I appreciate the pointed pessimism about, in reality, the philosophy of whether technology can save our current way of life.
I agree that energy reduction is job 1. Not solely us individuals, primarily the big industries. It’s good that we’re using electric arc furnaces to smelt steel for example, no more of those tremendous vats of molten metal ala terminator 2. The output is a lot purer too.
We’re getting better at doing more with less.
Is collapse inevitable? Maybe. But I agree with Mr Berman here, we need to be honest with each other.
The real solution lies in drastically reducing overall energy consumption. However, this won’t materialize, even if global consensus deemed it the right path. The reason is simple: there is no international coordination mechanism to plan and enforce such a sweeping change.
We need to stop wasting our time.
We need to end the futile debates about an energy transition that isn’t grounded in reality.
To elicit a co-ordinated world response we need disaster to strike every corner of the world all at once. If a giant tsunami hit Western Canada, Eastern US, Portugal, China and Japan all at once then we’d probably do something after sitting on our hands for another 6 months, like the COVID pandemic.
I agree with the author that “market solutions” are a mere cope to pretend we’re kinda doing something to please everyone. They do reduce emissions but not meaningfully enough since the pace that capitalism demands growth outstrips what the Earth can sustain.
On the other hand, the author writes about how electricity emissions are only 1/3 of emissions so we needn’t bother with the energy transition. Yet, the author doesn’t touch much on the other 2/3 of sources: agriculture, landfills, transportation, industry. I agree that technology alone cannot save us but I disagree with the author’s characterization that it is a misallocation of resources. There’s a lot I don’t like about electric vehicles: it’s a bandaid solution to what replacing suburban sprawl with walkable and bikable cities would actually fix, but it would still shift some of the transportation emissions into the electricity generation category which we seem to want to tackle.
Also, we have to actually take a tough stance on greenwashing narratives (Thank heavens Canada is actually starting to do something now) and stop the brainrot occuring through much of the world caused by efforts to cut education or steer education to suit specific interests.
There’s a lot I don’t like about electric vehicles: it’s a bandaid solution to what replacing suburban sprawl with walkable and bikable cities would actually fix, but it would still shift some of the transportation emissions into the electricity generation category which we seem to want to tackle.
electric bikes and mixed zoning could make a huge efficiency change for the west. a few solar panels are enough to charge electric bikes at the household level. I wish some economist would look at how much percent of all fossil fuel dependent commuting could be eliminated with this combo
electric power generation, which accounts for a mere twenty percent of overall energy consumption, and only about thirty-five percent of total carbon emissions.
Curious what the other 80% of overall energy consumption is from. I imagine a large amount is agriculture, but I couldn’t articulate why…
Primary energy use. Portland cement, steel, glass, logistics, chemical industry, etc.
direct thermal industrial processes.
