and discussion on the subject.
Good luck.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
GHung wrote:Again, I challenge him to show where I've said "one size fits all". I know better.
GHung wrote:folks may be better off...begin making other arrangements...
kublikhan wrote:Sadly true. So instead of relying on bottom up voluntary cuts, we should use top down mandatory cuts. Look at the results of California's water conservation programs. The mandatory programs saw actual cuts in consumption. The voluntary programs saw increases.
ennui2 wrote: Nobody wants to reduce their share of the pie as long as someone else is cutting a big slice. So nothing ever gets done..
C8 wrote:1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.
C8 wrote:3. They do not spur innovation the way higher prices do since the cuts are usually temporary and in only one region
C8 wrote:5. MOST ALL, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AS WE ARE FREELY MOVING TOWARDS A LOWER PER-CAPITA ENERGY LIFESTYLE
C8 wrote:The best way to quickly reduce energy use to to stop millions of individuals from migrating from lower per capita energy nations (Mexico, Syria, India, etc.) to higher per-capita nations (but liberal environmentalists don't like that idea!). One must always resist the liberal urge to use a crisis to establish more govt. power on the road to a dictatorship ("of the people" of course).
Ibon wrote:The emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.
What you say mandatory cuts cause, I say the drought itself caused. And as for the rich watering their golf courses when the poor are cutting back, that is what you get when you leave it to market forces alone or applying rules unequally in a patchwork fashion. The new rules are being implemented precisely to counter this. The fact that the even the ultra-rich are balking and squealing now is a good indication that the new rules will see the ultra-rich cutting back too.C8 wrote:Not in agreement here with this sentiment. Mandatory cuts have many negative aspects:
1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.
2. They encourage a black market which is a net drain on resources (and law enforcement)
3. They do not spur innovation the way higher prices do since the cuts are usually temporary and in only one region
4. They dangerously increase the authoritarian role of government over the people and pave the way towards a dictatorship by legally creating many govt. powers that previously did not exist or were not exercised
5. MOST ALL, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AS WE ARE FREELY MOVING TOWARDS A LOWER PER-CAPITA ENERGY LIFESTYLE
Rich Californians balk at limits: ‘We’re not all equal when it comes to water’People “should not be forced to live on property with brown lawns, golf on brown courses or apologize for wanting their gardens to be beautiful,” Yuhas fumed recently on social media. “We pay significant property taxes based on where we live,” he added in an interview. “And, no, we’re not all equal when it comes to water.” [The ultra-wealthy enclave of Rancho Santa Fe uses 400% more water per capita than the state average.]
But a moment of truth is at hand for Yuhas and his neighbors, and all of California will be watching: On July 1, for the first time in its 92-year history, Rancho Santa Fe will be subject to water rationing. Under the new rules, each household will be assigned an essential allotment for basic indoor needs. Any additional usage — sprinklers, fountains, swimming pools — must be slashed by nearly half for the district to meet state-mandated targets. Residents who exceed their allotment could see their already sky-high water bills triple. And for ultra-wealthy customers undeterred by financial penalties, the district reserves the right to install flow restrictors — quarter-size disks that make it difficult to, say, shower and do a load of laundry at the same time. In extreme cases, the district could shut off the tap altogether.
ennui2 wrote:Ibon wrote:The emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.
I'm not seeing the same millennial social trends you are. They are going to have to make the same 180' turn in their lifestyle as all previous generations as far as I can see. The only difference is they are more pessimistic about their careers, but before the dot com boom Gen-X was called the slacker generation and we bemoaned the fact that we didn't have the same opportunities that the Mad Men and boomers did. So that cynicism about not being able to achieve the white-picket-fence dream is nothing new. It doesn't mean people don't still aspire for that.
C8 wrote:Regarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not?
C8 wrote:Regarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not? Laws are lobbied for and voted on by the wealthy and the upper middle class. The "green" movement is and upper income white constituency- this point is very critical. I do not want to derail this thread further so I will start a new thread about the subject tilted "Green legislation mainly helps the affluent"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 257 guests