paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

[santafe2]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

In a way I agree with you. But it all depends on where you live and where you work. I know people always say "Well live closer to where you work!"

Now that is easier said than done. Job changes? Travel arrangements? Child care? Age restraints? And so many other things make it all but unworkable for many folks. In many cases the current infrastructure and mass transit systems just won't get the job done. I believe that in the end we are going to have to make some major remodeling of the current systems. These changes are fairly drastic. And just exactly how would we get this funded in the current political climate?

I think it's difficult but if it's important to someone they will do it. I know because we gave up everything to move out of LA, our great jobs and our 100 mile per day commutes to move into a small town where we really live a simple life with a very low energy footprint. I've never tried to quantify it but I think we use 5-10% the fossil fuel energy we used 20 years ago. Over time we've learned to appreciate things like biking to the plaza as a fun way to spend a weekend day with each other. We grow some of our own food and buy most of the rest from local farmers. We produce almost all of our own electrical and transportation energy. For us, there's more to learn and to do but I think most people don't want to try because you have to give up your life and start over. It worked for us.

[astonas]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

I think it's difficult but if it's important to someone they will do it. I know because we gave up everything to move out of LA, our great jobs and our 100 mile per day commutes to move into a small town where we really live a simple life with a very low energy footprint. I've never tried to quantify it but I think we use 5-10% the fossil fuel energy we used 20 years ago. Over time we've learned to appreciate things like biking to the plaza as a fun way to spend a weekend day with each other. We grow some of our own food and buy most of the rest from local farmers. We produce almost all of our own electrical and transportation energy. For us, there's more to learn and to do but I think most people don't want to try because you have to give up your life and start over. It worked for us.

It certainly is great when that is an option.

Healthy, able-bodied individuals, with no small children, who are able to find sufficient jobs very close to one another (or live off a single income) very near an employer(s), in a climate that permits year-round pedestrian travel, etc. can indeed shed their vehicles. Some will be able to meet the list of requirements. But it is also clear that for some (perhaps even a large majority of) people it simply will never be feasible even if it is very important to them. For one thing, the whole country can't exactly move to Santa Fe, or similarly temperate places, without considerably overtaxing local water supplies, or raising land costs beyond an affordable threshold. For another, certain professions are extremely concentrated in specific (higher environmental impact) geographic regions.

It will always be very possible for some people to make it work. But I'm not sure it will ever be reasonable to expect the majority will be able to do so. The geography of the country isn't uniformly forgiving, and some of the attributes that make such a low-footprint lifestyle viable are also properties that limit the number of people that can take advantage of those attributes. (low precipitation, sufficient water tables, affordable land, and more.)

As in any investment, the ones in first are best rewarded. But those who try to follow will increasingly feel more pain, for a lower energy reduction, if they are able to make such a transition work at all.

I think that for the most part, such dramatic reductions will be an option for those retiring, or going into semi-retirement. Young families will be in for a rougher time. If a family doesn't have a way to get a sick kid to a hospital quickly, for example, they could wind up paying a much higher price for that low energy footprint than they planned for. I know of one family who paid a very, very high price indeed.

[BadJuju]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

It certainly is great when that is an option.

Healthy, able-bodied individuals, with no small children, who are able to find sufficient jobs very close to one another (or live off a single income) very near an employer(s), in a climate that permits year-round pedestrian travel, etc. can indeed shed their vehicles. Some will be able to meet the list of requirements. But it is also clear that for some (perhaps even a large majority of) people it simply will never be feasible even if it is very important to them. For one thing, the whole country can't exactly move to Santa Fe, or similarly temperate places, without considerably overtaxing local water supplies, or raising land costs beyond an affordable threshold. For another, certain professions are extremely concentrated in specific (higher environmental impact) geographic regions..

Very few people in the United States live in areas that make it impossible to get around on a bicycle or motorcycle year-round. I live in a hilly area that experiences all four seasons and gets 50+ inches of rain annually. It has never stopped me.

Honestly, people will adapt or they'll just do without. It won't be a choice.

[Penguin]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Very good posts, I've enjoyed reading them this morning.

santafe you have a good point. It is possible. But it takes a major remodel and a step back in personal lifestyle. And that is kind of my point. If we are going to gracefully go down the path of having to scale back on energy consumption without major economic carnage (which you must admit would occur if say a third of the nation were to take your example and put it to use) then the answer is patently obvious: we have to have communities restructured to accommodate more butts in the seats of efficient means of transport. That means work to home commutes that are doable and much more efficient means of getting them back and forth. Mass transit and highly efficient vehicles... maybe even specialty vehicles made for getting one or two folks to work and back.

I can understand you you would say that BadJuju. I really do. I went to grad school in Madison WI. I usually walked or biked in unless it was really rough outside. One entire year I decided I would bike only, no public transit. Thanks to good mountain bike tires I could actually do it even in heavy snow. And I remember days when I had to wear goggles to keep my eyes from freezing up. But I was a very in shape man in my prime. With no kids. And the flexible work schedule that goes along with the slave labor of grad school. And my commute was only 10 to 15 minutes on bike... in a town notorious for making allowances for bike and foot traffic. Not sure how wide a slice of the nation that option would fit.

I agree that long term we must adapt. But that doesn't mean that we all will have to bike or else have sleeping quarters in our place of work where we only go home on the weekends. I think the adaption to PCO will much more nuanced than that. But I am someone who believes that it will take much longer for peak oil to play out than most other folks do... but I admit that is just my opinion.

Will

[BadJuju]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Indeed, Penguin sir. It is just that I think a lot of people make excuses for things they don't want to do because they are not always the most convenient things ever. Unfortunately, reality sucks and it doesn't make allowances for what you want. You know, I'd like to have good health, but I don't and despite having health problems that make physical activities harder for me compared to a normal person, I still manage to do these things. Outside of having crippling physical disabilities, there really isn't much of an excuse.

[Prazak]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Indeed, Penguin sir. It is just that I think a lot of people make excuses for things they don't want to do because they are not always the most convenient things ever. Unfortunately, reality sucks and it doesn't make allowances for what you want. You know, I'd like to have good health, but I don't and despite having health problems that make physical activities harder for me compared to a normal person, I still manage to do these things. Outside of having crippling physical disabilities, there really isn't much of an excuse.

I began this Spring with the goal of doing everything by bike or foot, unless it entailed shuttling my son to this or that activity with his gear. Too often I've found an excuse for taking my car instead of bike. But you're inspiring me, BadJuju. Thanks!

[BadJuju]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Good to hear, Prazak! Good luck with it.

[c1ue]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Maybe your on to something c1ue, mouth breathers don't want to look so dumb, they're just getting too much CO2.

Or maybe it is the airheads who are afraid of being deflated.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: paradigm-change? Frak'g Causes Environmentalists Go Pro-Nuclear?

Maybe, but maybe not.

Hard to say what the future holds. But if it makes you feel any better I don't believe in the full blown apocalypse scenario myself. But if the past is any guide to the future it won't be pretty. Be honest, if someone went back in time to 1973 and informed you of the situation of the US in 2013 how would it affect you? Wouldn't you be shocked? I sure as hell would have been... although I would have been much too young to understand it, lol.

But I am hopeful that although we are starting to feel the effects of resource scarcity the main problem we have now is policy. That could be structured in a way that would improve the future drastically which is after all the gist of the original post. Now all we have to do is figure out how to make that happen. Maybe taking on the two criminal enterprises that comprise our political parties would be a good start?

Will

I think we need to change the system which permits such corrupt parties to win elections!
They keep winning because third parties need to get 50% in a congressional district to get a seat. So people vote for the "least worst" of the stwo major candidates. The better minor party candidates can't win, so they are "wasted votes". I vote my conscience no matter what.