Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(38,311 posts)
8. Efficiency is an economic measure, not an environmental measure.
Thu Aug 7, 2014, 05:34 PM
Aug 2014

Germany, as an industrial-consumer society, doesn't do well when measured by per capita fossil fuel use.

Riding the fossil-fueled train to hell, how much does it matter if we slow down from 120 miles per hour to a hundred miles per hour? The destination is still the same, we just get there a little later.

How do we reverse the train? How do we build a comfortable society that doesn't require fossil fuels? How do we get per capita fossil fuel use down to zero? That's the question that needs answering. Germany isn't even close. Their efforts towards efficiency and sustainability have merely been supplemental to their fossil-fuel economy. Building new more "efficient" coal fired power plants is not the answer. Building more efficient cars is not the answer. Getting rid of fossil fueled power plants and automobiles is the answer.

I do the math and I don't believe an industrial-consumer society such as we have in the U.S.A. or Germany can be supported by "sustainable" or "renewable" energy systems. To quit fossil fuels will require radical changes we are unwilling to accept. Giving up our automobiles, our inexpensive air travel, big box stores, etc., etc., etc., it's not going to happen. Therefore the best we can do is adapt to the climate catastrophes as they occur and preserve what's left of the natural environment our species evolved in as best we can. It's going to be a very rough ride. The economic system that caused this global catastrophe probably won't survive. The disease will be self-limiting.

Coming out the other side I hope we can maintain our global communication infrastructure, increase the general level of literacy and education, and not lose our arts and sciences, most especially medicine.

We don't need fossil fuels to teach kids how to read, we don't need fossil fuels to teach people about basic public health measures and birth control. We don't even need fossil fuels to grow food, but that's an area that will require some work since allowing people to starve is not an ethical option. If the last barrels of petroleum are used in farm machines, I'm okay with that. If they are used in war machines, I'm not.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The U.S. ranks 13 out of ...»Reply #8