Your standard of living relies on exploiting amounts of energy equivalent to several hundred slaves per person. That amount of energy can't be found in renewable sources only.
How much of a slave master am I? https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/energy-and-us/how...
1.) overall humanity is still very inefficient at extracting productivity & comfort from energy. e.g. there is no inherent reason why buildings should need any energy flow to stay at a comfortable temperature. GP did not argue against reducing energy needs but against trying to make people reduce their quality of life.
2.) even at the current consumption I'm not so sure that 10Bn people could not be sustained. there's a hell of a lot of energy incident by the sun, it's just a matter of storing it where we have scaling issues. a whole bunch of battery tech ideas could help with that.
Overall I don't think we're that far from mass producing net energy positive houses (solar roof + industrial battery + near perfect isolation through e.g. low pressure zone in a double wall system). Inhabitants could either sell their energy on the market or use it for their transport needs.
I don't see it. You just deploy some existing technology that is slightly more expensive upfront but cheaper in the long run. You turn off old technology that is not compatible with the goal. You can make the technology cheaper by simply putting more money into it and deploying it more. There is literally nothing left to do other than doing it. Power generation technology like nuclear, solar, wind will get cheaper the more you deploy. You cannot just wait it out and hope that it gets cheaper on its own. It gets cheaper precisely because you keep deploying more and more and more.
The same applies to electric cars. As you keep deploying them newer cars will be cheaper or have greater capabilities.
One day people will wonder why we even insisted on the old way of doing things. It's purely about cooperation and thus politics.
>But there are people that want to move backwards, to reduce our standard of living, to reduce our freedom to make our own choices, and to enforce some kind of forced mediocrity that will help ration our natural resources. I reject this (and weaker versions of it) and believe there is more to be gained by focusing on progress than on telling people what to do.
Obviously, progress is the only answer if we want a solution for everyone. There are lots of people who simply are indifferent. If you give them a good enough compromise they are going to switch over to your side. If you tell them that they are bad people and should change their behavior they are going to do nothing, find reasons to tell you that you are wrong or just join the opposite side because they hate being criticized for something that they do not have influence over and now get to criticize you in return.
We always talk about money but money won’t mean anything without the people to use it.
I am personally willing to devote part of my time to work for free towards building a solution that is being ignored just because someone said it’s too expensive.
Climate change.
Sure, it would be lovely to find a solution that would require no sacrifice from anyone. That is what everyone wants.
It doesn't exist.
If it did, do you think people have just been ignoring it? When it is exactly what everyone wants?
No. Sacrifice is required, to avoid an even greater sacrifice in the future. And it is time for you to step up and take responsibility, and act towards that end goal.
That is a very myopic view.
That is myopic in the extreme.
This has been decided? By who? When? Can you prove this?
So where is the extraordinary evidence for Climate Crisis? People have been claiming this or similar for the last 30 years giving us deadlines that have been repeatedly passed. So what's different now? nothing as far as I can see.
The technical problem should be (roughly), how can we continue to enjoy our lives and the standard of living we have achieved, and continue to bring more of the world to that level, in a way that is sustainable long term. There are lots of promising routes to making this happen, and we have already seen lots of progress towards reducing environmental impact.
But there are people that want to move backwards, to reduce our standard of living, to reduce our freedom to make our own choices, and to enforce some kind of forced mediocrity that will help ration our natural resources. I reject this (and weaker versions of it) and believe there is more to be gained by focusing on progress than on telling people what to do.