by Outcast_Searcher » Sun 24 Jul 2011, 22:26:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peeker01', '
')This is a good exercise for our readers. Take a good look at India and Africa, and tell me you want to live that lifestyle. Sure we could use less, but power down? To what level?
That's a good question. It seems to me though, that there is a HELL of a lot of difference between a typical middle class U.S. level (I use the U.S. as I live here and I know we're, as a country, the worst example in the world, per capita, of energy consumption) - and a bare subsistence third world level.
What, IMO, is so unfortunate, is there is, short term, SO little incentive or willingness to even seriously THINK about trying to come up with some sort of compromise energy standard.
This is why I strongly want to see a serious energy tax that would directly impact oil consumption in the U.S. in a meaningful way, like say an additional 5 bucks a gallon, after a fair (say 2 year) warning period to give people time to prepare, AND some kind of energy credit to help everybody cope, especially the poor -- BUT really sock it to them after, say, the first 500 gallons of gasoline or equivilent.
Every time I propose it though, the vast majority of folks, even folks on this site who supposedly recognize we have a real problem -- vigorously oppose it. Too inconvenient. Not politically palatable. Will interfere with my lifestyle, yadda yadda.
As a middle aged single guy who can live without a fancy lifestyle, tons of miles driven, air travel, international travel, etc. -- if I am willing to have (say) a Toyota Plug-in Prius once they become generally available in 2013 and use solar panels on my roof to charge it -- it seems to me my total personal gasoline consumption should go down to something like 100 gallons a year at MOST, and without burdening the electric grid (and coal burning, etc) unduly.
Add to this a willingness to buy very little consumer "crap" considering my income, keep it on the warm side in summer and the cool side in winter, etc. and it adds up, even if it doesn't equate to a 3rd world lifestyle.
You get lots of people thinking that way, and you can make real progress, on average.
But no, it seems to be an insistence on BAU and all or nothing -- well when nothing comes, it's REALLY going to hurt. Maybe we're screwed anyway, but would it be so terrible to TRY some compromise on remediation?
For example, I think the CAFE targets Obama is pushing for that look something like 56 MPG by 2025 (before various political adjustments, like for trucks - sigh), seem like a real strong goal. I just hope politics doesn't defuse 90% of the gain in the mean time.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.