Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
You keep saying this as if society can just choose any alternative amount of per capita energy consumption it may wish for without ever offering any data or research as to what you feel is feasible. And then when I say that I believe things will be much smaller and simpler in the future you act as though you disagree with this also.
|
There are analogues for shelter,sustenance,security,industry,office space,mobility,necessities,etc,which mirror a comparison between an incandescent light bulb and an LED bulb.
*The bulbs essentially look identical (no sacrifice to styling or aesthetics)
*You can pay $10 for an LED to replace a $1 incandescent.
*Each lamp has identical lumens output.
*The LED lasts 10-X the life of the incandescent,so it doesn't cost the consumer a penny more to own and operate it over it's service life.
*The LED uses 1/10th the power for the same lumens output.
*For zero cost,you've increased the generating capacity of the electric provider and provided for nine more families' illumination,without any additional power generation capacity.(negaWatts)
*You've cut carbon emissions by 90% with no sacrifice in illumination.
*You've increased the 'fuel economy' of the lumens by 10X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All energy consumption can be similarly impacted,across all market activities.
In times of war,all this consumption was simply reduced by War Department edict, enforcement,and market mechanisms.
If you want to go to war against climate change,it's really simple.Dirt simple.Nobody will say it's easy though.
You can't deny it,as we've done it before,twice before.
We can choose to begin,in earnest.Steady,year by year progress.
Concentrate on needs.Put wants on hold until we clear the emergency.
It's what America knows how to do.
Once the storm passes,then we can relax things if we so choose.