Climate Change

To Stop Climate Change Americans Must Cut Energy Use by 90 Percent, Live in 640 Square Feet, and Fly Only Once Every 3 Years, Says Study

Researchers admit there are absolutely no current examples of low-energy societies providing a decent living standard for their citizens.

|

In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That's at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel. In their new study, "Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use," in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.

Vogel and his colleagues set themselves the goal of figuring out how to "provide sufficient need satisfaction at much lower, ecologically sustainable levels of energy use." Referencing earlier sustainability studies they argue that human needs are sufficiently satisfied when each person has access to the energy equivalent of 7,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per capita. That is about how much energy the average Bolivian uses. Currently, Americans use about 80,000 kWh annually per capita. With respect to transportation and physical mobility, the average person would be limited to using the energy equivalent of 16–40 gallons of gasoline per year. People are assumed to take one short- to medium-haul airplane trip every three years or so.

In addition, food consumption per capita would vary depending on age and other conditions, but the average would be 2,100 calories per day. While just over 10 percent of the world's people are unfortunately still undernourished, the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the daily global average food supply now stands at just under 3,000 calories per person. Each individual is allocated a new clothing allowance of nine pounds per year, and clothes may be washed 20 times annually. The good news is that everyone over age 10 is permitted a mobile phone and each household can have a laptop.

How do Vogel and his colleagues arrive at their conclusions? First, they assert that "globally, large reductions in energy use are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C."  The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."

To achieve that goal, the researchers focus on what they call provisioning factors, which are intermediary institutions that people use to satisfy their needs. Provisioning factors that affect the amount of energy a society uses include public service, public health coverage, access to electricity and clean fuels, democratic quality, income equality, economic growth, and extractivism. These provisioning factors are the basis for providing sufficient human needs such as nourishment, drinking water, sanitation access, basic education, and a minimum income, all of which help secure the basic need of healthy life expectancy.

In order to stay below the 1.5°C temperature increase threshold, they cite earlier research that calculated that the average person should be limited to using annually as little as 18 gigajoules (equivalent to 136 gallons of gasoline or 5,000 kWh) of total energy, but allocated more generously for their study a cap of 27 gigajoules (equivalent to 204 gallons of gasoline or 7,500 kWh) annually. They then checked to see if any country in the world had met their definition of decent living standards using that amount of energy per capita. "No country in the world accomplishes that—not even close," admitted Vogel in an accompanying press release.

Vogel and his colleagues are undaunted by the fact that there are absolutely no examples of low-energy societies providing decent living standards—as defined by the researchers themselves—for their citizens. So they proceed to jigger the various provisioning factors until they find that what is really needed is a "more fundamental transformation of the political-economic regime." That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.

"We also found that a fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use," said co-author Daniel O'Neill, from Leeds' School of Earth and Environment. "To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income level. We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes."

Two things that humanity for sure doesn't need according to the study are economic growth or the continued extraction of natural resources such as oil, coal, gas, or minerals. Vogel concluded: "In short, we need to abandon economic growth in affluent countries, scale back resource extraction, and prioritize public services, basic infrastructures and fair income distributions everywhere." He added, "In my view, the most promising and integral vision for the required transformation is the idea of degrowth—it is an idea whose time has come."

The researchers' assertion that "large reductions in energy use are required" is actually a non sequitur because it is not energy use per se that is contributing to man-made global warming, but the emissions of carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, when they set their 27-gigajoule per capita threshold, they specifically ruled out "speculative" technological progress. However, transitioning to no-carbon energy sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar power would solve the problem without forcing humanity to go on the ridiculously strict energy diet they call for.

Founder of the ecomodernist Breakthrough Institute Ted Nordhaus was correct when he argued, "The utopian dreams of those who wish to radically reorganize the world to stop climate change are not a plausible global future." The far better course for addressing the problem of climate change (and many others) is for humanity to aim for a high-energy planet. Instead of energy abstinence and degrowth, ecomodernists call for a "massive expansion of energy systems, primarily carried out in the rapidly urbanizing global South, in combination with the rapid acceleration of clean energy innovation."

Developing a high-energy planet will spur economic growth and innovation, helping to provide for all of the human needs that concern Vogel and his colleagues. Instead of trying to force Americans to live on the amount of energy currently available to Bolivians, the goal should be to enable people in energy-starved poor countries to gain access to energy supplies currently enjoyed by average Americans.

Disclosure: I have had the pleasure of attending several Breakthrough Dialogues and participating in discussions where I made the case that supporters of free markets are natural ecomodernists.

NEXT: Wisconsin Votes To Exempt Hair Braiders From Occupational Licensing Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “”the average person would be limited to using the energy equivalent of 16–40 gallons of gasoline per year.””

    Congratulations comrades, you gasoline allowance has increased from 16 a month to 40 a year.

    1. “Congratulations comrades, you gasoline allowance has increased from 16 a month to 40 a year.”

      ++ Good.

      I could, actually, do “okay” on well less than forty gallons a year. But it is because 1) neither my wife or myself work, and 2) our main mode of transportation is a plug-in hybrid, which, since used mostly locally (within twenty-five miles or so), gets by on about two gallons a month.
      But no, I am not selling my Jeep anyway: a Prius sucks on desert trails.

      1. Plug in hybrid? Only senior party members get an outlet.

        “”gets by on about two gallons a month.””

        Nice.

        1. “Only senior party members get an outlet.”

          Well, I am 67. And I am a registered as a Libertarian. So, maybe I will get to keep my outlet? Yeah, I know. Wrong party.

          1. No Comrade. In fact, we are moving some people who need housing into your home. You may retain possession of the spare bedroom.

            1. Yeah, I should have seen that coming.

              1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..VISIT HERE

                1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy DS and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                  on this page…..FAST CASH1 COM

              2. The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. Stay at home safe and sound avoiding corona virus but do not sit idol work online and make full use of this hostage period and raise extra money to over come daily financial difficulties…>>Webcash1.Com

              3. Then you are aware the attic is your next space.

            2. 3rd amendment finally gets some action!

            3. Yeah, that’s called “uplotnenie” – “better packing”.

      2. Ah, but now you’re limited in how much electricity to 7.5Kwhrs.

        So you’re gonna have to choose between plugging the car in or lights and AC.

        1. Well, don’t need AC where I live. So, I guess I will choose candles and charging up the car. Hey, maybe I can hook up my bicycle to operate belt on the clothes washer and save some more power, eh?

          1. How much cycling will I need to do to keep Fox News running throughout the evening viewing hours? Then, when they show my favorite old movie after midnight, I can peddle hard as Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly face the evil foursome in “High Noon.” Do not forsake me, oh, my TV.

          2. Sorry. The candle uses petroleum to form wax, so burning it is a sin. We will confiscate it.

            1. Not to mention that 1 lumen = 1 ft. candle, the luminous intensity of a candle on one square foot of surface, 1 foot from the light source and a ‘low efficiency’ LED generates around 100 lumens. IOW, candles throw off lots of heat that LEDs convert more specifically to light and it’s easy to generate 100X the amount of light with an LED using the same amount of energy as a candle. Even conventional incandescent bulbs are roughly 10X as efficient, which is why we ran copper lines into homes rather than continuing to run gas lamps.

          3. For other globally responsible ideas, see The Flintstones.

            Rest well in the knowledge that, as part of the vast minority, you are not waiting for mandates to do your part.

          4. We won’t be allowed to wash clothes under the Party’s new water rationing mandate, Comrade.

      3. Good news! The comrades plan on having everyone else join you in not working!

      4. Just for accuracy, your wall plug gets electricity from somewhere. Nuke and hydro power generation don’t have emissions, but coal and natural gas do.

    2. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank
      Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And
      only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was
      to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could
      swallow that, after only twenty-four hours?

    3. Another case of Reason’s “a pox on both their houses” philosophy failing. These are potential democrat policies, not republicans ones.

  2. My study says that greenies can go eat shit.

    1. That may soon be the only course (!) available, if they get their way.

      1. “That may soon be the only course (!) available, if they get their way.”

        That would require that we would be allowed to keep animals. Not good. The leftist/greenie/vegan rulers won’t allow that. Cockroach poop, maybe.

        (partially sarc, I actually keep vegan, but I am not a nut about it)

      2. Yes, but it is fortified with cricket protein and golden rice.

    2. Remember, greenies are all pinko on the inside.

    3. Can’t find your study on FB, Twitter or YT so it must be debunked.

  3. Their conclusion is turn everyone into a neo marxist troglodytes. Great.

    I would think a self proclaimed libertarian magazine would refute this nonsense, but my expectations were not met.

    1. I’m pretty sure this article has, in fact, been written to “refute this nonsense”.

      Your reading comprehension might need some work.

    2. Not troglodytes, PROGlodytes.

    3. We need more articles like this, and more awareness of just how much the elites wish to manage the lives of the plebes.

      The real truth is that the rich will still have access to gasoline, cars, and air travel. It’ll just be priced so high that the common man can no longer afford it.

      1. Yep, the greentards who come up with this crap are well-heeled trustafarians living in Brooklyn/SF/London who gloat about not owning a car and being strict vegans, but pay $50 for a pair of ethically made underwear, drink $20 sustainable cocktails, and vacation at eco resorts in Bali while buying carbon credits to offset their travel. Now you get the idea.

        1. The good news is, that’s about to change. WSJ just did a piece on how aging boomers are about to start the largest wealth transfer in history, and the millenials and genXer’s will be the recipients of most of it. I expect it will take the typical middle class (not the Trustfunded) BernieBro about 2 seconds to move about 50 points to the right.

          1. I know people who are, at least by my standards, quite wealthy but still very leftist in the views and voting; they can just comfortably send all the correct messages without fear of being impacted by the outcome because their money insulates them. It would take actual confiscation to change their minds.

            1. Confiscation or education.
              Don’t hold your breath.

    4. Sometimes, to thoroughly refute someone, all you have to do is honestly present their ideas without embellishment or commentary.

      Here, the claim is so absurd, that it’s plainly irrational. You don’t need to refute it. Don’t let them couch behind a sermon or euphemisms like “population control” (ie: genocide).

      To compare, the most damage to scientology was done by South Park, as they described their beliefs in plain language, with the only joke added being a caption “This is what Scientologists Actually Believe” to show they aren’t making it up.

      1. Love South Park and their takedowns of everything, but it seems like Scientology was a joke before that. Not sure about the damage done there. Other than their relationship with chef.

        Great episode, tho.

  4. Climate tsar John Kerry is leading the way.

    1. He wants to go to war for the climate.

    2. I wonder if the square footage rationing includes his private jet?

  5. You forgot the asterisk for party members and loyalists.

    1. “You forgot the asterisk for party members”

      Inner party members. The outer party gets bugs.

  6. Once the author of these studies and those that believe those actions will make a difference start living in such a manner, I’ll look at their opinions a little more closely. Until then, f’off!

    If they really believed this b.s., J. Kerry, A. Gore, and others would sell their houses, boats, cars and planes, and live in grass huts.

    1. Yep. I feel the same way. These assholes who talk about reducing the population should eat a bullet first to prove their committment to the cause.

    2. Sell them? F that, strip them down and build a few dozen 640 sqft shacks for rest of us.

    3. If they really believed this b.s., J. Kerry, A. Gore, and others would sell their houses, boats, cars and planes, and live in grass huts.

      And no Swiss-Family-Robinson, 7-story, monkies-with-pullies, mechanically-powered grass huts either, the regular kind they have on the plains of Africa, with dirt floors and no walls.

    4. Gore, Kerry, Biden, etc. have no plans whatsoever to have a lower standard of living – mansions, private jets, world travel, stretch limos. Their plan to save mankind is for others to do it.

  7. So 30 years ago the Rs claimed that there was not enough evidence that climate change was real. Then 15 years ago they just denied it outright, now they are claiming it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
    I say screw it. I am just fine flying once every 3 years and living in a small apartment. I will also happily cut my energy use. It is the price we pay for not dealing with the issue when we had a change. Had we tacked this in the 90s, we would already have mostly phased out coal/NG power, gas cars, and all have solar panels on our roofs.

    1. I am just fine flying once every 3 years and living in a small apartment.

      I am fine with you living with these conditions as well.

    2. “I am just fine flying once every 3 years and living in a small apartment. I will also happily cut my energy use.”

      Fine. Do it. Don’t demand it from me.

    3. No one is stopping you from doing that now.

    4. And solar tech wasn’t nearly as mature or efficient in the ’90s as it is now. That came from piggybacking on improvements in the semiconductor sector.

      1. And the government subsidies. Cut those and solar dies.

        1. Or the market forces them to innovate and stand on its own

      2. Solar tech is still fundamentally useless for powering anything more than LEDs. And wind and wave turbines are nothing more than political fashion accessories.

        Relying on any power source that doesn’t work at nights, cloudy days or when the air is still is impossible, unless you had capacitors and batteries that could store everything. And we don’t.

        The only “green” energy that could meet societies basic needs right now is nuclear, and idiots like Tony (MollyGodiva) have made sure that’s anathema.

      3. And slave labor from China. Very green.

    5. I like to point to the ice age as an example of climate change.
      I also like to point to the ice age when people try to say humans are the cause.

        1. The fallacy of many who believe it is only man made is that the natural climate of this planet is one that supports human life.

      1. Well, um…Mastodons! Yeah, mastodons! Small paleolithic human tribes killed mastodons by the trillions, and their body heat was the only thing staving off the cold! Without mastodon body mass, the Earth became a giant ice cube, floating in space!

        1. Mastodons and their farting ways.

      2. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/06/environment.theobserver

        How prehistoric farmers saved us from new Ice Age

        We need to send “The Arnold” Terminator-Dude-Extraordinaire back to the end of the last ice age and KILL all the newly budding rice farmers, so that we can all FREEZE to death in a NEW Ice Age, as Gaia intended, dammit!

        1. The idea that ancient farming may have had an impact on Earth’s climate was given a cautious welcome by Professor Paul Valdes, an expert on ancient climate change based at Bristol University.

          ‘This is a very interesting idea,’ he told The Observer. ‘However, there are other good alternative explanations to explain the fluctuations that we see in temperature and greenhouse gas levels at this time. For example, other gases interact with methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and changes in levels of these could account for these increases in greenhouse gases.’

          1. From your link.

          2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180906141507.htm
            Ancient farmers spared us from glaciers but profoundly changed Earth’s climate

            “…shows that without this human influence, by the start of the Industrial Revolution, the planet would have likely been headed for another ice age.”

            I wonder what happens to your funding as a researcher if your results consistently say “Don’t worry, be happy, the sky is NOT falling”?

            1. We know what happens to researchers when their predictions fail. They get refunded.

            2. It doesn’t show that at all. It’s someone’s theory based on the ice core sample and some one’s model.

              1. Ice core samples average decades of data together from melts and refreeze… then idiots like sarcasmic/sqrsly us that to compare for single month single season highs.

                Then they yell at others for being anti science when they don’t understand the basics.

                1. JesseBahnFuhrer, high school dorp-out (who STILL dorps out every day, all these years later), is an expert on everything, EXCEPT for the ability to retract or apologize when JesseBahnFuhrer is wrong!

                2. Ice Core Data. … dust: The amount of dust in each annual layer provides information about airborne continental dust and biological material, volcanic ash, sea salts, cosmic particles, and isotopes produced by cosmic radiation that were in the atmosphere at the time the dust was deposited in the ice.

                  4B: Ice Cores – SERC/Carleton College

                  Where there are clear seasonal patterns in dust (or other) deposition, we can take year-by-year samples, even when dorp-outs and liars deny accepted reality.

                  “Science progresses one funeral at a time”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

                  Ethical-moral-spiritual (non-liar) – humility progress may also progress one funeral at a time. Hopefully, the current JesseBahnFuhrer won’t be replaced by more and-or worse (IF that is possible!) JesseBahnFuhrers, when the current JesseBahnFuhrer finally “dorps out” for good! And it WILL be for the good!

            3. Giving another media outlets report of the same survey does add to the evidence.

              1. doesn’t add…

                1. Opinions are like assholes… Everyone has one!

                  You can find as many “experts” as you can shake a stick at, on all sides of every issue known to mastodons!

                  1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/

                    How 2 Pro-Nazi Nobelists Attacked Einstein’s “Jewish Science”

                    WHICH “experts” do you WANT to believe?

                    1. spaz flags

                    2. Yes and the parallels to the apocalyptic climate change Narratives are terrifying to this old physicist.
                      The apocalypse has no basis in science it’s not predicted by the Scientific work of any Scientist anywhere, not even IPCC climate Scientists,
                      Somehow this new Lysenkoism of the fabricated consensus has infected every aspect of life and the policies to be implemented to solve the problem proclaimed as Truth in this fabricated pseudoscientific consensus of the climate Scientist priesthood
                      “The Science”
                      This falsehood is meant to collapse the global capitalist economic system, and nothing else !

                      Attention legitimate Scientists! it’s time to find the courage to stand up against these lunatics and speak the truth!
                      your grandchildren’s lives depend on it. That’s not hyperbole that’s a fact

      3. It turns our dinosaurs were dying out due to climate change before that asteroid ever struck: 66 million years before humans – but I’m sure we’re still at fault.

        https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/would-dinosaurs-have-died-off-without-asteroid-fossils-paleontology

      4. Don’t overlook the medieval warming period, when the Vikings farmed Greenland.

    6. “families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet.”

      That means you personal apartment would be 160 square feet. The recommended minimum size for a prison cell is 70 square feet, so you’d be living like a prison boss, I guess:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_cell#Description

      1. Some apartments in NYC are smaller with more people. Of course you get all the sites NYC has to offer for the inconvenience. What are these guys offering? They probably and not factoring in any energy costs for entertainment in their utopian city. Who wants to live there?

    7. Are you currently carbon neutral?

      1. Is that like high fiber?

        1. I like calling out CAGW worshippers that haven’t changed their lifestyle to one that is carbon neutral. Molly’s “I will…” suggests she has not made this change. Would be interesting to learn whether Ron is a carbon polluter.

      2. I intake a certain amount of carbon. I expel a certain amount of carbon. Any difference is made up in carbon which I have retained. So technically, yes. I’m carbon neutral.

    8. Your once every three years flight would be in a cabin full of people who only wash their clothes twenty times a year. I guess perfume sales would take off.

      1. You think the government can shoot unarmed veterans for trespassing. Would hate to see what you think they can do for excess energy consumption.

      2. No energy allowance to produce perfume. Skunk is the natural way to go.

    9. If we (my wife and myself) lived in a 640 square foot apartment, my cats would revolt. Violently. So, no. Besides, where would I fit my guitars, banjos, mandolins, stereo equipment, woodworking tools, model railway, guns, antiques, and artwork?

      1. Well, since you own guns, you will be among those not permitted to exist in this utopian future, so no worries.

        1. Yep. They don’t realize the havoc and terror my guitars are capable of creating.

      2. You will not need the guitars Comrade. Only Social Music will be allowed. No FILK!

    10. No one denies climate change. It’s been changing for billions of years.

      What I deny is that humans are responsible for much of it.

      * The alarmunists don’t believe it themselves. Obama bought a $14.5M mansion three feet above sea level. Obviously he doesn’t believe in sea level rise. Examples abound if you open your eyes.

      * 415 ppm CO2 is not even close to any kind of tipping point, since it was 6000 ppm during the dinosaur age and didn’t tip it into Venus-style runaway warming.

      * If I believed, really truly believed, that the Earth was just 12/10/8 years from a tipping point, I’d be on the nuclear power bandwagon. Yet almost all alarmunists think a few accidents from nuclear are a poor alternative to wiping out all life.

      * Alarmunists have lied about every thing they can. Not even Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao have lied as much.

      * Every single Alarmunist climate model has failed. Not a single one can even predict the last 30 years correctly. Why does anyone think they can predict the next 100 better?

      1. In short, alarmunists are full of shit.

        1. Thank you for reminding us what the Military Industrial Complex /oil company line is, to provide them with instant profit.
          Your children and grandchildren will piss on your grave.

          1. Thanks for reminding us all that you have no rebuttal to clear statements of fact, and that all you have left is to insult the messenger.

            Absolutely typical of alarmunists. All bluster, all insults, no facts, content-free.

          2. Awwww, did the poor little commie get triggered?

            1. they should be
              3 times each only, to save ammo

          3. “…Your children and grandchildren will piss on your grave.”

            Assuming yours read the lefty shit you post, we can hope they won’t wait until you’re dead to piss on you.
            You richly deserve it, lefty shit.

          4. Thank you for reminding us what the Military Industrial Complex /oil company line is, to provide them with instant profit.

            The Big Oil/MIC is playing the long con and has been for the last 18,000-4.5 million years. They conspired to make trees and crops grow better at 450 ppm and well beyond so it’s cheaper to clothe, feed, and house more people just so that they can get rich selling them more oil. Those greedy bastards!

        2. I looked up the sea level height of the Obama purchase. I believe it actually sits fairly high above sea level. Still, why would you submit yourself to alleged increased storm damage? Oh yeah, government subsidized storm damage insurance – See Stossel who has the integrity to admit that he even benefited from that program.

      2. Obama bought a $14.5M mansion three feet above sea level Looking elevations on GoogleEarth, 9 feet, which still makes the case that he really doesn’t give a damn (I and I doubt that he ever did).

    11. “So 30 years ago the Rs claimed that there was not enough evidence that climate change was real.”

      Looks like they were closer to the truth than the dim-bulb watermelons like you who claimed NYC was going to be uninhabitable by now.

      1. Britain is experiencing Siberian conditions *right now*.

        1. No we aren’t.

    12. Forty something years ago (the late 1970s) the British Conservative Party faced with unprofitable socialist owned coal mines and a powerful miner’s union looked for ways to close the mines down and increase the UK’s subsidy of nuclear power. They looked at up and coming Tory star Margaret Thatcher and her scientific credentials as their vehicle to promote the idea that burning coal added CO2, a “greenhouse gas” to the atmosphere and was thus dangerous. OTOH, nuclear power was promoted by the Tories as clean and not at all dangerous.

      At the same time, the Greenpeace movement’s campaign against nuclear weapons testing and development was turning into a movement against all “threats” to nature, including both hydro-electric dam and nuclear electric generation projects. Their activism resulted in the cancellation of these projects all over the world.

      Thus did the left world come tho embrace the “Global Warming” cult while at the same time complaining about Margaret Thatcher and her role in destroying the miners’ unions and closing down British coal mines.

    13. You *will* happily cut your energy use? Why haven’t you already? Why are you not already living in a small apartment and using mass transit.

      Why don’t you have solar panels on your roof?

      You sound just like the billionaires who want to raise taxes – but hire people to ensure they don’t pay one red cent more than they have to.

    14. “Had we tacked this in the 90s, we would already have mostly phased out coal/NG power, gas cars, and all have solar panels on our roofs.”

      Nope. Not possible. Even with cutting edge technology, what you say is infeasible. You probably think you can run a whole home anywhere by wiring in some roof panels. It’s much more complicated than that and requires a whole lot of bulky, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly equipment.

      If you were really serious about ‘climate issues’ you would be pushing for the construction of hundreds of new nuclear power plants. If not, then piss off. You aren’t serious.

      1. These people literally think the electrical grid is like a video game. Build a solar panel for +1 power, and there are no associated emissions.

        Let’s just ignore intermittency, voltage regulation, transmissions, and the emissions associated with building and installing.

        1. Energy breakeven, duty cycle, lifetime, panel production in places with poor pollution controls…

      2. It’s much more complicated than that and requires a whole lot of bulky, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly equipment.

        Some simple math:
        Current estimated vehicles in the US: 250M (low but, benefit of the doubt)
        Current estimated amount of cobalt in 82 kWh Tesla 3: 10 kg (low but, benefit of the doubt)
        Current estimated cobalt reserves worldwide: 6B kg

        So, if every vehicle in the US were a Tesla, requiring 10 kg of cobalt, we’d need 2.5B kg of cobalt, just over 40% of the world’s cobalt reserves. The rest of the world has more than 4X as many cars as the US.

        Keep in mind, this is just cars and just cobalt (the same or similar goes for lithium and virtually all the rare earth metals). We aren’t talking about the competition for phones, lights, electronics, tools, and appliances and IoT devices. Moreover, we haven’t even begun to talk about municipal power generation and storage, shipping and air travel, and agricultural and industrial manufacturing/machining.

        Saying we need to adopt to electric vehicles in order to prevent climate change over the next 100 yrs. is like sayin we need to adopt cancer in order to get the average human lifespan above 100 yrs.

        So, one tesla, zero iPhones, zero cordless power tools, and zero appliances for every 10 people on the planet or one ICE car, one iPhone, one cordless power tool, and one device for every 10 people on the planet (with the potential for more), your choice.

    15. 40 years ago, the mantra was “coming ice age.”

      Then someone realized that the money was in selling “carbon credits,” like the Catholic church used to sell certificates of blessing and forgiveness.

    16. Nah, you and your fellow lefties can live in a space half as big as the study says, and fly every 6 years, and cut your energy use twice as much. The rest of us will continue living how we want.

      If you think this is a life or death, save the universe, world coming to an end thing (always just 10 years left before the world ends right?) you will happily take on the burden necessary to fix it. If not, you are full of shit and just want to cry about it.

    17. So 30 years ago the Rs claimed that there was not enough evidence that climate change was real.

      The amount of evidence has barely budged. What has happened is that it has become progressively less politically viable to say the obvious: climatology has never shown predictive ability.

      now they are claiming it is just too hard of a problem to solve.

      This article is about a team at the University of Leeds claiming it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Reducing the entire world to the quality of life of the average Zambian is a good working definition of “too hard”.

      In particular, it seems like a pretty good example of the cure being worse than the disease.

      Had we tacked this in the 90s, we would already have mostly phased out coal/NG power, gas cars, and all have solar panels on our roofs.

      Hahahahaha…

    18. Molly,
      report back to us when you have actually done those things.

    19. I’ve thought about muting you as I’ve done with bots and out and out trolls, but your statements actually provide some value here. In the form of reductio ad absurdum.

      Enjoy living like the average Bolivian.

    20. So 30 years ago the Rs claimed that there was not enough evidence that climate change was real. Then 15 years ago they just denied it outright, now they are claiming it is just too hard of a problem to solve.

      Incorrect. 30 yrs. ago the Rs said ‘Switching out a few light bulbs and making a few appliances more efficient is no problem but, locking every American in dimly lit, freezing/scalding hovels isn’t reasonable, let alone feasible or moral. So, regardless of the evidence, what’s it going to take to fix it?’. 30 yrs. later, the people who claimed need for immediate action based on their prescience of a future climate catastrophe finally arrived at an answer and, low and behold, it’s dimly lit, freezing/scalding hovels. Weird how Republicans came up with the answer off the cuff that it took climate gurus 30 yrs. to calculate. It’s almost like the Republicans were far more efficient at reaching the (non-)conclusion.

  8. In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That’s at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel. In their new study, “Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use,” in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.

    With exemptions, of course.

    1. Especially for climate conferences in Bali and other tropical island locations where sea level rise can be studied first hand.

  9. I’m sure the first thing the people in Portland did Tuesday was turn off the air conditioning.

    1. They don’t have air conditioning.

      1. Some do, some don’t My previous house, in northern Idaho, had central AC. Of course, we used it about twice a year, and mostly to make sure it still worked.

  10. Just another “study” that finds communism is the answer.

  11. Perhaps a long, detailed article about the tens of thousands of predictions the environmentalists have made about Global Warming Climate Change and gotten wrong is in order.

    1. You know, like how in 2004, they said that by 2020, Britain’s climate would be “Siberian”.

      How in 2008 we had “96 months to save the world”.

      1. It’s amazing we’ve survived the cold this long, with the ice age that started in the ’70s.

        1. The Great Lakes are only 15,000 years old. Left by the retreat of the last continental ice sheet. And were substantially higher until an ice dam on the St. Lawrence gave way about 12,500 years ago.

          Pretty sure nobody was burning fossil fuels back then.

          The really amazing part is that current estimates say, absent another ice age, the lakes will be gone within the next 5,000 years as the ground below them rebounds from the reduced mass above.

          1. Doggerland was an area of land, now submerged beneath the southern North Sea, that connected Great Britain to continental Europe. It was flooded by rising sea levels around 6500–6200 BCE. Geological surveys have suggested that it stretched from what is now the east coast of Great Britain to what are now the Netherlands, the western coast of Germany and the peninsula of Jutland.
            — Wikipedia

            Doggerland disappeared 8,500 years ago because people started washing their clothes more than 20 times/year.

    2. You’d have to go back in time and kill Baby HitBailey to get that.

    3. You know, like these doozies from “authoritative sources”.

      UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

      Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

      He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

      Ten years! Only ten years! We’re 22 years past our ten years!

      1. UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya – where UNEP is based – and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

        Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

        ″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

      2. A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

        Sounds like a threat. Cut your carbon emissions or Sychelles gets it!

    4. Did you notice that GW became CC after a few extremely cold winters?
      Since then, contrary evidence has necessitated a change to ‘climate extremes’ followed by ‘rate of climate change’.

  12. It’s a wonder that these types so brazenly tell people they are going to fuck them over as hard as North Korea, and people applaud the suggestion.

    1. Tell the chimps they can be online 15min a day

  13. I eat organically grown nuts and seeds (plus the occasional bird egg or two) and live in an ambient-temperature hole in the crotch of a tree. It is incumbent on YOU energy pig-hogs to save the planet, dammit! I am washing my paws of you planet-ravaging MONSTERS!!!

    (Al Gore tells me that I am GOOD squirrel, and lets me eat some of His rare, Most Precious, and probably-dwindling supply of nuts, in return for my sacrifices… So there’s that… I bet Al Gore does NOT do that for ye energy-pigs! So at least I have my smug self-satisfaction to help me get by, unlike YOU!).

    1. Do you switch accounts or have multiple devices?

      1. As a planet-aware, Gaia-respecting squirrel, I do NOT use energy-using devices! I sell “squirrel scout cookies”…

        https://i.pinimg.com/originals/01/1a/9d/011a9d5a232fa27c98aa67e015e2e032.jpg

        … With said squirrel scout cookies made of organically grown nuts and seeds (plus the occasional bird egg or two)… AND I flick my tail in a seductive manner to entice humans (and to encode my messages), and THEN my posts are winging their way to YOU, energy-pig human!

        I’m OK with the parasitism on the human internet, that I cause… If I wan’t enticing the humans to send MY messages, they’d be using the internet anyway, for “squirrel porn”, enslaving us poor squirrels in supposedly “cute” compromising positions, ya know…

        1. So you switch accounts. Thanks.

          1. So who are you “channeling” today, Chumby? The Evil One, or the Father of Lies? You are hereby authorized to believe whatever lies you want to believe… Because, as a REAL libertarian (lover and respecter of individual freedom), I know you’ll do that, anyway! So go right ahead and think that I am whoever you want to think that I am…

            Hey, you WANT to believe Sidney Powell, too? Have at it!

            https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
            Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

            Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, Chumby-Chumpy-Chump? But please look up the meaning of “delusion”!

            1. Please look up the definition of “spaz” (flagged)

    2. “Al Gore tells me that I am GOOD squirrel, and lets me eat some of His rare, Most Precious, and probably-dwindling supply of nuts”

      After all, he only has two of them. 🙂

  14. Forgive me if I literally ignore everything these idiots say.

  15. Why do the Watermelons hate trees and want to take away all their food?

  16. I guess there’s no benefit to being rich in such a scenario.

  17. “Researchers admit there are absolutely no current examples of low-energy societies providing a decent living standard for their citizens.”

    The appropriate term for people who are willing to make huge sacrifices in their standard of living for a cause–without any clear indication of whether their sacrifices will make any significant difference is “religious fanatic” or “suicide bomber”.

    Two questions that matter:

    1) How much will we need to sacrifice in GDP per capita before the temperature starts to fall?

    2) How much will we need to sacrifice in GDP per capita before falling temperatures make a difference?

    People who are willing to make any sacrifice–no matter how high–are either fighting for their lives or behaving irrationally. If you’re willing to sacrifice your standard of living for ecology, others, or future generations, you should be free to do so. You should not be free to use the coercive power of government to inflict your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

    You should be free to persuade other people to convert to your religion! And why not treat your apocalyptical ecology like a religion? Persuade other people to share your religious beliefs. That’s how Jesus, the Buddha, Zoroastrianism, and Justin Bieber got started.

    1. All presuming the temperature is rising solely due to human activity.

      1. Well, we need to assume it’s due to human activity because if it isn’t, then we might not be able to do anything about it–and that’s unpossible.

      2. It’s a grift to redistribute wealth. Just look at the new green deal. If you remove all the wealth redistribute and leave just pro green energy, They wouldn’t vote for it.

        1. AOC was pushing for the Civilian Climate Corps over the weekend. She wants to hire 1.5 million Americans to work like the Civilian Conservation Corps did under the New Deal. She’s pushing to include it in the budget reconciliation bill, and Senate Budget Committee chair St. Bernie is right there with her.

          1. Wealth redistribution.

          2. To Stop Climate Change Americans Must Cut Energy Use by 90 Percent, Live in 640 Square Feet, and Fly Only Once Every 3 Years

            “I’m on it!” – Lizzie Warren, donning visor and sharpening pencil

            1. To be fair, there is NOTHING that qualifies you for being in charge of the national budget quite as well as being an expert in bankruptcy . . .

          3. “Senate Budget Committee chair St. Bernie “

            Scariest phrase in American English.

      3. That is called scripture

    2. Two answers:

      1. No amount of sacrifice will be considered enough.
      2. Whatever we do, the change of our actions on the climate will be negligible.

  18. If the greentards want to go freeze in the dark to prove their moral superiority, that’s their prerogative. If they bitch at me for not doing so, they can go fuck themselves.

    -jcr

  19. Also, considering all the headlines about UFOs (UAPs, potato, po-tah-to)–especially the one that showed no apparent heat plume despite being captured with thermal imaging–maybe we should be trying to contact these UAP’s and asking them for help.

    One of the Navy pilots I saw interviewed on TV said that he saw the UAPs–almost every day–for years. If they’re that easy to find, and they have something like cold fusion that lets them accelerate like we can’t–without creating any kind of heat (much less burning fossil fuels)–maybe they can save us with a little technology.

    Sound crazy? Of course it is!

    But I’d rather we spent a billion dollars trying to contact UAPs than squander our standard of living on Green New Deal programs that we know won’t make any difference anyway.

    1. “One of the Navy pilots I saw interviewed on TV said that he saw the UAPs–almost every day–for years.”

      Sounds more like he found Hank’s stash of blotter.

      1. I don’t see any reason to doubt what he says he saw, or, i.e., just because I can’t explain what he saw, doesn’t mean he didn’t see it.

          1. I didn’t say there weren’t alternative explanations for what he saw. I just said there’s no good reason to believe he didn’t see what he says he saw. The explanations for what we see may be subject to debate, but our eyes see what they see.

            1. Plus there’s video, so you know he’s not imagining it.

              Personally I think it is Elon Musk flying around trying out his Iron Man suit.

            2. Your eyes see what your brain says they see.

              Which is why these guys ‘can’t explain’ – they’re missing crucial information.

              Take this video

              https://youtu.be/Q7jcBGLIpus?t=91

              Which clearly shows this glowing blob moving at incredible speed over the water.

              Except it isn’t. Its an illusion composed of the aircraft’s speed, its changing course, and a stabilized camera focused on the object. The object in the camera is actually moving at wind speed, drifting over the ocean at a quite low altitude.

              1. And a key to this is that eyes aren’t actually seeing it in a sense even as ‘real’ as Magritte’s Pipe. The GOFAST object is estimated to be 2-3 feet wide and nobody puts the distance between it and the fighter at anything closer than 2 nautical miles. The resolution for good human eyes is around 60 feet for that distance, meaning the human eye couldn’t possibly distinguish it under the best of conditions and the conditions, as recorded by the camera, indicate the plane was above and banking away from the object. A position that would require the pilot to see through the cockpit beneath him to even have a chance of viewing the object to begin with.

                1. Nobody saw the GOFAST object with their naked eyes.

    2. Bezos fusion project.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57512229

      An example of capitalism helping greener energy.

      1. Except the greens don’t want greener energy, they want no energy.

        1. Yes.
          This is not about ‘saving the planet’, it’s about ‘atoning for mankind’s sins against mother earth!’
          It’s a post-Mosaic religion, including the pining for the pure Eden of the earth prior to man, and the rapture which predictions have constantly failed. Much like the Watchtower Society, when it does not come about, the holy men simply move the date back by some new reading of the sheep’s entrails.

          1. It ain’t just Eden.
            Godhead – Mother Earth
            Sin – pollution
            Damnation – ecological collapse
            Vow of poverty – shivering in the dark

    3. You just argued days ago that the aliens are probably hostile if they exist.

      1. Fuck off, asshole,

      2. If they read your posts then they likely would be hostile.

      3. “”that the aliens are probably hostile if they exist.””

        They are coming to serve man.

  20. Or we could just ignore the madmen and go about our lives until they actually try to implement any of this insanity. Then we can put all the believers on an island without electricity and forget about them some more.

    1. This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
      Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
      There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
      “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
      Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2021). “Widespread” agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
      I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

      1. I only wish he had been right; the USA would be a better place without NY & DC.

        1. Two nukes would solve that problem.

          1. Don’t need nukes. Just shut off the power for a week and blockade.

            1. Yeah, they’ll kill each other.

  21. As has been obvious for quite a while, these are no serious people.
    There is no “solution” to the issue other than humanity adapting to it; any “solution” (outside of that or nuclear power) requires the sort of return to neolithic conditions as shown here. Not going to happen.
    As has been obvious for quite a while, these are not serious people.

    1. Every now and then I would run into someone that would say that if we don’t do something now, we are doomed. I would always reply then we need to stop using electricity right now. I would get a funny look.

    2. It’s also a situation where, if these not serious people actually manage to implement their stupid, expensive, and feckless solutions, they’ll eventually be chased out of office and the policies will be undone. We just want to avoid the exercise, the stupid waste of resources, and the pointless suffering.

    3. Almost like they want to snap their fingers and have half the population vanish.

  22. To Stop Climate Change Americans Must Cut Energy Use by 90 Percent, Live in 640 Square Feet, and Fly Only Once Every 3 Years, Says Study

    No bug-eating?

    1. Of course, bug eating.

      That goes without say.

      1. But you have to have a permit, and there will be a limit on your ‘catch’.

    2. Funny how the focus is on Americans.

      Why not just eliminate the world’s poor? There’s billions of them wasting energy, producing little of monetary value, generating pollution, using up so much food that our fields have to be harvested by machines.

  23. In the future, assholes like these won’t have access to enough energy to do a study like this.

    1. Maybe their study sucks so badly because the research team shared a single laptop in a 640 square foot office with no heat or air conditioning.

      1. Maybe you’re a TDS-addled lefty asshole.

      2. Maybe their study sucks so badly because the research team shared a single laptop in a 640 square foot office with no heat or air conditioning.

        As I’ve pointed out before, relative to the variables of climate, the variables of the market are fewer and successful predictions are far more ludicrous contemporaneously. If their predictions suffer because they can’t afford anything other than a 640 sq. ft. office with no heat or air, that means they can’t forecast anything more productive or valuable.

  24. Where do they think the money is going to come from for free health and education etc in an economy that doesn’t use any energy?

    This stuff really isn’t serious.

    1. Not from Bitcoin.

  25. “”That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.””

    Which consumes vast amounts of energy.

    1. Not once they start severe rationing.

      You can take the bustrain in the morning and the evening – don’t miss it because it only runs for a couple hours each time.

      Pack in there and get to your assigned place of work/study.

      1. Also, the society that doesn’t use any energy won’t have any healthcare – so it won’t use any energy either.

        1. Bucket of leeches for all.

    2. Yeah, “government-provided” and “high-quality” are known to be highly correlated….

  26. Yeah, very few people are going to voluntarily agree to give up their current lifestyle to go live in a cubicle.

    1. Which is why the solution is not to force people to live in cubicles, but to expand the energy supply.

      1. No.

        You will eat the bugs, you will live in the pod, you will own nothing, and you will be happy.

        Happiness is mandatory.

        1. “you will live in the pod”

          No, we will work in the pod and live in the capsule.

          1. Open the pod bay doors Hal.

        2. Jeff is going to need a lot of bugs.

          1. “I can’t eat those, those are Republican bugs!!”- Chubbyjeff Radical Exhibitionist

  27. The idea that government even knows what Earth’s “optimum” is — that’s pretty shaky.

    The idea that government could get AND KEEP us there if we give them enough money and power — that’s insane.

  28. I’m doing pretty good then.

    1. Haven’t flown since around 2008.

    2. I share a 1500 ft2 house on a 2.5 acre parcel with my brother – that’s 750ft2 for each of us, pretty close.

    3. My electricity usage is about 1.8k a year. I don’t see that going down because 2/3rds of it is fucking AC. And I don’t even keep the AC blasting – 82F

    Question though: What does living space size have to do with resource consumption and pumping out greenhouse gases? What’s the connection to climate change?

    2nd question – do Americans have to cut their energy usage by 90$ because China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam are planning on building 600 new coal plants to power *their* societies?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/five-asian-countries-80-percent-new-coal-power-investment

    1. $1,800 @ 12 cents a kilowatt is – ignoring taxes, fees, service connection bullshit pay gouging – less than 15Kwhr/yr.

      So that would be the refrigerator, the washing machine. Like, I could run the computer and some lights and that’s it. And these are all fairly new and efficient appliances – hell, my water heater’s a hybrid and uses less than a kilowatt/hr per year.

      Back to cooking with wood? Because that’s better for climate change? Boiling water for a weekly bath?

      1. Semiweekly. So you can wash your clothes in the used bath water every other week.

    2. “What does living space size have to do with resource consumption and pumping out greenhouse gases? What’s the connection to climate change?”

      I figure it’s cement. Producing the stuff is pretty energy intensive. Plus clearly space heating expenses increase with increased volume.

      I would ideally like to alternate between two tiny houses, one perched in a tree like a set from a tarzan movie, the other would be a shipping container dug into a mountain or hillside.

      1. The only cement in the house is the foundation slab.

        As for heating/cooling – that only matters if you’ve built the house as one climate zone so you’re always forced to heat/cool the whole thing.

        And if your climate requires it. Mine requires no heating at all – a lot of cooling for 4 months out of the year (but cooling AC is more efficient than heating AC).

        So there’s a couple ways to mitigate energy usage in a large home 1. Multi-zone AC or mini-splits in each room and 2. You can run water loops into the ground to take advantage of the constant temperature a few feet under ground – which can keep your home at a more stable temperature year round, reducing the reliance on AC/heaters.

        But the home size, along with them talking about ‘reducing income inequality’ (though you’d think having a few people living like kings while the rest of us like insects would have a *lower* net energy use compared to all of us living as lower-class) along with the other bullshit, leads me to believe this is more about finding ways to justify making the social changes they want rather than those changes being *needed*.

        1. “The only cement in the house is the foundation slab.”

          I’ve assumed that a bigger house requires a bigger slab.

          “Mine requires no heating at all ”

          People of Portland used to say the same of air conditioning. Thing is, with climate change, climate changes.

          “leads me to believe this is more about finding ways to justify making the social changes they want rather than those changes being *needed*.

          Because, simply, you are not looking at things as a leftist would. The UNICEF organization sees reducing carbon footprint and income inequality as two sides of the same coin.

          1. Concrete. Slab on grade. Up north, also frost walls and footers.

          2. “People of Portland used to say the same of air conditioning. ”

            The global warming in Portland is man-caused.

            The combination of carbon emissions and heat plumes caused by BLM and Pantifa (they’re always in a bunch) has an effect.

            1. Perhaps it’s all the hot air from liberals.

          3. Two 640 ft houses require the same total slab size as one 1280ft house.

          4. That’s because the people of Portland are idiots and don’t pay attention to the *naturally* occurring El Nina that is trapping hot air in that area right now.

            Their climate hasn’t changed – their weather has.

            1. coz climates don’t change.

              1. No, but stupid comments get posted by you.

      2. My house is 98 years old. It hasn’t used any energy for cement production in a while.

        1. Some interesting facts about the size of dwellings in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated spaces on the planet:

          “For some, living in a flat in this city might not be much better than living in a cage. The average living area per capita of Hong Kong’s subdivided flats is only 47.8 square feet, with rent costing around 40% of its household income… Just how big is 47.8 square feet? It is barely larger than a table-tennis table, measuring 9 foot by 5 foot. Ironically, the area of an individual cell in Stanley Prison is around 80 square feet, according to Wen Wei Pao. ”

          I’ve been in some of these tiny apartments. The average apartment is about 160 square feet, with everything from living room to bathroom to kitchen arranged in a hallway. The average house size is about 500 square feet. I knew a couple who lived (and even worked remotely) in such a home on Lantau Island, where the electrical power station is located, also caves along the shore where the Japanese used to deploy killer speed boats. Anyhow, there were no cars there unconnected to the power station and ferries and bicycles were the only way to get around. Maybe if the surrounding environment is quiet, peaceful, and pleasant, a small house is more than enough. A big house is only needed as a buffer if the outside is noisy, chaotic and nasty.

          1. As someone who routinely spends weeks every year in a 36 sq. ft. domicile that he carries on his back, I can agree with the sentiment.

            However, let’s not pretend that Hong Kong’s multitude of 50 sq. ft. dwellings in any way represents the environmentalist ideal or any one of America, Europe, or Asia’s tent cities does as well.

      3. I figure it’s cement.

        I figure it’s typical AGW mask-slipping, authoritarian scope creep. Square footage doesn’t imply volume and annual energy consumption rolls the whole thing up anyway. Otherwise, they’re splitting hairs by saying that 15kWh comes up to about 700 sq. ft. of (borderling obnoxious) 1 ft. slab, so that assumes you don’t heat/cool the slab for the first year, but if you’re not heating/cooling, why not make it 2 yrs. and double the slab (or 3 yrs. and triple or 4 yrs….)? How is it environmentally cool to pour a slab, build on it, and start heating/cooling after a year, but not OK to pour, wait, build, wait and *then* heat/cool? Ultimately, if you’re going to stipulate total energy consumption, then what’s the point of stipulating the space to consume that energy except to be an even more authoritarian piece of shit than you need to be?

        P.S.- Anybody who’s selling you a buried shipping container in the mountain that’s not concrete reinforced is taking your money. Even in the desert, a good percentage collapse after the first rainfall as the containers aren’t designed to withstand compressive forces along the full area of their face and in the mountains, they aren’t generally heavy enough to resist frost upheaval.

    3. “2nd question – do Americans have to cut their energy usage by 90$ because China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam are planning on building 600 new coal plants to power *their* societies?”

      Have you read Michael Schellenberger’s book? He’s a favorite of Ronald Bailey and he advocates expanding coal fired electricity generation is Africa, and that the US and other wealthy nations put up the money to make it happen.

      1. No I have not.

        But I do not see the point in us cutting our energy usage by 90% if what is basically the majority of the world (China and India) are going full-throttle anyway.

        And I do support efforts to move the developing countries into and through their Industrial Revolutions as fast as possible.

        Its only rich people who have the luxury to worry about the effects of their actions on the globe a century hence.

        Everyone else is still just trying to get enough to eat.

        1. “Its only rich people who have the luxury to worry about the effects of their actions on the globe a century hence.”

          What’s the point of being rich if you are determined to maintain the mindset of a pauper. The good thing about wealth is that it increases your boundaries, you plan and ponder over larger spaces and your time horizons also expand. What is wrong with that?

        2. Well, clearly the solution is to make pre-emptive nuclear strikes on these energy using, high population countries. Which will reduce the demand for food, and eliminate all this industrial growth.

          1. Not only that but by making detonations at the right altitude we can counter global warming with nuclear winter

    4. Larger square footage means more space to heat and cool. And larger square footage means folks with smaller square footage are jealous.

      1. Same total square footage between one 1280ft2 house and two 640ft2 ones.

        1. And larger square footage doesn’t mean more space to heat and cool. I have a wraparound screened-in porch and vaulted ceilings, my neighbor doesn’t, who wins?

    5. If the enviro zealots were serious and not just power-seekers, US policy regarding atmospheric pollution would focus on promoting clean coal burning in the parts of the world where it is expanding dramatically. It’s something everyone can agree on, carbon zealots or not, would create environmental awareness in poor countries as they modernize (not to mention cleaning up horrible urban air pollution) and is quite practical and affordable.
      Don’t hold your breath.

    6. Tiny houses are BS from shiver-in-the-dark zealots (Savagranolas).
      A maintained house made of wood stores many tons of carbon for a century or more. A few deciduous trees planted on the equatorial side provide summer cooling, winter heating and store more carbon for decades. Bigger houses store more carbon and are more efficient to heat.
      This will NEVER be part of the vision of the left because it does not fit with the zealotry and will to power that drives the environmentalist religion, which require penury as a display of submission.

      These same despots favor woodburning (i.e.carbon emission) to generate electricity because wood is renewable biomass.

      Environmentalists: limited knowledge, no science, radically deficient reasoning – but abundant arrogance, self-congratulation, authoritarianism, moral preening – an elitist religion.

  29. The commoners will be required to cut energy use by 97%, live in 400 sq. ft. and give up flying entirely, so that our rulers can maintain themselves in the style to which they are accustomed.

    1. This is NOT to be uttered in public.

  30. The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

    There’s something missing here.

    What data are they using for their baseline to determine the predicted temperature rise? You need to know this in order to know what you need to cut back to prevent it.

    Is it the IPCC predictions? Because they include several, from ‘best case’ to ‘worst case’. Are these guys using the ‘worst case’ (no policy) scenario? Because the IPCC has already acknowledged that we won’t be getting it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios#Comparison_with_a_%E2%80%9Cno_policy%E2%80%9D_scenario

    Is it the ‘best case scenario’? Because then *nothing* need be done because the ‘BC’ scenario predicts significantly less than 2 degrees cooling.

    1. While, in fact, quite a few things ARE being done, but those are driven by other than government mandates.

    2. Reality, even in the form of projections, is not related to global warming or climate change or whatever except as a cover story. There is no point arguing it.

      Political power is the goal, for the purpose of forcing humanity to submit to the religion of environmentalism for its own salvation.

  31. “Vogel and his colleagues are undaunted by the fact that there are absolutely no examples of low-energy societies providing decent living standards”

    Remind me again, how do scientists measure decency?

    1. With a global climate warming change model.

      1. Wrong answer. They don’t. It’s not part of the language of science.

        1. Sophist, they admitted there was no no evidence, just as the rest of the study was prejudiced by their biases in order to produce the result they desired. The only wrong answer, as is typical, is yours.

          1. Science is about observation and measurement of physical phenomena. Not value judgements.

            1. “Science is about observation and measurement of physical phenomena. Not value judgements.”

              Your bullshit has already been called and yet you repeat it; the mark of mental issues.

      2. You’re engaging a piece of shit here only in the hopes that someone mistakenly clicks on his name and thereby doubles the weekly count of hits on his blog.
        Here’s trueman’s concept of clever repartee:
        mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

    2. Remind me again, how do scientists measure decency?

      They’ll know it when they see it?

  32. Also, also, how do you get 4 people living in 640ft2 if you’ve outlawed the tiny house movement?

    I mean, its like these people can’t actually get together and *plan* – yet they want to dictate our lives.

    There are people who, literally, want to live in a small cramped house – and we won’t let them.

    1. Is this the whole ‘1984’ thing where you can’t let someone want to do what you want them to do because then you can’t be sure if they’re obeying your will or theirs?

      ‘Oh, you want to live in a small home and eat bugs? We can’t allow that!’

    2. “Also, also, how do you get 4 people living in 640ft2 if you’ve outlawed the tiny house movement?”

      Two in the basement.

  33. Speculation piled on top of sloppy statistics based on bad data. The fact that this could get published at all is an indictment of the peer review process.

  34. It’s quite plausible that at least parts of the US may see 90% cuts in energy consumption, and those parts will be in places like California, Arizona and Nevada. The population of California is already on the decline and droughts, forest fires, heat waves, pandemics, outbreaks of civil unrest, power outages etc increasing in number, duration and intensity will only exacerbate the out migration, and with every out migrant, the energy use in the diminished and desertified west should drop as the migrant takes his energy needs with him.

    1. Why would you think Arizona – growing – is going to see cuts in energy usage?

      1. Drought. If the place becomes unlivable, only the dead will live there.

        1. Shit pile left out the part about record rains a couple of years ago and many others recently and the CA government’s lack of developing ONE BIT of water storage since that hair-shirt asshole moonbeam decided ‘less is more’ in the ’70s.
          Since the ’70s (the last major drought, when Moonbeam held office), CA’s population has increased by ~ 50%, Since that time, the water storage infrastructure has increased by exactly 0%.
          Yes we have a weather drought. Yes we have a water shortage as a result of Moonbeam and Newsom.
          And we have lefty asshole apologists for that in the person of trueman to tell stories.
          Fuck off, asshole.

          1. And CA has a one-party tyranny to boot

        2. Zombies don’t hold up well in such hot, dry conditions.

        3. There’s no drought here though. And we haven’t left our water storage capability to rot like CA has.

          1. “There’s no drought here though.”

            Don’t tell those climate refugees from California and Nevada.

            1. I’m sure you have cites for the bullshit claim of “climate refugees”, but they didn’t seem to show up.

            2. What climate refugees?

              Is that the new narrative to hide the reason for the population loss?

              Because you’re not leaving drought-striken CA for a fucking *desert* man. At best you’ve left one area with no water for another. What a maroon.

              The ‘refugees’ we have are ‘tax and regulatory burden’ refugees. People fleeing excessive government.

              1. “The ‘refugees’ we have are ‘tax and regulatory burden’ refugees. People fleeing excessive government.”

                That is merely the old narrative to hide the reason for the population loss. The new narrative to hide the reason for the population loss is climate change.

  35. I think I can speak for most folks here when I say, “Fuck that shit”.

  36. New nuclear power plants and other sources could generate the same energy now produced in the US (and worldwide) by carbon.
    But left wing environmental whackos and their Democrat politicians have campaigned to ban nuclear power since 1977 (after a minor accident at TMI)

    And since China keeps building new coal fired power plants and sharply increasing its carbon emissions, it would be suicidal to establish any of these goals for Americans.

    But any Democrats who claim to be serious about reducing carbon should be held accountable for complying with these standards for sustainability (before they lecture or impose any of those standards on the rest of us).

    As one who (along with my wife and four cats) has lived in a 900 square foot row house for the past 32 years (without air conditioning), I get very upset when Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, or any other hypocrites whose carbon footprint is 100 times greater than mine lecturing me or anyone else about the need for us (but not them) to reduce our carbon emissions.

    1. “New nuclear power plants and other sources could generate the same energy now produced in the US (and worldwide) by carbon.”

      Don’t you need water to keep those things cool?

      1. If only three-fourths of the planet was covered in water….

        1. Salt water and nuclear reactors don’t mix.

          1. Neither do smug and stupid; fuck off.

          2. Actually, they do.

            Which is why we use nuclear reactors in ships.

            There’s a difference in what is in the primary loop and what is in the secondary loop.

            1. And FFS, we have a nuke outside of Phoenix. There’s no open water that isn’t in a swimming pool within a hundred miles of the place.

              And no, the rivers you see on the map don’t count – there’s no water in them except during a couple months out of the year.

              1. “And FFS, we have a nuke outside of Phoenix.”

                You can be sure they don’t use salt water. Salt water is corrosive. My wild guess: Probably something to do with the salt.

                1. You.
                  Are.
                  Still.
                  Full.
                  Of.
                  Shit.

                2. Monel is extraordinarily resistant to rapidly flowing seawater, with pitting and cracking typically only occurring in a marine environment if the saltwater is stagnant. … Monel is a popular choice for applications such as off-shore platforms, as well as power and process plants which use seawater as a coolant.

                  1. And trueman is still full of shit.

                3. Typical left/progressive in-group bias/group ‘knowledge: passed on by word of mouth or social media, and entirely incorrect. Yet, you continue to repeat it, though one assumes you comprehend that there are materials that are resistant to the salinity… People refer to your in-group as a cult or new religion for a reason. Combined with your typical sophism, this makes your arguments all the more easy to refute.

                  1. “there are materials that are resistant to the salinity… ”

                    Surely it would be cheaper to construct a reactor out of conventional steel and concrete and not use salt water. This has been the method for over 70 years.

                    1. Except that you’re making a couple assumptions here.

                      1. The big one – is that the water in the secondary loop is really hot. It itsn’t. There’s a large volume of water pushed through that loop to prevent it from getting more than a few degrees warmer than when it when it so it can safely be discharged.

                      2. That they purify the water before it goes through. They don’t. So it needs to stay fairly cool specifically so that it won’t corrode things.

                    2. “”Except that you’re making a couple assumptions here.””

                      No, not assumptions. Wild guesses.

                4. Then how do submarine reactors work?

                  They use straight seawater in the secondary loop.

                  1. They are much smaller and simpler than a giga watt reactor in commercial use. And nobody would use salt water in a primary loop. The water needs to be free of contaminants as I understand.

                    1. Of course the dog ate your cite.

                    2. The gigawatt reactor still isn’t getting any hotter than the multi-megawatt reactor of the submarine.

                      Open-loop cooling is the norm in any place that has water. Like near an ocean.

                      Direct or “once-through” cooling. If the power plant is next to the sea, a big river, or large inland water body it may be done simply by running a large amount of water through the condensers in a single pass and discharging it back into the sea, lake or river a few degrees warmer and without much loss from the amount withdrawn

                      https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx

                      Oh, and if you think a sub reactor is *simpler* than a commercial reactor . . .

                    3. And like that, he becomes a nuclear submarine engineer. You would have never known, seconds before, he was a Climate Scientist.

                5. salts not the problem. your ignorance and arrogance are

            2. So trueman has once again shown to be full of shit?
              How……..
              predictable.

          3. You obviously know zero about heat exchangers.

      2. Iirc gen 4 reactors can cool via air convection. But you need water to boil to spin the turbines.

      3. You are talking 1960s technology. Besides, desalinization has come quite a ways. It primarily just takes a bit of energy, which is, coincidentally, generated in large, stable, quantities, by fission reactors. Fusion power seems to be moving along nicely now too, and may be commercially viable in the next decade or two.

        1. salt water the ultimate fluid for heat transfer…just use corrosion resistant materials in the exchanger

    2. We could reduce our ‘carbon footprint’ significantly if progressives volunteered to commit suicide in tribute to Gaia.

  37. These luddite remind me of Pol Pot.

  38. Examples of “evidence of Climate Change” cited by advocates of the idea:

    Hurricanes are more frequent and more intense.

    No, in fact, hurricanes are neither more frequent nor more intense. NOAA’s ability to detect hurricanes has improved (largely due to satellite imagery) explains any increase in the number of storms identified as “tropical” in any year. As to the damage in dollar amounts this is due to the increased amount of coastal development that has occurred*.

    *connected mostly to subsidized flood insurance that incentivizes development in coastal regions and in flood plains.

    “Sea Level” rise is causing street flooding in coastal communities like Charleston, SC and Miami, FL

    Again, this is due to the increased amount of coastal development that has occurred due to local government incentives and the aforementioned subsidy of Federal Flood Insurance without the necessary improvements in drainage infrastructure that such development requires.

    Not to mention, California wildfires, which again are no more frequent than historically but simply affect an increased population of denser development.

    If you want to argue for increased taxation for spending on drainage infrastructure and emergency protection (fire and flood) in your local community, by all means do so. But stop trying to pretend that conditions that have existed where you live for thousands of years are something new and something imposed on you by “outside others” requiring taxation on those “others” to “correct”.

    1. “Not to mention, California wildfires, which again are no more frequent than historically but simply affect an increased population of denser development.”

      Quite a few are hotter and faster moving than formerly.
      At one time, CA had a large lumber-harvesting industry, and since it was in their interest (that ol’ profit motive!), they managed the forest and kept the dead kindling removed.
      CAs watermelons drove the industry pretty much out of the state by finding small populations of some animal or other with which “we could not live without!”, and the understory of much of the publicly-managed forest it chock-full of kindling.
      Pretty sure some of those populations are now gone; they were in the path of one or the other of the resultant fires.

      1. BTW, “formerly” here refers to the late 19th and earlier 20th century.
        Prior to the development of the timber industry, the forests were not managed at all, with the result that the fires were probably quite similar to what we get now.
        And, they probably caused those small, location-specific, races of animals, by cutting them off from cross-breeding as a result of wide burns.

        1. An unmanaged forest had less severe fires than what California has now, because kindling and underbrush wouldn’t build up for decades, because small fires were not put out right away. California stomping out every fire, as a policy and because they have to to save houses built next to forests, has made it much worse than not managing the forest at all.

          1. “An unmanaged forest had less severe fires than what California has now, because kindling and underbrush wouldn’t build up for decades, because small fires were not put out right away…”

            Good point.

    2. “Hurricanes are more frequent and more intense.”

      The magnitude of a hurricane is based on maximum wind speed, which is important but also irrelevant. The damage a tropical storm comes in with the storm swell, how much sea water washing up on the shore they bring with them, and the amount of rain from the skies they bring. These two phenomena don’t necessarily depend on maximum wind speed at all.

      1. Coastal erosion has always been a problem, hence Matthew 7:24-27 the bible verses about the wise man and the <a href="https://childbiblesongs.com/song-21-wise-man-built-his-house.shtml&quot; foolish man.

        Climate alarmists need to stop peddling these myths about this imaginary coming catastrophe.

        Their is zero evidence that either storm surges or rainfall has increased nor has there been any evidence that storms have increased in other locations. EG; There is absolutely no evidence “Superstorm” Sandy was unprecedented in either intensity or any other way.

        Absolutely none of the storms that have bee touted as “unprecedented” in the last thirty years or so have been”unprecedented” in any way at all.

        You and the other hurricane alarmists are plainly and simply making things up.

        The plain fact is that living in the tropics and sub-tropics involves living with hurricanes. If you don’t like it move somewhere else. Living on the coast especially involves serious risks. Don’t expect people who live in safer places to bail you out.

        1. As for me, I like living in Florida. I like living in a warm climate. I’ve lived in cold places. I don’t like it, hell, some years in Central Florida are too cold for me.

          I accept preparing for storms. I accept high insurance premiums (populist Insurance Commissioners have blocked increases based on sound actuarial principals for a long time).

          It’s too bad that to get the kind of premiums that reflect the actual risks of living in coastal areas insurers have had to resort to claiming they are dealing with “Climate Change” and “sea level rise” and other fictions. If that is what it takes to have solvent insurance companies able to pay out claims I’ll take it.

          But don’t think I’m fooled by any of it. For all their “wokeness” the only things insurance companies care about is covering the same risks that have existed since time immemorial.

          1. “It’s too bad that to get the kind of premiums that reflect the actual risks of living in coastal areas insurers have had to resort to claiming they are dealing with “Climate Change” and “sea level rise” and other fictions. If that is what it takes to have solvent insurance companies able to pay out claims I’ll take it. ”

            Don’t go homeowner sexual on me now. I don’t swing that way.

            1. Fuck off, asshole. Nobody cares about your erotic fantasies.

        2. “You and the other hurricane alarmists are plainly and simply making things up.”

          The magnitude of a hurricane is measured by maximum wind speed and the storm swell or rain fall is not part of that measurement. I can’t see why this is so unacceptable for you. I know the media drones on all the time about cat 5 storm this, cat 5 storm that, and this exposure, without any further knowledge of the matter could have prejudiced your view. The best I can do is recommend you do is lay off the TV and hit the books. It’s not that hard. It’s climate science, not rocket science.

          1. And not at all surprising, asshole hasn’t bothered with a cite to back his claim!

          2. All i can say is that you’ll be sorry if Joe Biden succeeds in ending hurricanes and the Southeastern USA becomes an arid dessert.

            Of course Joe Biden will no more accept responsibility for that than he has for the number or incarcerated people or the number of federal crimes carry the death penalty.

            1. “you’ll be sorry if Joe Biden succeeds in ending hurricanes and the Southeastern USA becomes an arid dessert.”

              I’ve just polished off a rather moist dinner. An arid dessert now would go down a treat.

              1. Well, all I can say is that for the most part on the subject of hurricanes you are full of shit. I hope you are not constipated.

                1. trueman occasionally is not full of shit, but it is accidental.

                2. “I hope you are not constipated.”

                  Don’t they have dried prunes in Florida?

                  1. One of the common times trueman is full of shit.
                    Fuck off, asshole.

                    1. Trueman needs the prunes.

              2. “I’ve just polished off a rather moist dinner. An arid dessert now would go down a treat.”

                As for me? I’ve been through the dessert on a horse with no name! The horse is now ALL covered in pecan pie and vanilla ice cream, and it makes me SOOO hungry, that I could eat a horse!

              3. You just polished off one of joe biden’s moist turds. First up thread you were a Structural Engineer then a Climate Scientist and then a Nuclear Submarine Engineer. Now you’re a professional Shit Eater. Wow.

            2. Pretty sure our meteorological science is enlightened enough to realize desertification is caused by racism, except for certain values of Supreme Leader, in which case it’s caused by sexism.

          3. We had severe storms 100 years ago. And 1000 years ago. They happen. Any one severe storm is weather, not evidence of climate change. Even a season or a year with more severe storms than usual is just that, an unusual year, and the reliable historic data don’t go back very far. When Katrina and Rita hit, we were told this was the beginning of the end and there would be more megastorms every year. But there wasn’t and the fearmongering simmered down for a while. Then the next big storm season hit 10 years later and they said “see, we told you!”

            1. Yet climate does change, you don’t deny that. But you do deny that climate change is evidence of climate change. It seems you want it both ways.

              1. That’s not what he said.

      2. Mtrueman is correct!

        “These two phenomena don’t necessarily depend on maximum wind speed at all.”

        Hurricane Harvey utterly devastated Houston in 2017 with rain, rain, and more rain, with scarcely a wind gust to be found. Other examples of such abound.

    3. The narrative about rising sea levels being a serious threat to the world economy fades against examples from recent history of what happens to coastal cities that have had to deal with subsidence. If you’re looking to see what might happen when sea levels rise relative to coastal land elevation, it should be instructive to look at what has happened when the elevation of coastal land has fallen relative to sea levels in the past.

      My understanding is that the average elevation in Tokyo dropped by about two meters between 1950 and 1970. See this chart:

      https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Land-subsidence-and-groundwater-levels-in-the-Tokyo-area-Japan-modified-after-Kaneko_fig7_283771445

      This relative rise in sea level of two meters–relative to the falling elevation of the land–must have been devastating to Tokyo over such a short period of time, right?

      Actually, between 1950 and 1970, the population of Tokyo more than doubled, and Japan became an economic powerhouse. That isn’t to say that there weren’t all sorts of problems associated with the relative rise in sea levels. It just means that economic growth, civil engineering, and market forces were able to address those problems, and the people of Tokyo flourished in spite of them.

      1. Older left-bank Paris buildings are equally instructive; the are all at least one story lower than they once were. Those built on what amounts to un-engineered soil began subsiding soon after construction.
        The hotel we stayed in served breakfast in the cellar which had the remains of a (formerly) street level door. Yes, the market and the desire to succeed can provide some serious ‘adjustment’ efforts.
        Further, we have now had at least 30 years of ‘coastal flooding from sea-level rise’ which seems to have caused none, but we are assured by the catastophists that humanity is simply not capable of relocating in time to survive!
        Well, physical and financial ‘transport’ has never been to convenient and cheap as it is now, but assuming the catastrophists are as ‘mistaken’ (yes, I can spell ‘lying’) as they were then, we’ll give ’em another 30 years, and we see that Chicago’s population increased by 2,000,000 in that time span:
        https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/chicago-illinois
        HOWEVER WILL PEOPLE MOVE IN TIME? (assuming the dim-bulb watermelons aren’t off by another 100%).
        They’ll take covered wagons or the train, I guess.

        1. For other like situations see the Venice lagoon where evidence shows that current buildings sit upon the remains of as many a seven previous ones.

          1. Have a friend who lives not far from Venice (and took us on a tour); neither he, nor the hotel where we stayed made mention of that.
            We did stay in Bruge, and the subsidence was made clear in the cellar of THAT hotel.
            Live in SF; south of Market area was a swamp, but got ‘filled’ with whatever was available. Toward the edges (closer to Market Street and Potrero Hill, the entry doors are still at street level. Those toward the center are either stairs down, or replaced by the next story.

      2. Ken, for what it’s worth (my opinion and all) I think that aside from my views on coastal erosion that there are tectonic forces that have far more influence on sea level than any other considerations we may think of.

      3. Rising sea levels are easily adapted to, because the rise is so slow. It was much more significant at the end of the last Ice Age, but there is much less ice left to melt now. If the ocean rises a foot in a century, it’s so slow as to be almost imperceptible. Even 3 feet in a 100 years is easily dealt with. Projections beyond that are just irresponsible climate panic.

    4. The primary driver of wildfires right now is horrible forestry management practices over the last century, combined with significant population movement into fire prone areas.

      We live here in NW MT, filled with massive forests of pine, fir, and spruce. Right here, the predominant tree is the Ponderosa Pine, which evolved to survive low intensity, low level fires, every decade or two. These brush fires would come through and burn out the underbrush, just scorching the thick brush a bit. Their cones would then sprout. But after a century of fire suppression, there is now enough fuel on the ground, that fires now end up in the crowns of the trees, which burn much hotter, and are far harder to control. The Forest Service now spends the bulk of its budget on fire fighting, just keeping these big crown fires from destroying too many buildings. Meanwhile timbering on those Forest Service land was mostly eliminated, thanks to the same environmentalists who want us to give up our wealth and freedom for their Gaia worship. 20 years ago, we had 5 lumber mills in town. Now there is 1, but with enough uncut timber all around to support maybe 10 in a steady state situation. And that would not only help the Forest Service’s finances, but would also greatly reduce the danger of runaway wildfires – which are horrible emitters of CO2.

      1. Yes, and when you see nature shows these days (watched one just a few days ago), they will blame “global warming” for the fires out west, and make NO mention of this VAST MISMANAGEMENT of these lands, by none other than… Government Almighty!

  39. To stop climate change, the U.S. needs to throw enough smoke and debris in the air to block heat-giving sunlight.

    Sunlight us the source of warming. No sunlight, no global warming.

    1. We could start using an extra blanket at night.

      We could tax carbon instead of income, profits, and capital gains, too, but the progressives will never go for that–because the whole point of the program is to justify more socialism rather than less.

      What’s the point of saving the planet from baking to death if the Democrats can no longer rob me of my income, my profits, and my investment proceeds and give it to elitist government bureaucrats who hate my guts?

  40. Dystopia is an idea whose time has come.

    I imagine these academics do not expect to be living and working with those energy budgets.

  41. If we use enough nuclear weapons we could start a nuclear winter or maybe even an ice age. That would solve the heating problem and reduce the world population enough that the survivors could each use more energy.

  42. That study is true and the recommendation is valid.
    The trouble is that it’s based on a soon-to-be human population of EIGHT BILLION and almost no one admits that that is the problem. The statement that “just over 10 percent of the world’s people are unfortunately still undernourished” is too true, and there is no more wide open land to plow.
    The United States and Europe have fucked themselves into overcrowding and while pay our own useless to breed like roaches; we import the useless from the shitlands to our collective south to come on in and give THEM per-baby welfare…… along with child tax credits etc. for overbreeding working citizens.
    Go ahead and call me names. almost no one here will admit that the human race has creampied it’s way into starvation as we take the biosphere out with us.

    1. You must be fun at parties.

    2. Classic malthusian reasoning – and just as wrong as it was every previous time.

      Population has increased at the same time that poverty and hunger have decreased. There is in fact plenty of arable land that can still be brought under production – especially if we got rid of the self-destructive biofuel rules that incent the conversion of perfectly good cropland into substandard fuels.

      1. Making things worse, the 8 billion figure is suspect. Along with economic success for a country comes a crashing birth rate. Japan and much of Europe are below ZPG. India and esp China, the two most populous countries in the world, are likely to see population crashes over the next several decades, with estimates of China’s population by mid century being below 700 million. Their One Child policy was bad enough, but its age old culteral norms forced a large number of those single children to be male, resulting in a desrth of females, which are the gender necessary for having children.

        Cental and South America are already approaching maintenance levels in population growth, and most of Asia is already there, as well as all of Europe and North America. That essentially leaves sub Saharian Africa still with out of control population growth.

        1. You ignore India. A ton of peasants popping out kids who will grow up to be peasants. Out of control population growth, uncontrolled pollution, very low production of material goods, widespread hunger, awful sanitation, rabid ignorance, profound illiteracy.

          1. I visited India 5 years ago. Amazing growth. Obvious improving conditions. Educated people. Not everyone of course, but enough to make improvements.

    3. There’s no need to call you names, you’ve done it yourself by stating that the study is ‘true.’ The second claim about ‘no more wide open land to plow’ cements your dim arguments under, where they belong, and make you look foolish. Overpopulation is as much of a factor as anything else to consider when looking at possible anthropogenic climate change, but your use of ‘pay our own useless to breed’ waxes a bit too 3rd Reich.

    4. Another leftist cheering for Thanos.

    5. Look at the 1968 George Wallace Dixiecrat campaign against women being individuals. The 1972 LP platform said to stop rednecks from forcing women into involuntary servitude, and God’s Own Prohibitionists (both mystical parties) promptly demanded men with guns threaten doctors and shoot at women’s clinics. The Pill defeated Comstockism, ungagged birth control advocates and changed the sign of the second derivative of the population curve as the LP was organized. Otherwise population would be 10 billion now.

      1. Oh fuck off.

  43. In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 per cent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. According to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel, that’s at least according to a team of European researchers. Their new study, “Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use,” in Global Environmental Change, calculates that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.

    1. Leftists cheering for Thanos. We already knew that.

  44. “That study is true and the recommendation is valid.
    You.
    Are .
    Full.
    Of.
    Shit.
    Be happy to call you names and you deserve many, starting with fucking ignoramus, but that doesn’t address your idiocy.
    We have a stable and soon falling population, a world-wide food surplus (the distribution badly distorted by gov’t policies).
    And I notice your bullshit claims are totally bereft of any supporting data.
    Might that be a result of you being a fucking ignoramus? I think so.

  45. BTW, I really appreciate the lefty ignoramuses (and those who CLAIM to be otherwise) for muting me.
    It allows me to address your bullshit for the edification of those who have not done so and make clear the idiocy of your posts absent your whiny claims otherwise.
    Thank you all for allowing those who look here to see your imbecility; it is instructive.

  46. In other words, we can’t conserve our way out of this. Let’s focus our attention on innovating our way out.

    1. Communist activist Jack London made a suggestion back in 1910, in The Unparalleled Invasion…

    2. We can conserve part of the way there. It’s just innovation of the most obvious kind.

  47. That will not stop climate change. The fact is the climate has always changed. The climate is changing. The climate will never stop changing until the sun swallows the earth and obliterates it.
    The poles were tropical at one time, now that was global warming.
    Scientists have found something about the North Pole that could send a shiver down Santa’s spine: It used to be downright balmy.

    “In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say” – cbsnews

    Man in his arrogance thinks he can control nature, he cannot.

    1. Man in his arrogance thinks he can control nature, he cannot.

      The arrogance here is yours for making a confident pronouncement based on a lack of understanding of how Earth’s climate works and motivated reasoning.

      That Earth’s climate has changed dramatically multiple times over the course of its 4.5 billion year history in no way precludes human actions from affecting it. There’s nothing logical about that conclusion, any more than there would be to say that forest fires couldn’t be caused by people because they’ve occurred naturally in the past without humans around to cause them. Or that species go extinct naturally, so humans can’t cause that either.

      The facts of why Earth’s climate is changing right now is basic physics – the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, aka, the Law of Conservation of Energy. Because of increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere*, surface temperatures have to increase in order to maintain the balance of radiant energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun and the infrared radiation from the surface escaping out to space. This was predicted to be an issue at as far back as Svente Arrhenius in 1896. Though he thought it would take so long to double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, that such a slow increase would be beneficial and prevent another ice age.

      Of course, our current understanding of the causes of the glacial cycles, colloquially referred to as ice ages, is that changes in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt are primarily responsible, with GHG concentrations acting as a positive feedback to those effects that occur in cycles tens of thousands of years long.

      *caused by our burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale over the last couple of centuries as well as other human actions, like clearing forests to increase farmland and pasture, with these land-use changes also affecting the reflectivity of the surface

      1. Every single thing humans are doing or have ever done is simply bad and we should all feel terrible about it.

        1. Every single thing humans are doing or have ever done is simply bad and we should all feel terrible about it.

          Right, it’s all about virtue signaling and trying to guilt people into giving up their SUVs and giving more control of their lives to government. Trying to understand Earth’s climate through evidence and scientific reasoning is just giving the commies what they want. Is that what you think? If I’m wrong in my attempt to parody your thinking, it is no worse than what your response to what I wrote did. On the other hand, that seems a pretty accurate parody of what so many posting here think.

          1. Just throw enough smoke and debris into the sky that no sunlight ever reaches the surface.

            No sunlight, no warming.

      2. While you are correct to say that it’s a logical fallacy to claim that past natural events preclude the possibility that this one is man-made, you are wrong in your shifting of the burden of proof.

        Past climate cycles occurred (and since they predated fossil fuels, they could not have been caused by fossil fuels). The null hypothesis for the current cycle is that it also is naturally-occurring. Despite your handwaving about “basic physics” we do not have nearly sufficient understanding of the chaotic climate structure of an ocean-dominated planet to exclude the null hypothesis.

        Arrhenius, for example, did demonstrate a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration – in a dry laboratory at concentrations far above what’s actually in the terrestrial atmosphere. More importantly, he demonstrated that it follows a logarithmic curve. So not only do you have to account for the water cycle (including clouds, thunderstorms and other emergent phenomena), you also have to recognize that most of the CO2-driven temperature increase that’s possible has already occurred. To double the CO2 levels again (from 400 ppm to 800) would increase temperatures by the same amount as going from 200 ppm to 400 – but getting to 800 would require burning more fossil fuels than exist in all the world’s known reserves.

        1. Your assertion that we don’t know enough to eliminate the “null hypothesis” (that CO2 levels and temperature have no causal relationship) is just wrong. That possibility was eliminated a long time ago.

          Arrhenius, for example, did demonstrate a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration – in a dry laboratory at concentrations far above what’s actually in the terrestrial atmosphere.

          That’s not my understanding at all. In my reading, he estimated the amount of IR absorbed by CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere empirically by using data collected from the full moon. See this article, for example.

          To double the CO2 levels again (from 400 ppm to 800) would increase temperatures by the same amount as going from 200 ppm to 400 – but getting to 800 would require burning more fossil fuels than exist in all the world’s known reserves.

          CO2 levels were not 200 ppm prior to industrialization, but about 280 ppm. Thus doubling will occur when concentrations reach 560 ppm, not 400 ppm. So, you are wrong to assert that “most of the CO2-driven temperature increase that possible has already occurred.” (CO2 levels are around 415 ppm now. The ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland that are used to get historical gas concentrations in the atmosphere show that CO2 varied from as low as 180 ppm during glacial maxima to just under 300 ppm during warm periods. It wasn’t until industrialization that CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm in at least several hundred thousand years.)

          Climate sensitivity is the term used to describe the expected amount of warming from doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Some of the feedback mechanisms may take several hundred years or more for climate to reach equilibrium, so there are different forms of climate sensitivity that are calculated depending on the time scale of interest. The equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be between 1.5C and 4.5C. That’s a lot of uncertainty, but virtually all of the uncertainty is in regards to how bad it will get. There is no uncertainty in the direction of things not getting warmer. In order for things to not get much warmer than they already have, the very bottom of the estimated range has to be what is correct.

          1. Jason,
            forget the numbers. The key points are 1) the functional dependence is logarithmic. 2) The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 700 and 1000 years.
            What’s done is done.
            So focus on adaptation not on the British bull shit of this study.

            1. forget the numbers.

              Numbers are important when discussing science. Being accurate matters. It makes a big difference to the argument Rossami was making to say that doubling of CO2 had already occurred (200-400 ppm) versus the reality that we are only halfway there (280-415 ppm).

              1) the functional dependence is logarithmic.

              I think that this assumes just the effect from CO2 and water vapor. It does not take into account other positive feedbacks like: reduction in surface reflectivity as surface ice melts or the release of methane from melting permafrost. Nor does it account for other changes, such as what snow there is on the ground gaining tiny pieces of soot from coal burning, making it less reflective, other greenhouse gases like CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs used as refrigerants and aerosol container propellants, and land use changes. Changes to cloud formation are also a large uncertainty in climate modeling.

              As I said, the uncertainties are all on the side of how much worse it will get. Assuming that we can keep adding carbon to the atmosphere without passing tipping points that will trigger larger positive feedbacks than this logarithmic dependence you are talking about is a dangerous assumption.

              2) The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 700 and 1000 years.
              What’s done is done.
              So focus on adaptation not on the British bull shit of this study.

              A NASA article discussing it on their website quoted 300-1000 years, but yes, you are right. Now that CO2 is 50% higher than it has been in at least 800,000 years, it isn’t going down short of some technological and major geoengineering effort on a planetary scale. But we can work on not making it worse.

              It would be easier to swallow this “what’s done is done” argument if various fossil fuel corporations haven’t been shown to have had scientists in their employ telling them that this would be a problem going back to the 60’s and 70’s. This was the time when the data and computer modeling started to become detailed and sophisticated enough to actually tackle the problem with sufficient detail on a global scale. Arrhenius’s calculations were very crude by comparison.

              Documents from those companies in that time period have been coming out in recent years from lawsuits and whistleblowers showing that they had scientists writing reports for executives warning about global warming from burning fossil fuels at the same time that it was starting to become a concern in the general scientific community. But they started a deliberate campaign to cast doubt on this rising concern in the 80’s as they started funding people that would counter this new area of science.

              They wouldn’t be doing their own research to try and explain how climate works with measurements, models, and theories of their own that they would get published in respected scientific journals. They would counter it by making arguments from within their think tanks, doing interviews with journalists seeking to hear from “both sides”, and testifying in legislative committees. By creating a false sense of “balance” to the debate, they successfully delayed any action by making it practically a matter of faith on the political right that global warming was a leftist scam.

              President George H.W. Bush actually campaigned in 1988 on doing something about climate change. But the right-wing think tankers won out within his administration, and it did not follow through with much action on it. The 1992 environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro was an opportunity to start global action on the problem, and Bush signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change agreement, but no emissions targets were included. Republicans would spend the next 30 years resisting anything that might have made a difference.

      3. Blah blah blah

        You are a good disciple of the climate change religion. The “science” behind this hysteria is beyond flawed, it is corrupt.

        1. Blah blah blah

          Parodying yourself here?

          You are a good disciple of the climate change religion. The “science” behind this hysteria is beyond flawed, it is corrupt.

          Maybe if you demonstrated any knowledge or understanding of the science you think is so corrupt, you would be worth listening to. Instead, you might as well just be shouting “Commie bastard!”

          1. Very good point JasonT20.
            Truthteller1’s first lie was his user name.

    2. Looters in their arrogance CAN control weak-minded fools. Observe the following of communism, televangelism and Millerite Eco-naziism.

    3. 55 million years ago, the fossil landscape hosting all that tropical flora and fauna was closer to the latitude of Miami than the North Pole- CO2 was higher, but plate tectonics did most of the work.

      1. Entelechy; you sound like an adherent of the Whole Truth. That’s getting more and more rare. Keep it up.

  48. And the power shortages being blamed on “climate change” is total BS. There hasn’t been record demand even.

    The problem is politics and subsidies driving out nuclear coal and in some case gas and crediting weather driven sources like wind and solar as reliable

    The less than 1 degree climate change if that’s even believable is not causing your A/C to go off

    Places that get really hot and have not caved to politics like AZ fine. CA not so much

    1. The power outages are caused by climate change though — people worried about climate change pushed for less reliable solar and wind power, and now we’re all suffering.

      1. Um no they are not caused by climate change. You think it’s never ever been this hot before. Think again

        And that’s all that matters to the power grid. Shit it could be January and 100 degrees. All that matters is that on a 100 degree day do you have the generation to meet demand.

        The climate change argument is total BS

  49. People like a warmer climate. They’ve been moving to warmer climates ever since air conditioning was invented. People like living on the beach, too, and most of the coastal states are lefty-leaning, yet coastal properties cost more than ever. If people were really afraid of rising seas and more frequent and more severe storms, coastal properties would be difficult to sell without big discounts vs. safer properties farther inland.

      1. Venus is one ***HOT*** babe!!!

  50. The surprising thing is that it took the Global Environmental Change authors so long to catch up with the Reason article that warned against the dismal consequences of carbon rationing in 2008, and concluded that abolishing fire was not the smartest way to undo the long term climate consequences of the industrial revolution

    https://reason.com/2008/07/23/carbon-based-prohibition/

    OTOH, it took Ron even longer to evolve from authoring Ecoscam in 1993 to acknowledging the existance of CO2 climate forcing . Good thing he changed his mind, but the delay cost Reason a lot of scientific street cred.

  51. Warmunism is the communist version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and debuted in the Soviet Warmunism Sharknado storyboard of 1960. (shorturl.at/eDR56) (this storyboard disappears A LOT)
    1970s global cooling shelved that effort in favor of Freeze and Surrender nuclear winter hysteria which leveled off after Eurocommunism collapsed. Energy is the ability to do work and to fry looter dictatorships, so OF COURSE the looters are against it!

  52. All right then, so make your case for why the next generation has to be the last one, so we don’t have to sacrifice any standard of living. Make the moral case. I’m sure you can dig something up in Ayn Rand.

    1. The problem is that environmental activists don’t actually tell us that sacrifices are needed.
      Where’s the carbon tax???

      1. I’d look in the direction of the US Senate.

    2. “All right then, so make your case for why the next generation has to be the last one,…”

      Shitstain here is not capable of posting without lying.

    3. Only the more cult-like zealots think the next generation will be the last. Climate scientists arent saying that. Alarmist retards are.

      Feel free to gather the other retards, and you can all live in a commune, in 500 sqft cubicles, using minimal energy, do what you want man. If you have this conviction that the world is ending, its telling that you and the other crazy liberals that tout this bullshit still continue to live your lives without inconvenience, in decadence, and you want the govt to impose the inconvenience on everyone else.

      Do you really think the world is ending in the next 10/20/40 years? If so I hope you are taking drastic steps to do something about it. If you were sitting there, comfortably, typing your bullshit about the world ending in an air conditioned, 1000+ sqft apartment, using electricity that came from burning coal, that would almost signal to everyone that you arent taking it seriously at all.

      So put up, or shut the fuck up. You and the rest of the zealots are welcome to never fly, live in cubicles, eat bugs, and enjoy it brother. You can spend every day talking about how much good you are doing for the world. Hell, 50% of the country (a little more) are dems, if all of you were serious about this, you could make a massive dent in the carbon usage.

      The fact that you all just bitch about imposing your bullshit on everyone else, and never practice what you preach, is very telling.

      1. With the unprecedented global-warming-related weather events, wildfires and off-the-chart poor-air-quality advisories, etcetera, I wonder how many fossil fuel industry and fossil-fuel-client big bank CEOs and/or their family members may also be caught in global-warming-related harm’s way? Assuming the CEOs are not sufficiently foolish to believe their descendants will somehow always evade the health repercussions related to their industry’s environmentally reckless decisions, I wonder whether the profit objective of a CEO’s job-description nature is somehow irresistible to him or her? It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.

        1. “With the unprecedented global-warming-related weather events, wildfires and off-the-chart poor-air-quality advisories, etcetera,…”

          Amazingly, the watermelon’s cites got eaten by his dog!

        2. How about we just fucking throw smoke and debris into the sky to block all sunlight?

          No sunlight, no warming. Problem solved.

        3. None of your evidence is evidence. Fuck off you delusional midwit.

      2. ” If so I hope you are taking drastic steps to do something about it. If you were sitting there, comfortably, typing your bullshit about the world ending in an air conditioned, 1000+ sqft apartment, using electricity that came from burning coal, that would almost signal to everyone that you arent taking it seriously at all. ”

        Your concerns are ill placed. These people you are talking about, every one of them, will be dead by the end of the century. They are irrelevant. Doing something about climate change will be down to the next couple of generations, and they seem to take the issue seriously. There’s a 17 year old Swedish girl, for example. Future generations are more likely to follow her example than the old farts you are wringing your hands over.

        1. “…There’s a 17 year old Swedish girl, for example…”

          That would be the adolescent, autistic lefty shit who is every bit a capable of analyzing the issue as are you.
          For similar reasons.

        2. Unfortunately that girl is a case study in child abuse.

          Autistic girl that has been so brainwashed by her climate zealot parents that she regurgitates it back. Her parents should be ashamed what they have done. How dare they?!?!

          Watching her is like watching religious kids who spew back whatever indoctrination they have had crammed into their heads at church as absolute fact.

          The only reason she has been given fame is that there are so many lefty parents that want their kids (and everyone elses) indoctrinated in their religion.

          1. She and others like her will be the voice of the future as the old generation inevitably dies off. Things change, it’s the cruelest law of the universe. Adapt or die. No pasaran!

            1. “She and others like her will be the voice of the future as the old generation inevitably dies off.”

              No surprise trueman is taken by the rantings of an autistic adolescent; his rantings are so reminiscent of that drivel.

            2. Yes, change is inevitable.

              YOU, identifying exactly what the change will be, is like, the opposite of inevitable.

    4. How sbout just msking the whole worod freezing cold all year long?

  53. The authors may be right in what they say is the energy use required to get to a 1.5° temp rise.
    What irritates me most about climate change activists (other than these guys) is that they portray the future as being filled with economical green energy sources and green union jobs restore our middle class.
    They need to start telling the public that it will take sacrifices to obtain what they want.

  54. “In order to save the planet from catastrophic” weather changes…..
    Please BOW-DOWN and WORSHIP the Gov-Gods…
    Only a Nazi Party can legislate the weather with their almighty gods.

    And in other REAL NEWS; 2019 record setting low temperatures sweep the nation not seen since 1960s.
    And in other REAL NEWS; Texas power loss due to severely cold weather.

    Hmmm….. What kind of “Jack and the Beanstalk” story can the left make-up and have a never-ending “catastrophic” that’ll dupe idiots into worshiping the Nazi-Gods?

    I know, I know — Blame it all on the weather!!!
    Nazi Indoctrination for people so stupid pets make them look like idiots.

    1. Turns out global cooling is caused by global warming. I know right?

    1. “This may become moot. Like there was ever any fucking chance that anyone would ever listen to anyone else with a different opinion once ‘social media’ came along to render public discussion of anything impossibly irrational…”

      I did not know that’s what lead to your idiocy.

  55. The limitations on sq ft (640) and the others just about describe my father in England, even before he retired. The English of a certain economic class fit these criteria just fine. The problem was I wanted to get out of there as fast as I could. I am doing what I can to minimize my personal emissions. For example I take Simethicone. But you will never see me living in those conditions again. Nor anybody with any ambition. That is what this is all about. Killing human progress by killing/taxing ambition.

    1. ^+1
      I have no desire to live as my grandparents did.

  56. I would bet my house that not a single one of those “researchers” actually lives even 1/10th of that drivel they wrote.

  57. “… the energy equivalent of 7,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per capita. That is about how much energy the average Bolivian uses. Currently, Americans use about 80,000 kWh annually per capita.”

    That isn’t quite true. I consider myself to be a pretty average American but over the past year telecommuting we went through 64 gallons of gas and 8,600 kWh for two people so 32 gallons and 4,300 kWh per person. Of course we also go to the market for food, doctor, dentist and other commercial ventures that increases that total. In short there’s a big difference between how much energy “the average” person “uses” and the average energy used per capita that includes all the “infrastructure” of a society.

    It’s clear they present it as a goal that may seem reasonable when people in the US look at their personal consumption and think ‘oh that seems doable, why not?’ Then of course they also think we need infrastructure plans that will cost trillions, they support the Jones Act and corporate graft to unions and corporations because ‘American jobs’. They never make the mental connection that graft and infrastructure also burns through a crap ton of energy on top of the already energy intensive nature of just keeping our current society ticking along.

    1. Whenever extreme weather hits, greatly elevated electricity consumption creates concerns. Maybe it’s time every structure independently harvested solar energy as an emergency power storage system. There already are fossil-fuel-powered generator systems that engage once the regular electric-grid flow gets cut off, so why not use clean solar energy instead of the very old school and carbon intensive means?

      Albeit, if such solar-power universality would come at the expense of the traditional energy production companies, one can expect obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If it notably conflicts with corporate big-profit interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often enough successfully. And, of course, there will be those who will rebut the concept, even solely on the notion that if it was possible, it would have been patented already and made a few people very wealthy.

      Regardless, it may no longer be prudent to have every structure’s entire electricity supply relying on external power lines that are susceptible to being crippled by unforeseen events, including storms of unprecedented magnitude, especially considering our very vulnerable overreliance on electricity. Also, coronal mass ejections’ powerful EMF effects leave electrical grids vulnerable to potentially extensive damage and long-lasting power outages.

      1. “…Maybe it’s time every structure independently harvested solar energy as an emergency power storage system…”

        Yep, solar power on a cloudy day, wind power when it’s calm.
        I’m betting you want a pony, too, right?

      2. Funny; I didn’t know there was a debate on you buying all those things. Nazism (def; National Socialism) is what makes everything a debate/battle because it’s…..

        NOT a battle on if you can *earn* it; it’s a battle of if you can *steal* it!

        When you talk about “extreme weather” in the political realm (National Socialism) it’s just an excuse to enslave/steal.

        Otherwise; You’d just GO DO IT….

        P.S. I did it; It was a complete waste of money. 30-YEARS without a single added cost is what it takes to even pay for itself and that doesn’t even consider how much THEFT has already occurred in the industry.

      3. I suppose it depends on what you call extreme weather. Weather is only extreme because someone wasn’t paying attention and didn’t prepare for it. Take California’s perpetual drought, frequent wildfires, and rolling blackouts. These aren’t caused by extreme weather but they are caused by California’s failure to properly care for it’s resources. They don’t care for their forests creating lots of fuel for fires and they suck every drop of moisture out of the environment domestic and agricultural uses that leaves the forests in a state of dry tinder.

        The cause is more government incompetence and environmental extremists that prevent proper land stewardship than it is extreme weather. If we fix the idiocy we could reduce much of the cost and energy use. Everyone likes to say nuclear power isn’t safe based on a few mishaps but it’s still nearly as safe as solar power which is just nuclear power at a distance.

        1. Take California’s perpetual drought, frequent wildfires, and rolling blackouts. These aren’t caused by extreme weather but they are caused by California’s failure to properly care for it’s resources.

          Uh, no. The mega-drought in the west of the U.S. is an actual extreme event (and it is most of the region experiencing it, not just California). Look at the labels of the map. “Extreme drought” is “D3” with “Exceptional drought” as “D4”, and most of CA, NV, and Arizona are covered by D3 and D4, as is all of Utah. These conditions have been persisting and getting worse for nearly twenty years.

          Governments can try and manage and adapt to these conditions, but they are certainly not the cause of them.

          1. Governmental actions aren’t responsible for amount of rainfall. Good science there.

            The blackouts? Dependent on power generation? Yeah, gov’t has a big effect on that. And the nature of the wildfires, as the result of activist-demanded measures to deliberately avoid responsible stewardship? Yeah, gov’t there too.

            How about the claim that climate change is indicated by the $$ amounts of losses due to weather events and fires? Nothing to do with construction patterns, zoning and insurance mandates, right?

            No, you’ve proven an obvious negative (gov’t doesn’t cause rainfall or drought*), the rest of the climate change litany is still bullshit, and nothing you said effects that at all.

            *-management of water resources IS still a government responsibility though, and affects events that some stupid and/or unethical people may attribute to “climate change”.

  58. Great idea! You first.

  59. It is worth making fun of the study, though to be fair, within the given constraints, their math is good. To all you global climate skeptics, all that we need to look at to be worried is sea level rise, a well studied and established phenomena, that will cause large scale problems around the world in the current and next century. Currently the average sea level is rising at 3 mm a year, and the trend is increasing, slow by our lifespans, but geologically alarming. It seems reasonable that it is tied to rising CO2 levels. Look at the graphs of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 5 million years. In the USA, by 2100, Florida is so fucked it is not even funny. Don’t know about Hawaii, but many beaches in California will cease to be except at low tide. Indonesia, the 4th largest country is the world by population, is not going to be happy as their useable land fades away. Global climate change, or if you prefer sea level rise, is an extremely slow motion disaster that we can prepare for and solve as long as we take it seriously without panicking and suggesting completely unworkable solutions. Which that study does. Our best way forward is by developing renewable energy resources, and nuclear power. We can do nuclear safely, though I know that was said many times before. Heck, I remember Chernobyl. And the disaster in Japan was just a decade ago. But as we do and screw up and figure things out, we get better. I love renewable energy, but currently there is no existing system that will do the job. Everything else is scify. Fun but fantasy. Solar satellites beaming energy, fusion power, geothermal power from the Mariana Trench or holes drilled into the earths heat 8+ miles deep. We need solutions that can handle all the energy needs of the world now. And as we slide into the future there will be more people who will use more energy per capita.

    1. “…To all you global climate skeptics, all that we need to look at to be worried is sea level rise, a well studied and established phenomena, that will cause large scale problems around the world in the current and next century…”

      To all you catastophists, YOU need to understand the difference between those who are skeptical of the phenomena and those who oppose the current, proposed, “solutions”.
      They are nothing of the sort, but they are disastrous regarding the economy and personal liberty.
      Further, suggesting that human adaptions regarding movements of a good number of people over the span of a century is irrelevant; look at historical migrations when you had to ride the train and carry your money with you.
      Finally, assuming CO^2 *IS* the culprit, current tech says the ONLY solution is nuclear power. This is obvious to anyone spending more than a couple of minutes considering the issue and this study simply re-enforces that conclusion.
      The fact that the watermelons do not acceptthat says they are not serious regarding ‘saving the earth’; they have another agenda.

        1. You seem to toss a lot of BS around and never bother to make a point.
          I’m supposed to wander the link in the hopes of finding what?
          Piss off.

      1. ^^THIS; The weather and sea levels has been changing since the earth existed. Since before humans existed. They tell me all the continents use to be one and things changed so ‘catastrophically’ the oceans dropped significantly ALL before humans existed.

        Their ‘alarm’ is nothing short of a bedtime fairy-tale nightmare; self-delusional excuse to STEAL.

        1. …And P.S. a war against CO2 is a war against plant life. Ya; That’s a winner.. /s

    2. “It is worth making fun of the study, though to be fair, within the given constraints, their math is good. ”

      That is true.

      You saw it here first– in 2008:
      https://reason.com/2008/07/23/carbon-based-prohibition/

  60. I’m assuming all the researches all did their part and after publishing moved into tents, stopped travelling, and withdrew from modern society.

    1. Researcher are busy repairing their igloos they predicted would be needed for the next Ice Age just a few short years ago.

      1. That ice age predicted to happen in 1984, 85, 86, whoops no it’ll be a dust bowl in 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, whoops, 92, 93, 94, whoops 95, 96, 97, whoops, 98, 99, Y2K, crap well maybe an ice age in 01, 02, 03, 04, 05…..

        WELL SH*T; Maybe it’s just a prediction the CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!

        To be duped once is a mistake to learn from.
        To be duped twice is a not too bright.
        To be duped over, and over, and over, and over, and over again is just downright STUPID.

        1. …and those “prophets” have been held as accountable as CNN for reporting the “news”. Yish!

    2. Are you kidding me? These dipshits wouldn’t last 5 minutes if they couldn’t get their daily lattes, craft beers, and of course internet connection to blog about how superior they are.

      1. These are not serious people; they are poseurs, promoting a post-Mosaic religion and hoping to be seen as worthy of being saved in the ever-receding rapture.

      2. It is ironic. The only people I know that would thrive in the conditions most of these people clamor for are the prepper-adjacent conservatives.

        These are weak people

        1. Very good point. I see some of these people and their lives and realize that THEY, the UNWASHED CONSERVATIVE Preppers, are the only ones living with nature in harmony. Yet they are horrible people I guess. Well, they ARE because the elites want that nice forested land for themselves. Gotta shove prepper boy in the concrete jungle apartments

    3. Some , shades of Waterworld, took to commuting to climate reveal meetings by carbon fiber catamaran. One ended up on the cover of Vogue.

  61. There has been discouragingly insufficient political courage and will to properly act upon the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming and climate change. There still prevails a do-little-or-nothing policy among the world’s top leaders, a number of whom remain more or less steered by big fossil fuel interests.

    To me, general human existence has for too long been analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line. Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated. ‘Liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ (etcetera) are overly preoccupied with criticizing one another for their politics and beliefs thus diverting attention away from the greatest polluters’ moral and ethical corruption, where it should and needs to be sharply focused.

    But I still see some hope for spaceship Earth and therefor humankind due to environmentally conscious and active children, especially those who are approaching/reaching voting age. In contrast, the dinosaur electorate who have been voting into high office consecutive mass-pollution promoting or complicit/complacent governments for decades are gradually dying off thus making way for far more healthy-planet-thus-people minded voters.

    1. “There has been discouragingly insufficient political courage and will to properly act upon the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming and climate change. There still prevails a do-little-or-nothing policy among the world’s top leaders, a number of whom remain more or less steered by big fossil fuel interests.”

      I see, that as a lying piece of lefty shit, you make no mention of the only tech available to address what you see as a major issue: nuclear power.
      You are but one more commie hoping the right people will return the earth to the pre-Edenic state.
      Fuck off, slaver.

        1. If you have another viable solution, let’s hear it.

          1. Still waiting for the lefty shit to offer anything at all. Can we assume a steaming pile of lefty shit has nothing to offer? Sure seems so.
            Fuck off and die.

  62. There is, in this issue, an outstanding demonstration of the economic law regarding “stated” vs “revealed’ preferences.
    Note that not one of the watermelons posting above has made it clear what he/she/it/they/whatever has actually done to make one damn difference to accomplish the supposed goal.
    Not one, not one claim, let alone verifiable action. Tony, trueman, MG, the newest watermelons; not a single one has posted what they have done to remediate the problem.
    Nope; every single one of the steaming piles of lefty shit have simply told us what we should to in the future to make them happy!
    Assholes, one and all! Fuck off and die.

    1. The Dunnig- Kruger is strong in this one

      1. The stupidity is strong here; lefty shit prattling on.
        Fuck off and die.

  63. How will doing that alter the astronomical and geological factors that steer climate changes?

    1. By pleasing Gaia, silly.

  64. At their core, these fundamentalist eco-luddite socialists hate people, especially people who refuse to submit to the collective religion. Their only solutions include subjugation of the will to enjoy life, or just the elimination of life.

  65. Anyone who supports even a semi-apocalyptic view of the near future has to send us a book report on Paul Ehrlich before posting any more comments.

    1. Yes. A compare and contrast paper on Ehrlich 1970 vs 2020. 100 pages minimum.

  66. “To Stop Climate Change Americans Must Cut Energy Use by 90 Percent”

    Curiously, the Chinese are not required to cut anything. Even though China is the biggest polluter in the world, by far. Wonder why.

    1. When Gov-Gods actually own industry they don’t need to make B.S. excuses to ‘take-over’ industry.

  67. The car must travel at no faster then 30 miles an hour.
    Where rubber tires meet the future. Los Angeles county alone in one day will produce 3 to 5 tons of rubber dust particles from its roads and freeways.
    Within the last 80 years earth has been turned into a rubber dust particles factory.
    To put it simply, because of car tires life in our oceans will loose all ability to reproduce life naturally.
    The solution to reduce Carbon omission and rubber dust particles in time to save life on earth.
    All vehicles on earth should not be able to travel above 30miles an hour untill all engine’s run clean and until rubber tires are no more.
    Global speed limit of 30 miles per hour will reduce the rubber dust particle pollution impact until new technology can replace all cars.
    Until we evolve away from rubber tires earth life is doomed.
    Yes, 24/7 rubber tires are a constant now and there is always rush hour on earth.
    Most all information about rubber dust particles pollution is being scrubbed from the internet by the companies that product the tires and cars.
    A 30 mile an hour global speed limit is the only move we have now to reach the future.
    God save us!!!

  68. All assumptions about climate change, climate sensitivity, global warming are based on Science. Science is constantly being updated with facts and not assumptions. So, screw this report by sincere, but assumptive scientists.

  69. Some interesting facts about the size of dwellings in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated spaces on the planet:

    “For some, living in a flat in this city might not be much better than living in a cage. The average living area per capita of Hong Kong’s subdivided flats is only 47.8 square feet, with rent costing around 40% of its household income… Just how big is 47.8 square feet? It is barely larger than a table-tennis table, measuring 9 foot by 5 foot. Ironically, the area of an individual cell in Stanley Prison is around 80 square feet, according to Wen Wei Pao. ”

    I’ve been in some of these tiny apartments. The average apartment is about 160 square feet, with everything from living room to bathroom to kitchen arranged in a hallway. The average house size is about 500 square feet. I knew a couple who lived (and even worked remotely) in such a home on Lantau Island, where the electrical power station is located, also caves along the shore where the Japanese used to deploy killer speed boats. Anyhow, there were no cars there unconnected to the power station and ferries and bicycles were the only way to get around. Maybe if the surrounding environment is quiet, peaceful, and pleasant, a small house is more than enough. A big house is only needed as a buffer if the outside is noisy, chaotic and nasty.

    1. Some irrelevant bullshit regarding people who live in extreme density as opposed to losing their liberties by moving to more expansive quarters.
      Followed by:
      “A big house is only needed as a buffer if the outside is noisy, chaotic and nasty.”
      Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Fuck you moron, no one here cares about you. Blocked

  70. Tell ya what guys. You guys get the top Fortune 500 C Suite Execs & all the top leadership of the G7 countries to agree to live like this for 10 years. After 10 years of them living like this, if this is still the best solution, I’ll consider it. I mean, its for the good of the planet, surely they’ll do the right thing.

    In the meantime….

    1. You’re looking for leadership in all the wrong places. It’s the young who have the greatest stake in the future. Like the young Swedish girl we admire so much.

      1. “…Like the young Swedish girl we admire so much.”

        trueman has a turd in his pocket.

      2. “young Swedish girl” has my sympathy, not scorn:
        Greta’s parents should have been prosecuted for child abuse, assuming the Swedes care about such proclivities.

  71. Accountant Cambridgeshire
    Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant Cambridgeshire

  72. Accountant In St Neots
    Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!

  73. Accountant Peterborough
    Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant Peterborough

  74. Bidens green.

    Hes our Low Energy President.

    Along with a high STD VPOTUS
    ..

  75. Biden is passionate about renewable energy and a green America.

    1. Biden flunked out of law school and I doubt he ever took differential equations or even Newtonian Physics..he is an idiot. The “greens” have this thing there is a free lunch in energy or just to kill off billions to achieve their “mother earth” utopia…come on Corn Pop..

  76. nottingham sex contacts for your best sexual chat experience with hot young ladies in United Kingdom, check out right now

  77. Their math is good? Really? Based on what? Climate is a very complex nonlinear system. You can create some simplistic “models” and then extrapolate using math..doesn’t mean the results are any “good.” Honestly the best solution is to have all folks concerned about global warming or climate change or what not (overpopulation and how mother earth is being destroyed by humans) to just off themselves. The reduction of CO2 would be enormous…as these folks probably drive a disproportionate exhaust of the deadly CO2 gas…ha ha

    1. ????????????????????

  78. Does this apply to rich leftists?

    1. A rhetorical question, we assume?
      “All the Animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
      —-George Orwell

  79. That seems like impossible to achieve for an average American

  80. At Remodelling Landscapes Garden Services, We offer the sourcing, selection, supply, fitting of new plants and all associated works professionally. We are specialised in garden landscaping, landscape garden maintenance, garden maintenance services, green waste removal service,garden architecture, houseplant consultant, Garden design consultancy, Garden planting services.

    For more information visit: https://remodellinglandscapes.ie/

  81. Just as I’ve said all along: The problem is not the use of fossil fuels or the methane from cow farts. It’s overpopulation, period. The book, The Population Bomb, by Paul and Ann Ehrlich came out in 1968, and warned of what was coming. Science and technology managed to stave off the inevitable for decades, but we are now at the point where there’s no stopping it. And the sad thing is, everyone is still preaching growth, instead of stable population and economies. Of course, stability of a population and economy that is still far too large is far too late to do any good.

  82. Another shining piece of evidence that…
    “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”
    Call me back when China signs on to this one!

    1. Gee, which president was it who showered his love (his words) on the communist dictators of North Korea, Russia and, yes, China? Why, it’s the one you give your slavish devotion to!

  83. Let me fix that headline for you:

    “To stop climate change, Americans must ignore contrived studies by degrowth academics designed to give predetermined results; need to embrace rapid massive expansion of low and no carbon energy such as nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind power to decouple growth from carbon emissions.”

    Done.

    1. There’s nothing dirtier than the radioactive waste created by nuclear power, genius.

  84. In America, we don’t need a “new green deal” as much as a little common sense. The dreaded “C” word, conserve, is seldom used by politicians because cutting waste will crush the GDP. Because of my business, over the last several years I have had reason to enter many large buildings and offices in the evenings or during weekends. Amazingly, on cold winters nights, weekends, and over holidays thermostats on many of these buildings are not set-back and these buildings are a toasty seventy degrees.

    It is time voters demand politicians put this priority before their desire to serve big business and the lobbyists that shower Washington with money. This is about money. Simply put, cutting back on waste would lower the GDP and hurt the profit of many companies. More on this subject in the article below.

    https://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-dreadful-c-word-conserve.html

  85. You do understand that you don’t get to opt out of climate change?

    “Don’t have a solution at all and it will go away!” Is that the Reason position?

    In fact, it’s pretty starkly evil to the extent that your position is to gin up scare stories about the evil totalitarian Democrats who want to take our stuff, given that you’re effectively offering people the alternative of species extinction as the pro-freedom move.

    1. LMAO… UR such a dumb*ss..
      “No one gets to opt out of the weather changing.”

      Well, unless of course you *earn* a house with Heating and Air Conditioning invented entirely to allow ‘species’ (humans) to live in unsuitable climates (save them from extinction)…..

      Yet here you are preaching complete B.S. about cutting the energy for Heating and AC to prevent extinction… LMAO. How stupid can one be? Stupid enough to actually *encourage* their own death?

      Ya Tony; You really have become THAT stupid.

      Then again. 21st Century stupidity is a lefty-ilk trademark with a whole slew of complete box-reality-living [WE] mob city-dwelling imbeciles so wrapped up in political propaganda and complete B.S. fantasies created entirely to monopolize/enslave everyone with Gov-Gun *POWER* I guess your stupidity is to be expected.

  86. Tiny houses are BS from shiver-in-the-dark zealots (Savagranolas).
    A maintained house made of wood stores many tons of carbon for a century or more. A few deciduous trees planted on the equatorial side provide summer cooling, winter heating and store more carbon for decades. Bigger houses store more carbon and are more efficient to heat.
    This will NEVER be part of the vision of the left because it does not fit with the zealotry and will to power that drives the environmentalist religion, which require penury as a display of submission.

    These same despots favor woodburning (i.e.carbon emission) to generate electricity because wood is renewable biomass.

    Environmentalists: limited knowledge, no science, radically deficient reasoning – but abundant arrogance, self-congratulation, authoritarianism, moral preening – an elitist religion.

  87. Well what they said is what good ole Klaus Schwab and his minions want for first place. Minimum AND maximum wage. Except for them.

    9 lb of clothing per year? First off who the hell weighs their clothing? Secondly, when you have a child with special needs, you are going to wash your clothes about a hundred times a year and that’s just hers because sometimes potty training doesn’t happen. I guess we are just supposed to steep in her pee and learn to deal with the smell until we are allotted our time to do laundry ????. I also love how they don’t have an actual example of a society that lives on such low energy that does well. Maybe this is something that these guys should try to figure out by themselves on their own and see if they can live that way. If they can they can get back to us ????

  88. Jesus, fuck these central planning Keynesian commies.

  89. Rationing, buckle up everyone. Climate Jihad

  90. The researchers should live in Japanese coffin pods, be limited to liquid food, rationed calories and be castrated or sterilized. For the climate!!!

Please to post comments