There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living.
I've been to Morocco lately, with dry 45-48 degrees celsius outside. I've experienced that "vernacular architecture". Every single one of those buildings I have been in (including stalls in the soukh, which is ridiculous because they are essentially missing a wall towards the street) had some form of air conditioning retrofitted.
Of course, the tendency of Americans to set their air conditioning to below 20 degrees is ridiculous.
American homes are built cheaply (and needlessly sprawly but that's another story) without any heed to ventilation because the US government has put every policy in place possible to make sure energy prices remain low which has removed any market incentive to decrease energy usage, partially because fossil fuel companies spend lots of money lobbying the government. But strategic use of AC in a properly ventilated home is absolutely life-changing.
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew...
Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive.
> If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
A perceived "good cause" does not make an argument - or an action - necessarily good. Remember that medieval witch hunts were doing the "humanitarian" thing when they set people aflame because they were trying to save the suspected witches' souls from eternal damnation.
> If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
... so have unelected politicians do the dirty work? Just like with every radicalism, radical environmentalism will eventually lead to a less-than-democratic system.
I sympathise with the environmental movement, even if I think that there's a lot of doom porn happening there and some people's energies would be better invested looking for workable solutions instead of protesting. But we need to watch them. radicalised, they are likely to become dangerous.
Yes. In a world with zero negative externalities for massive resource consumption, then by all means, give everyone a mansion and a yacht.
> What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
In our current industrialized, consumerist, global economy? Far less than 8 billion. You're painting me as a rabid anti-human eco-fascist though, so let me assure you I'm none of those things. I want humanity to succeed and I want all people to be happy and successful. But the current rate of resource extraction and ecological disturbance that we're directly responsible for will drive our species into a brick wall very soon. Along with millions of other species. We will come to a point where we simply cannot extract the energy we need to feed everyone, and where the biosphere has been so damaged that the necessary agriculture yields just won't be there. And also the other things, like the tropics becoming uninhabitable, ocean acidification killing marine life that the food chain depends on, etc.
I'm not anti-human, I'm very much a humanist, and pro-nature. Humans are part of nature. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of limiting our consumption to sustainable levels when given the opportunity to overshoot. Or at least our current civilization does (past ones have done better, but they also didn't have to try to resist the temptation of internal combustion engines like we do now). I've lost hope for any political solutions given how lackluster all efforts have been thus far, so we don't really need to sit here and debate solutions, because no one's at the wheel and the brick wall is getting very close. Enjoy the surplus of energy while we can still extract it.
TL;DR the famous book "Limits to Growth" was very prescient and it mostly hit the mark.
Even if we could push a button and solve climate change, I’m sure there would always be a reason why we need to stop having babies, turn back time, and live a subsistence lifestyle (Which is also incredibly racist, since it’s usually directed at people in developing economies, as their standard of living increases). And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
I'm also aware that people have been predicting the apocalypse for as long as there have been people. But this is not as simple as manure storage, and it's a bit disingenuous to draw that comparison. You simply cannot have 8 billion people living in huge houses with air conditioning. It will not work. If our definition of racial equality and harmony is to let everyone fuck up the environment equally, rather than restricting everyone's (including rich white people) ability to overconsume, then we are all equally toast.
> And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
Reminder: all the information and points I'm citing come from the world's leading climate and environmental scientists. If you think the IPCC is just being racist when they lay out the data about how bad climate change will be and say we need to reduce our emissions (i.e. consumption), then I don't know what to tell you.
I wish some people would have this sentence printed and framed on a wall. Yes, equality-wise it's unfair that only we have energy-consuming QoL improvements. Environmentally speaking, it would be a massive disaster if everyone did it while we still rely on fossil fuels for our energy supply.
The world didn't end in nuclear fire, for much the same reasons it didn't end in a civilisation-breaking IT meltdown at the start of the new millennium - because everyone put in a shit-ton of work to make sure it didn't happen in the first place. Calling those dangers a "boogeyman" is showing ignorance of titanic efforts that went into mitigating them.
The other issues that you described as "failed boogeymen" - it's great that we've been able to outrun them, but how long have we left to run, exactly? We don't have a silver-bullet solution for climate change, whether flawed or perfect. Nobody seems to be keen on doing the hard work, so I'm not bullish on making it to 2050 without damaging the ecosystems across the planet.
> this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
FWIW, I'm a white Western guy and I 100% believe that we should try to do without some luxuries, me included. Part of the problem of getting rid of such luxuries is that they may not be luxuries at all to some - urban planning can be often very car-centric (which makes not owning a car either impractical, or a huge waste of time), AC can be required because other ways of cooling down buildings haven't been put in place, etc. Holistic change AND a reduction in resource use across the board is what we need.
Didn't he get pretty much everything wrong? Like embarrassing wrong even messing up, or intentionally misunderstanding, basic economic theories?
The book makes a point of how you can't predict the future. Instead it enumerates a bunch of shapes the future could take given various sets of assumptions. Some of the shapes look decent but require a lot of things to go right in the meantime.
Why not? Do you think it's impossible for energy to become 'to cheap to meter'?
The same applies to cars. Take something like a Rivian and it’s easily more efficient than a Prius or a subcompact car, while being larger, faster, more performant, and more comfortable. Bigger and more comfortable does not necessarily mean worse for the planet.
The parent comment said that no amount of renewable energy would make larger houses sustainable. That makes me think he believes that the real issue is about land use, building materials for larger houses, or some other point aside from energy.
I should've been more direct rather than focusing on the energy point, but I suppose I was hoping the commenter would reply about why energy isn't the problem.