Brad Plumer has a nice little video over at TNR today, playing off Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski's comment that meeting our climate goals will mean cutting back on consumption and consumerism -- that is, it will require the dread "lifestyle changes."
Brad notes that efficiency and renewable power don't necessarily force any lifestyle changes. (A vacuum cleaner that uses less electricity, and gets its electricity from wind power, is still a vacuum cleaner -- you still vacuum with it.) There may be some, particularly in transportation (smaller cars), but a low-carbon America will look a lot like a high-carbon America, lifestyle-wise.
That's good as far as it goes. But I'd add two important points:
1. It is true that we can make serious emission reductions without impacting the lifestyle of the average American at all. We could get emissions down quite a bit just by matching the carbon productivity (tons of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP) of Japan or the state of California. Let's say 20%, or even 30%, in the next couple decades.
Remember, though, to really get where we need to go we need to get as close as possible to carbon neutral by 2080. That's close to 100% reductions. That means not just boosting renewables a little but virtually eliminating fossil fuels. And because renewables will never be able to provide the sheer concentrated quantities fossil fuels provided, we're going to have to figure out how to diffuse and decentralize our energy system and radically increase the intelligence with which we use energy.
Power will have to be harvested virtually everywhere, stored by virtually everything, managed by ubiquitous IT. People will have to live closer together in communities served by transit. Land will have to be used more intelligently; carbon sinks will have to be cultivated.
All this will mean changes in the way Americans live. But ...
2. Americans are always changing their lifestyles. In just my living memory, shopping has moved to the web, interpersonal communication has become ubiquitous, urbanization has accelerated, newspapers have all but died, etc. etc. Lifestyles are never static. It's just that people don't tend to notice lifestyle changes as such because they happen gradually.
What people fear are not lifestyle changes but abrupt decreases in quality of life. People fear losing what they've got. That's what the "lifestyle change" debate is code for in the green space. So it's worth emphasizing:
3. Changing to a low-carbon economy could increase our quality of life. Living in cities well-served by transit is quite pleasant, as I can testify having just returned from Barcelona and Paris. Raising a garden, or eating healthy, locally grown food is pleasant. Eliminating your electricity bills is pleasant, as is being aware of and in control of your personal power consumption. Getting rid of your car is pleasant. Etc.
Point is, quality of life is not, contra Republicans, intrinsically attached to fossil fuel use. It's not even intrinsically attached to material plenty. It's not attached to ownership. It's what we do, what's available for our use, and most of all our connections to family, friends, and community that make for a good life.
So, I really feel like Kulongoski and folks like him are not being very helpful. It's fine to acknowledge that shifting to a low-carbon economy will involve big changes, but there's no reason to feed the fear that those changes will be disruptive and unpleasant. They needn't be.
The most fundamental factor in our energy use is our suburbs. People living in suburbs simply have to use much more energy than people living in urban areas. They have bigger houses that need more energy, big lawns that need a lot of water, and everyone in the family needs a car to get anywhere.
You can say that we'll reduce fossil fuel demand by making expensive marginal improvements in household energy efficiency, expensive moves to electric cars, and expensive moves to renewable energy production- but I don't know if you're just lying to yourself or really that ignorant, but that all adds up to a ton of money.
#1 best way to curb our energy use? Policy changes that encourage people to live in cities over suburbs: make tolls pay for all highway costs, end tax advantage for owning>renting your home, school choice, urban infrastructure investment, etc.
challege to save the planet and our economy and send world leaders a message we are serious.
The idyllic picture of all of us living in green cities of the future sounds great, but I fear we are in for a much darker period before we get there. Unfortunately, the inertia of our political and economic systems has virtually assured that we will face massive water and food shortages, disease, migration and violence; I don't imagine that is the type of acceptable lifestyle change this author has in mind.
Useful info on this...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/01/climate-change-debate-david-mackay
also
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/sewthacontents.shtml
Here’s a breakdown analysis showing the biggest impact we can have on conserving energy. Bear in mind that the average UK citizen uses 125kWh/d and US one uses 250 KWh/d
(One kilowatt-hour (kWh) is the electrical energy used by leaving a 40-watt bulb on for 24 hours. )
~Put on a woolly jumper and turn down your heat-
ing’s thermostat (to 15 or 17 °C, say). Make sure the heating’s
off when no-one’s at home. Do the same at work.
20 kWh/d
~Read all your meters (gas, electricity, water) every
week, and identify easy changes to reduce consump-
tion (e.g., switching things off). at your place of
work too, creating a perpetual live energy audit.
4 kWh/d
~Stop flying.
35 kWh/d
~Drive less, drive more slowly, drive more gently, car-
pool, use an electric car, join a car club, cycle, walk,
use trains and buses.
20 kWh/d
~Keep using old gadgets (e.g. computers); don’t re-
place them early.
4 kWh/d
~Change lights to fluorescent or LED.
4 kWh/d
~Don’t buy clutter. Avoid packaging.
20 kWh/d
~Eat vegetarian, six days out of seven.
10 kWh/d
Get real.
Do Ursine Mammals defecate in forested areas?
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=213
not to mention our huge use of fossil fuels:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116
Of course It's gonna hurt, or at least cause some inconveniences.
Will Wilson