I wholeheartedly disagree. Or rather I pose the question: Efficiency in what regard? If we measure it as ensuring a good, nurturing life with minimal resource usage, we categorically don’t.
I don’t think anyone defines efficiency that way. You seem to be moving the goalposts. My point is today’s cars, furnaces, hot water heaters, air conditioners, and so on are far more efficient today than they were in years past.
As an example, cars and longish distance travel: The average American commuter has to travel long distances to get to work, to socialize and run errands. This is mostly due to sprawl/zoning laws/big cars and bad public infrastructure. Spending this long time in traffic increases stress and makes people time poor.
And that has nothing to do with efficiency. And much of it is a matter of opinion. Many also find city living stressful, living on top of other people and having less privacy. I do not particularly like my commute, but living in a dense apartment where I can hear my neighbors fart and having to be in packed public transit are no better.
It seems WFH is another solution. The pandemic greatly reduced carbon emissions. People could live in comfortable homes and not have to commute.
Another example is food. A lot of it wasted (directly), much more is wasted by being “converted” to animal protein for human consumption (trophic-level).
At times. But animals live on things that humans cannot eat, including grass. Factory farming is bad, sure. But we have turned to it because we have so many more to feed. We have eaten animals for millennia. Saying that it is now suddenly a problem is ridiculous.
The western societies - and the US in particular - waste a shit ton of resources to gain a very mediocre quality of living experience.
Have you seen how non-western societies live, especially the poor? You would not be calling our way of life mediocre.
Or asked another way: Should efficiency of something be measured by how resource-intense it is to satisfy a “first-order” need of people, or by the n-th-order demand we established and want a drop-in-replacement for now (similar to trophic-levels)?
So no distinction between a second-order need and, say, a 12th-order want? That is a false dichotomy. There are reasonable levels of comfort people should be able to avail themselves of. Let’s stop the rich from flying private jets and building multiple mansions rather than go after regualr people. I am sorry, but I am not content with only first-order needs met.
My point is, this planet has only so many resources to go around, and each person needs some to live a full life. So to provide that, we need to shrink the denominator so there is more to go around. Infinite growth is just not possible. We are in an overshoot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overshoot_(population)
I am not. I elaborated what I meant. Life in all developed countries could be better than it is and less-resource-intense at the same time, even without further adoption of drop-in-replacements.
My point is today’s cars […} and so on are far more efficient today than they were in years past.
Cars could be much more energy efficient than they are. Not accounting for the inherent step up by going electric. E.g. in Germany a study showed basically all stransmission, combustion etc. gains where nullified by the weight increase by the fetishization of oversized cars. And these cars grew by a multiple-fold of the “nessecary”-weight increase due to safety, before you comment on that.
Many also find city living stressful, living on top of other people and having less privacy.
If the externalized costs are fully internalized (as in, indirect costs now and the climate costs, which are largely unaccounted), I have no problem with that way of living. But surburbs would be quite empty if their inhabitants didn’t live off urbanites.
We have eaten animals for millennia. Saying that it is now suddenly a problem is ridiculous.
Since you are such a fan of the idea of overshoot (e.g.: I got mine, keep the gates), I hope you are aware of all the fertilizer we use in the process. The % of animals only fed on non-agarable land is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. We are running out of fertilizer early because of unsustainable farming practices and animal-based eating practices.
Have you seen how non-western societies live, especially the poor? You would not be calling our way of life mediocre.
Mediocre compare to what we could do we the same resources, if used with a little more foresight.
Well, I meant US compared to Europe. Congrats on not drifting off even further, but you still use more than twice the amount of electricity we use, for a non-better standard of living.
I am sorry, but I am not content with only first-order needs met.
The first order needs I “coined” are not basic needs as defined by maslow. They can be more. But society is better off reducing it’s dependence of additional levels of cruft which are a burden to pretty much everybody. There is room for living in suburbs (when surbanites pay their share), off grid, or lavishly. Even for some kind of “unnessary” things, but not on this widespread of a scale. And this feeds nicely in the Carnot-cycle point you made: Every widely adopted, big layer of unnesary conversion translates to a loss of usable energy in the process. These are big wins, hidden in plain sight.
Let’s stop the rich from flying private jets and building multiple mansions rather than go after regualr people. […] My point is, this planet has only so many resources to go around, and each person needs some to live a full life. So to provide that, we need to shrink the denominator so there is more to go around. Infinite growth is just not possible. We are in an overshoot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overshoot_(population)
This is such an elitist argument. “Everybody” wants the carefree “Après moi, le déluge” lifestyle the US has. And if everybody lived like the average american, we would way more fucked now than we currently are. Remember, the US emitted ~1/5th of all co2 emissions our current global civilization has ever emitted. Offloading the production to China and plateauing in raw-usage is just not cutting it. Europe is doing the same shit. But since you started even higher, your transition is even easier. Patting yourself on the back your little improvements where so much is on the table is like being proud of not beating your wife to death every week anymore, only every fortnight into a coma.
I am not. I elaborated what I meant. Life in all developed countries could be better than it is and less-resource-intense at the same time, even without further adoption of drop-in-replacements.
Well that is not what I was talking about.
Cars could be much more energy efficient than they are. Not accounting for the inherent step up by going electric. E.g. in Germany a study showed basically all stransmission, combustion etc. gains where nullified by the weight increase by the fetishization of oversized cars. And these cars grew by a multiple-fold of the “nessecary”-weight increase due to safety, before you comment on that.
I cannot find that study. But, sure, some cars are oversized. But that does not change that there is limits to efficiency.
Well, even in this system you are directly profiteering of a ponzi-scheme, crippling your communities. .
If the externalized costs are fully internalized (as in, indirect costs now and the climate costs, which are largely unaccounted), I have no problem with that way of living. But surburbs would be quite empty if their inhabitants didn’t live off urbanites.
Funny you want to say suburbs are Ponzi schemes that are depending on new growth when I am the one arguing for shrinking the population. You know why more suburbs get built? Because we have to house more people. The best way to eliminate the need for infrastructure is to have fewer people needing the infrastructure. Also, I happen to be a civil engineer in a town that has been declining in population for 50 years. They offer an oversimplified explanation of why maintaining infrastructure is so expensive.
Since you are such a fan of the idea of overshoot (e.g.: I got mine, keep the gates), I hope you are aware of all the fertilizer we use in the process. The % of animals only fed on non-agarable land is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. We are running out of fertilizer early because of unsustainable farming practices and animal-based eating practices.
Yep, we use so much because there are so many mouths to feed.
Mediocre compare to what we could do we the same resources, if used with a little more foresight.
Well, I meant US compared to Europe. Congrats on not drifting off even further, but you still use more than twice the amount of electricity we use, for a non-better standard of living.
And such living still would not be sustainable. Even if we all lived like Europeans, Earth would still run short of resources.
This is such an elitist argument. “Everybody” wants the carefree “Après moi, le déluge” lifestyle the US has. And if everybody lived like the average american, we would way more fucked now than we currently are. Remember, the US emitted ~1/5th of all co2 emissions our current global civilization has ever emitted. Offloading the production to China and plateauing in raw-usage is just not cutting it. Europe is doing the same shit. But since you started even higher, your transition is even easier. Patting yourself on the back your little improvements where so much is on the table is like being proud of not beating your wife to death every week anymore, only every fortnight into a coma.
I don’t think anyone defines efficiency that way. You seem to be moving the goalposts. My point is today’s cars, furnaces, hot water heaters, air conditioners, and so on are far more efficient today than they were in years past.
And that has nothing to do with efficiency. And much of it is a matter of opinion. Many also find city living stressful, living on top of other people and having less privacy. I do not particularly like my commute, but living in a dense apartment where I can hear my neighbors fart and having to be in packed public transit are no better.
It seems WFH is another solution. The pandemic greatly reduced carbon emissions. People could live in comfortable homes and not have to commute.
At times. But animals live on things that humans cannot eat, including grass. Factory farming is bad, sure. But we have turned to it because we have so many more to feed. We have eaten animals for millennia. Saying that it is now suddenly a problem is ridiculous.
Actually, household electrical use has been flat to falling. And the largest users are Southerners with intense AC needs. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49036
Have you seen how non-western societies live, especially the poor? You would not be calling our way of life mediocre.
So no distinction between a second-order need and, say, a 12th-order want? That is a false dichotomy. There are reasonable levels of comfort people should be able to avail themselves of. Let’s stop the rich from flying private jets and building multiple mansions rather than go after regualr people. I am sorry, but I am not content with only first-order needs met.
My point is, this planet has only so many resources to go around, and each person needs some to live a full life. So to provide that, we need to shrink the denominator so there is more to go around. Infinite growth is just not possible. We are in an overshoot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overshoot_(population)
I am not. I elaborated what I meant. Life in all developed countries could be better than it is and less-resource-intense at the same time, even without further adoption of drop-in-replacements.
Cars could be much more energy efficient than they are. Not accounting for the inherent step up by going electric. E.g. in Germany a study showed basically all stransmission, combustion etc. gains where nullified by the weight increase by the fetishization of oversized cars. And these cars grew by a multiple-fold of the “nessecary”-weight increase due to safety, before you comment on that.
Well, even in this system you are directly profiteering of a ponzi-scheme, crippling your communities. .
If the externalized costs are fully internalized (as in, indirect costs now and the climate costs, which are largely unaccounted), I have no problem with that way of living. But surburbs would be quite empty if their inhabitants didn’t live off urbanites.
Since you are such a fan of the idea of overshoot (e.g.: I got mine, keep the gates), I hope you are aware of all the fertilizer we use in the process. The % of animals only fed on non-agarable land is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. We are running out of fertilizer early because of unsustainable farming practices and animal-based eating practices.
Mediocre compare to what we could do we the same resources, if used with a little more foresight.
Well, I meant US compared to Europe. Congrats on not drifting off even further, but you still use more than twice the amount of electricity we use, for a non-better standard of living.
The first order needs I “coined” are not basic needs as defined by maslow. They can be more. But society is better off reducing it’s dependence of additional levels of cruft which are a burden to pretty much everybody. There is room for living in suburbs (when surbanites pay their share), off grid, or lavishly. Even for some kind of “unnessary” things, but not on this widespread of a scale. And this feeds nicely in the Carnot-cycle point you made: Every widely adopted, big layer of unnesary conversion translates to a loss of usable energy in the process. These are big wins, hidden in plain sight.
This is such an elitist argument. “Everybody” wants the carefree “Après moi, le déluge” lifestyle the US has. And if everybody lived like the average american, we would way more fucked now than we currently are. Remember, the US emitted ~1/5th of all co2 emissions our current global civilization has ever emitted. Offloading the production to China and plateauing in raw-usage is just not cutting it. Europe is doing the same shit. But since you started even higher, your transition is even easier. Patting yourself on the back your little improvements where so much is on the table is like being proud of not beating your wife to death every week anymore, only every fortnight into a coma.
Well that is not what I was talking about.
I cannot find that study. But, sure, some cars are oversized. But that does not change that there is limits to efficiency.
Funny you want to say suburbs are Ponzi schemes that are depending on new growth when I am the one arguing for shrinking the population. You know why more suburbs get built? Because we have to house more people. The best way to eliminate the need for infrastructure is to have fewer people needing the infrastructure. Also, I happen to be a civil engineer in a town that has been declining in population for 50 years. They offer an oversimplified explanation of why maintaining infrastructure is so expensive.
Yep, we use so much because there are so many mouths to feed.
And such living still would not be sustainable. Even if we all lived like Europeans, Earth would still run short of resources.
It is not elitist. It is science. The driver of emissions growth is population, not merely rich people. https://phys.org/news/2023-04-population-growth-main-driver-carbon.html