Earthworm on Nostr: The wild thing is: A reduction of 68-86% of energy usage in the global north is ...
The wild thing is: A reduction of 68-86% of energy usage in the global north is entirely possible, going for the low-hanging fruits and policies that make it easier for people to adjust their lifestyles:
Think it like this:
- the first 10-20% are really easy and cheap things (like fixing leaks or installing some switches for appliances that consume a lot of energy), we almost won't even notice.
- The next 10-20% tranche comes with a some technological improvements (efficient light bulbs, thermal insulation, etc.). here are some investment costs, but the savings quickly pay out And there's a lot of money laying around (#TaxTheRich : https://www.tax-the-rich.eu/)
- speaking about the rich: a very, very small segment of the population has totally inacceptable consumption patterns. If the richest 10% would decrease their emissions to the level of the *average European*, over 30 % of the total emissions would be saved...
- For the next 10-20%, we need some adjustments of policiess and lifestyle: #MobilityTransition, #AgroecologyTransition, Energy... you get the point. A moderate shift of our society towards #degrowth . People changing their behaviour, the typical stuff: mainly plant-based diet, no car where possible, drastic reduction of air travel, banning advertising of emission-intensive luxury goods...
All this stuff could be achieved without greater turmoil and maintaining most of the commodities of our era
Yes, the more we achieve, the more difficult it gets. The last tranche will require really deep cuts (ask your grandmother how life was in the 50-60s). But meanwhile, the more just and equal society becomes, the easier it will be to get to the bottom by collective action. It will be some while until people start again to own and use stuff collectively, take responsibility in their neighbourhood council and look out for each other. But we will be rewarded with an amazing improvement of life quality.
PD: I didn't even include the development of new technologies. I am highly sceptical of technocratic illusions, but there might be some potential. Taking into account the almost inevitable Jevons paradox (increasing efficiency leads to higher utilization of the resource= you are more likely to travel larger distances if your car is more efficient), there might still be some positive effect on efficiency. Maybe bringing down consumption by a single digit percentage?
Think it like this:
- the first 10-20% are really easy and cheap things (like fixing leaks or installing some switches for appliances that consume a lot of energy), we almost won't even notice.
- The next 10-20% tranche comes with a some technological improvements (efficient light bulbs, thermal insulation, etc.). here are some investment costs, but the savings quickly pay out And there's a lot of money laying around (#TaxTheRich : https://www.tax-the-rich.eu/)
- speaking about the rich: a very, very small segment of the population has totally inacceptable consumption patterns. If the richest 10% would decrease their emissions to the level of the *average European*, over 30 % of the total emissions would be saved...
- For the next 10-20%, we need some adjustments of policiess and lifestyle: #MobilityTransition, #AgroecologyTransition, Energy... you get the point. A moderate shift of our society towards #degrowth . People changing their behaviour, the typical stuff: mainly plant-based diet, no car where possible, drastic reduction of air travel, banning advertising of emission-intensive luxury goods...
All this stuff could be achieved without greater turmoil and maintaining most of the commodities of our era
Yes, the more we achieve, the more difficult it gets. The last tranche will require really deep cuts (ask your grandmother how life was in the 50-60s). But meanwhile, the more just and equal society becomes, the easier it will be to get to the bottom by collective action. It will be some while until people start again to own and use stuff collectively, take responsibility in their neighbourhood council and look out for each other. But we will be rewarded with an amazing improvement of life quality.
PD: I didn't even include the development of new technologies. I am highly sceptical of technocratic illusions, but there might be some potential. Taking into account the almost inevitable Jevons paradox (increasing efficiency leads to higher utilization of the resource= you are more likely to travel larger distances if your car is more efficient), there might still be some positive effect on efficiency. Maybe bringing down consumption by a single digit percentage?