We should move to nuclear power and invest more in energy research like at ITER.
The alternatives are population control or condemning swathes of the globe to poverty - neither of which are tenable.
Laptops vs. Desktops. (I have this fear about computers donated overseas that cost more to run in electricity than buying new(er) laptops).
A 95% efficient furnace costs more than the 85%.
A heat-pump water heater costs more than the standard immersion element type.
A new fridge will pay for itself in electricity savings when replacing a 25 year old unit.
Insulation costs money.
Building with 2x6s costs more than 2x4s.
A digital thermostat that keeps track of whether you’re at home or not costs more.
LED light bulbs cost more than incandescents (but the difference has shrunk).
With a carbon tax to replace income/sales taxes, we’ll properly target those that have oversized or poorly designed homes (even if they are “efficient” per square meter).
Cars have the same things going on: LED headlights, electric everything instead of mechanical on the serpentine belt. Hybrids. Stop/start.
And I don’t care what anyone says about how complicated and computerized cars are getting: it’s nice to have the car tell you what’s wrong and be able to google it.
Otherwise I would never have known my mom’s gas cap was faulty, or her intake manifold gasket was what was causing the high rev rpms and occasional stall.
- I drive my car less, because my employer encourages working from home. Don't you like working form home, get rid of that slog of a commute!
- hey bub, your new electric car is bitching cool. Quiet, doesn't rattle, instant powah. I want one too now.
- yeah, I downsized to a smaller home. Still 3 bedroom, 1800sqft, enough for my family of four. But much less space to clean. Also, heating bills are much lower. Also, damn, I actually can furnish this home with bespoke cabinetry instead of that disposable crap from IKEA. Badass!
- Nah, are you nuts, I'm not flying across the world just so I can take a selfie with other tourists taking the same selfie. I'm vacationing in driving distance, can do without the drag of air travel, that's for losers without inspiration anyway.
- yeah, I'm walking to the small grocery store a couple of times a week, instead of driving. Cost a little more, but get some exercise, plus, my food is fresh, and get to buy meals on a whim more. Living large, daily!
A life without burning fossil fuels can be aspirational. We need to talk up what we gain, not what we lose. And what we lose is not critical anyway. Cheap fossil fuels just enable us to waste space because of convenience, and an imaginery convenience at that.
Changing out your car is easy, as long as you still have a personal vehicle (I think that this logic must change too). Your house needs to be more efficient, but that's fine as long as you have a single family home (I think that this must change as well).
It just seems that there is a logical leap in the list of sacrifices that people have a lot of difficulty with.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[2] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/14/1596354...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyl...
There are a number of others, but many of the studies that show largely meat free living vs. living with meat have ignored Biomass Transfer Efficiency. Giving up meat, as a society, would reduce the amount of plant matter that we need to grow by a huge amount, allowing large tracts of land to return to nature, locking up carbon and reducing the amount of fertilizers that we need to use, by a huge extent.
However, I do think that we get here just as well with a hefty carbon tax, as we watch meat prices jump through the roof.
I actually live comfortably in an 1800 sq foot house with a family of nine. 1800 sq feet would be far too large for just 4 people.
I don't know any other company that would replace 25 year old kitchen cabinets with new ones due to warranty. After 25 years you might wanna update your kitchen anyway.
Also, even though the cabinets may be "cheap" the design can be really clever. Plus the hardware on the kitchen stuff is high-end and you won't see it until you spend big bucks.
I agree with your other points. I can afford a big house, yet I bought a 1500 sq ft home in a nice neighborhood. No high ceilings and should enough for a family of 4.
We are up there but a number of countries, Bahrain, Qatar, Singapore, and several other nations all rank higher in per capital energy consumption.
Energy use per capita, US is #1 -- Kilograms of oil equivalent (2011)
global power consumption today [2011] is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). [..] Abbott estimates that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors. In his analysis, Abbott explores the consequences of building, operating, and decommissioning 15,000 reactors on the Earth, looking at factors such as the amount of land required, radioactive waste, accident rate, risk of proliferation into weapons, uranium abundance and extraction, and the exotic metals used to build the reactors themselves.
“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,” Abbott told PhysOrg.com. “The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.” [..]
at the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years.
- https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...
I mean it's not like we have much of an alternative although I agree with you on the scale of the challenge.
From the US to Japan to Germany to China, energy consumption is the most glaring predictor of rising wealth and standards of living. I suspect this is also hold true for India, ASEAN and Africa in the coming decades.
Either they are going to start consuming a lot more energy or they are going to be stuck in poverty. I don't see how can justify keeping billions of people in poverty.