Climate experts who suggest that we'll be able to get out of this by basically just building out renewables - that no one will be be forced to use less energy or be inconvenienced in any way - are doing a grave disservice to humanity. And this seems to be most climate experts.
While I too wish this were true, it simply is not. There is a tradeoff between irreversible climate disasters and energy consumption, because the real "carbon budget" that remains is zero. We are obviously *already* at dangerous levels of global heating.
Sooner or later, we'll collectively accept this. Until then I'll take heat for saying it, but the reason I do is to save as much future death and suffering as possible. The sooner we collectively accept this the better off we'll all be. This is what "emergency" means!
Finally, as I discuss in my book, it doesn't need to be only sacrifice. There's also a LOT of joy in slowing down, reconnecting with food and the Earth, and rebuilding local community!
peterkalmus.net/books/
peterkalmus.net/books/
By the way, I am not talking about people voluntarily using less energy and changing their lifestyles. Far from it. Instead I am talking about the clear need for policies that begin prioritizing uses of energy and phasing out fossil fuels in a coordinated and equitable way.
Right now, I don't see any politicians with the courage to do this. But as the public gets more and more freaked out by climate disasters, it will take less and less courage on their part. (Real leadership would be recognizing this, selling the public on it, and moving faster)
*btw, "be forced to use less" was a bad word choice, "have to use less" or "end up using less" is better. It will come about through changes to systems and changes to availability.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
