I got this question tonight, from a gracious near-stranger who moved past me being a jerk. I want to publicly thank and answer her. My plan: slow down systematically.
First the mechanics:
Governments nationwide accept the fact that the only way, under the laws of physics, to reduce emissions today is to reduce energy throughput today.
Today, in the real world, we have exactly what we already have in energy sources.
3. I propose that the only realistic means to address climate change and the overarching ecosystem catastrophe is to reduce emissions and energy throughput today. If you'd like to hear a well reasoned lecture on my reasoning, from someone else who agrees independently,
4. You can hear a 30 minute spoken explanation here. tucradio.org/podcasts/newes…
4. The way to reduce energy throughput starting today is to slow down starting today. Slow our physical speed of transportation, in a systematic, recursive fashion.
5. Although it is unlikely to ever be done this way, I'm going to explain the process as though governments worldwide decided saving the ecosystem and biosphere, and thereby directly attacking climate change, was worth more than GDP growth and Bitcoin.
Pretend with me.
6. The plan is to slow the surface speed by 5 mph / 8 kph, annually, until the speed at which global society moves is the speed at which humans and animals can walk.
By that time we will be on the way to a global energy throughput level whereby all human needs can be served
7. On food energy.
Once you are moving at a walking pace you can power that on breakfast, lunch and dinner.
If you want to carry more you add hay.
Food energy and the wind in sails.
But I'm ahead of myself.
8. First, the President makes this speech.
9. We set a national speed limit of 55 mph, with the pre-announced plan that it will be reduced by 5 mph annually on the first if January until the national speed limit is 15 mph or the speed at which your horse trots, whichever is faster. For machines it's 15 mph.
9. With aviation the limit will be on newtons / HP / kw of moving mass.
They'll be able to move toward the goal by either slowing down - there's a limit on how slow they can fly, and so forth - and reducing size.
DC3 probably the last thing flying.
By the 15, no flight period.
Why it works:
In the first place, speed is energy in exactly the same way that temperature is energy, that is to say it is a measure of energy intensity in a specific mass.
Less speed is less energy.
In transportation there is a fudge factor, air resistance. So at higher speeds,
11. You get, besides the direct reduction in work per unit of time, in physics terms, you also get an increase in efficiency due to reduced air resistance, which is a big deal.
But this isn't about that.
12. Energy consumption can be measured in mass moved (weight) times distance times time.
The faster you move any weight, be it your hand or a semi trailer truck, the more energy you use per unit of time.
This isn't about per mile efficiency. This is about absolute energy
13. So there is the direct benefit which begins to accrue in the first moment of implementation. The first time something moves we start to reduce emissions.
But there's more.
14. The faster a society's average speed over land is, the farther the average trip is. The farther away necessary goods and services are.
When I was a kid people all over the USA walked to the grocery store. My parents did. Left the car home.
No freeways had been built yet.
15. It is an absolute fact that 250 years ago every human being on Earth could get everything they needed to live their lives within walking distance of where they woke up that morning.
There was no other way to get it.
They weren't all dropping dead
They could walk to everything
16. It is a common belief that now that would be impossible. There is no real evidence for this, it's a correlation assumption.
But it would be impossible without a transition period during which society restored the distribution system to put everything in walking distance.
17. That's the point of the gradual process.
At 5 mph slower everyone can still get to Walmart and Price Chopper and the Dentist three suburbs away. A 60 mile, 60 mph commute takes 6 minutes longer. Nobody gets hungry.
At 50 it's a little slower.
18. The farther away Walmart is *in time* the greater the chance you'll be willing to pay 10¢ more for a loaf of bread at the Mom & Pop store.
If the government has a half a brain they subsidize small scale close in retail at the same time as the slowdown.
19. Profligate waste like this is only possible at a huge rate of speed mass energy.
20. Besides requiring speed to make possible huge scale retail drawing from a 30 mile diameter around itself at a mile a minute, it requires speed to ship all the crap we buy and throw away.
One of the primary reasons for the ubiquitous plastic single use container is
21. High speed high volume long distance freight.
The reason all our food is grown in California and Chile is because they can fly it around the country and world at 600 mph.
To slow down the economy would be to plunge it into a global depression of incomprehensible depth, or
22. at every stage we could look for opportunity to reduce our wants and serve our needs, to focus on opening a bakery in anybody's house who feels the urge.
Residential only zoning has to go. Without high speed it is not possible to leave your residential area to work or shop.
23. Slowing alone is not enough, but slowing is the keystone. Slowing is the lynch pin.
Speed equals scale. Speed requires pavement. Without speed, every road in America could be one donkey cart wide, with room to pass, and paved with separate stones, mud free and water accepting
24. We could get the separate stones by tearing up all the highways, airports, and parking lots. All the strip malls. All the frontage roads. All the interchanges.
That's all for speed. Without speed, 100% of that Earth could host photosynthesis and life, all of which
25. Eats carbon out of the atmosphere and defecates it into the soil, where it hosts more life and helps it grow.
We're doing this all wrong.
And we're about to launch a whole new explosion of more of the same.
26. The only thing which has ever sucked all this carbon out of the atmosphere in the last 6 or 7 billion years is the biosphere, building from the photosynthesizers and working up from there.
There's no guarantee we have time to work it again, but it's the only chance we have.
27. That's all I got.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jeff McFadden

Jeff McFadden Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @homemadeguitars

23 Sep
I wrote the thread below tonight. I have some comments on it.
First, the reason I explained in terms of government action is the same as the reason scientists use "perfect" media to explain processes and principles.
Perfect gas. Perfect black body radiation. So forth.
2. The real world is stark staring crazy, the home of chaos and variables. If you want to explain an idea you kinda leave some of that out. It's too confusing.
But it's real, and it's not smart to ignore it.
So, I developed societies were really to slow down, could they?
3. I don't know. I'm not at all optimistic they will, so if there is no free will, then no, they couldn't.
And that's way over my head.
In terms of hardware and grocery stores it theoretically could, by people doing it from the bottom. Refusing to maintain the average speed.
Read 15 tweets
22 Sep
I'm reading this excellent article that my friend Midnight sent me, and right in the middle I stumble onto this concept
As regular readers know, I harp endlessly on the energy and resource cost of the "renewable energy" something for nothing solution to everything, and it falls on deaf ears.
And here's why:
Our definition of renewables is that they are free, they have no cost, they obtain energy which the ecosystem was otherwise wasting, which is by itself an insane belief.
But I'm saying, no, look, it takes all these material resources, steel, glass, and it takes energy to make
Read 19 tweets
21 Sep
Abe news.
A friend asked about Abe. He's doing well. He's got his job, which is being retired senior donk, and he gets paid for it just like everyone else does.
Here he's working (as defined) at a hay project. You can see them over by the fence. If anyone gets a goodie, all 3 do.
He makes a cameo appearance in this vid. Couple-three weeks ago, I dunno.
He spends a lot of time here. He's watching us hitch up to go work. He gets goodies every round.
Read 7 tweets
21 Sep
Manure spreader, part II
Here's what it looks like put together. Tows by the tongue on the left here.
This is inside the box. These chains, driven by one wheel, pull these green bars to the left in this pic, dragging the manure towards the back.
Manure is not just shit. It's shit and waste feed, hay / grass, probably some urine (high nitrogen) soaked into the waste material.
This part is called a "beater." It's at the back end. It spins like propellers, tears up the manure (including grass material) and throws it out in a fan shape of small portions.
Read 13 tweets
20 Sep
A lot of evenings my thread is about something that really matters, at least to me, about climate and available actions, and I know that one will get the smallest number of likes and RTs of any of my work.
Sometimes I do hard science at about a 10th grade level, applying to 🌍🌎
2. Tonight, though, I'm just going to muse about energy.
I've been tweeting this image a lot lately. I find it endlessly fascinating.
3. As I often mention, what we call climate change - just that specific portion of the greater ecosystem collapse event - climate change is the accumulation of energy in the atmosphere and everywhere else.
Carbon catches the energy and stores it, which is why we think of carbon.
Read 23 tweets
20 Sep
I'm going to try this one more time.
This graphic.
All the lines are energy. All the boxes are sources or destinations.
If you increase any thing on the destination side, you have to increase something on the source side.
All the current destinations consume all the current src's
Manufacturing and installing renewable energy devices would be new activities or increased activities in the bottom to pink boxes, manufacturing and transportation.
The pink boxes would get larger. It would require more source energy to fill them.
Source energy is mostly emitting
For instance, burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces roughly 22.38 pounds of CO2.
I wonder if this process consumed any diesel fuel. 🤔
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(