Ibon -
thanks for your response.
Something I would emphasize is that IMHO what we're working towards is essentially an ideological shift,
for all it has many drivers including PO, GW, soil depletion, etc.
It is not simply the idea of the geological & ecological limits, which demand the contraction and restructuring of our energy usage;
it is also the idea of sharing available resources to achieve mutual sufficiency - an openness to the needs of others in a convergence towards per capita rights of sufficiency.
The latter may from conventional C20 perspectives appear pretty far fetched, but in reality it is an issue of sheer practicality, besides common humanity.
Using the Singapore power-pricing example, in that plutocratic and highly capitalist island society,
the planners foresaw that a "free" [unregulated] power market would lead to the wealthy outbidding the rest for the available power supplies,
leading to privation, disruption of production, rioting in the streets and, predictably, molotov cocktails coming through the boardrrom window.
Organizing a reasonably equitable pricing structure, whereby the wealthy paid highly for the additional supply capacity they desired,
was plainly both the fairer and the far more productive option.
Thus I'd suggest that to have any serious prospect of "PowerDown" we cannot ignore the need also to establish "EquityUp" -
No doubt better titles can be found somewhere along the way . . . .
regards,
Backstop






