Doesn’t work unless you live in a place that has no weather (e.g. the Bay Area). People in Minneapolis aren’t going to turn off their heater at night when it’s 30 below 0 because the wind stopped and their battery went dead.

No, not true. Design of this sort used to be the norm. There are variations of it in all climates.

Igloos:

On the outside, temperatures may be as low as −45 °C (−49 °F), but on the inside the temperature may range from −7 °C (19 °F) to 16 °C (61 °F) when warmed by body heat alone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igloo

I can't readily find a source with details, but traditional desert cities were located on high ground and the streets oriented to catch the winds such that daytime street temperatures were pleasant.

We used to design buildings and cityscapes to work with the local climate. Now, we slap up cardboard boxes, inject insulation and add HVAC systems, counting on technology to keep things comfortable in place of good design. In reality, well designed buildings are more comfortable and probably less likely to suffer from sick building syndrome.

No, igloos were never the norm as far south as Minneapolis because the wide temperature swings make them untenable. Native Americans burned the fuck out of wood for heat and that’s terrible for the environment if we all do it.

>It's really not a given that we must use high levels of electricity to maintain a high quality of life

this is just an intellectual dishonest excuse to ignore nuclear energy

More like first-hand testimony from someone who gave up their car more than a decade ago while working a corporate job.

I'm an environmental studies major whose dream job would be urban planning or similar. I've been looking for real solutions to such problems for a lot of years.

One conclusion I've drawn is that passive solar really needs a lot more attention than it gets. It's an elegant solution with no real downside.

Nuclear has a couple of big downsides. 1. When things go wrong, it's really bad, a la Chernobyl. 2. Even if nothing goes wrong, safely storing the spent fuel is a significant issue and goes on "forevy."

Everyone knows about those two issues. It's precisely why nuclear is controversial.

It's also possible for someone to be pro nuclear power and also pro conservation. There is no need to set this up as an either-or thing. People could be pro passive solar while being pro nuclear power.

I'm not pro nuclear power. I'm also not strongly against it. I'm just trying to let people know that passive solar exists and can play a role in solving these issues.

>You can have a very modern life on a lot less electricity than many people use.

Let me get this straight, The only way to curb emissions is to severely reduce our energy use?

>This is a problem rooted in culture more than technology.

No. This is a problem of people not wanting a subsistence-based lifestyle. Your suggested policies are insane. They are not reasonable, at all. You're talking about replacing all roads and buildings (and cities)? Use non-existent battery technology to power a modern economy?

Internalize the fact that power requirements will keep growing and that expecting people to live in tents is not a reasonable policy.

Even if the culture changes for that were to happen, cities roads anb buildings already exist. You can't replace all buildings and roads in 10 years.