Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
34. The problem with these green promises is people think we have a handle on this
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:07 AM
Jan 2013

Or that we can get a handle on this. This encourages people to be passive. This perpetuates the myth we do not need to change our habits or our economy.

The reality is that we have a carbon budget to avoid catastrophe of about 565 gigatons of CO2 between now and 2050. At the current rate, we will set the stage for our demise in under 2 decades without factoring in 3-5% growth in emissions.

So, how are we going to take your lifestyle and "green" it, along with billions of clamouring coal-burning third-worlders, while reducing emissions simultaneously (which we still aren't doing)? Everyone in China wants a car too. Can we give them a Prius and all the wonderful green panels to power them? Can we replace a billion cars in the world, make another billion for developing nations, and feasible bring down emissions?

Did you know that it takes 8.8 tons of CO2 to make a hybrid, and another 3.8 tonnes every time you need your battery replaced (in other words, your carbon-saving lifestyle actually increased emissions compared to using an existing conventional automobile). Further, you had to work a job and consume energy to accumulate the capital to purchase these cars. The people building them accumulated wealth, and the economy grew (with tangential multiplying outward), and this correlates to actual higher velocity of energy in the system. And while we pay down this carbon debt with green energy while shutting down coal plants, we export 125 million short tonnes of coal to China to burn in one of the 7 new coal plants them and India build a week.

So, no. Technology isn't magically going to buck its past trend of accelerating the velocity of energy in the system, and its not going to magically cause us to save ourselves before our "carbon budget" is spent. Frankly, it can't. Its too late for it. There are too many people. Those people want to much of the stuff technology gave us. Those people need to build an entire infrastructure to get it. And to those people, they don't mind burning the coal we grow sick of.

So lets get our heads out of the sand and wake up already. Its time to get our ducks in a row and figure out what our priorities are, so we are prepared to meet our fate when the famine comes, grovel for a corporation that will feed us, or build regional resilience that will ensure independence & viability in the face of a catastrophe.

Everything major happens by transition, kentauros Jan 2013 #1
The alternative is not merely a reduced standard of living (whatever that means). bemildred Jan 2013 #2
Well i think what it means is say the ability to eat fruits and vegetables in winter el_bryanto Jan 2013 #4
That's a good example of the problem. bemildred Jan 2013 #22
If my ex roomate hadn't cooked chili for herself. FrodosPet Jan 2013 #30
Oh hey, don't give up just because of one bad experience. nt bemildred Jan 2013 #35
As an engineer, I believe it is possible. We could make changes, but FSogol Jan 2013 #3
Keystone Pipeline earthside Jan 2013 #5
we "could" but we aren't KurtNYC Jan 2013 #6
So your contention is that the we could reduce our dependence on oil without significantly el_bryanto Jan 2013 #7
I think our standard of living has been steadily declining since about 1978 or so. KurtNYC Jan 2013 #9
It doesn't matter how much green energy sources are deployed NoOneMan Jan 2013 #32
I think it's entirely possible. HappyMe Jan 2013 #8
Hydrogen mn9driver Jan 2013 #10
Where do you get the Hydrogen from? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #11
Ummm. I'm pretty sure I made the problems clear in my post. mn9driver Jan 2013 #15
I think methane or other hydrocarbons still likely Johonny Jan 2013 #23
The only way to stop or reverse global warming hogwyld Jan 2013 #12
The 'standard of living' for most people already sucks n/t leftstreet Jan 2013 #13
It now appears to be a matter of adapting to, not stopping climate change. GROW FOOD. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #14
I hate mowing grass but there is a great sense of satisfaction PLARS1999 Jan 2013 #16
Hey PLARS1999...Welcome to DU.. Tikki Jan 2013 #17
True! And welcome to DU! Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #19
COULD we do it. No doubt. Europeans live a much more environment-friendly life style. pampango Jan 2013 #18
Our standard of living will soon be substantially reduced for us whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #20
People literally die without air conditioning. Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2013 #21
Doubtful. But every small sacrifice we make now significantly raises the SOL for our descendants. raouldukelives Jan 2013 #24
We can't even stop CO2 rises Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #25
Thats important for people to understand NoOneMan Jan 2013 #31
By killing off 7 billion people yearning to emit like us, yes NoOneMan Jan 2013 #26
Runaway global warming will reduce our standard of living. limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #27
Sure. Let's just redifine what constitutes a desirable standard of living. RedCappedBandit Jan 2013 #28
right limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #29
Of course we can rightsideout Jan 2013 #33
The problem with these green promises is people think we have a handle on this NoOneMan Jan 2013 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Could we stop or reverse ...»Reply #34