by 
… are we willing to make?
Sacrifice seems to be a concept that is out of fashion. Aren’t things tough enough already … and you’re asking for more? For those struggling, it’s about just getting enough. Or for some it is simply about getting mines (sic) rather than sacrificing for the larger community.
The After Capitalism research did not find a future without sacrifice, so I think it’s useful to consider how much we are willing to make. (NOTE: Of the three images, Tech-Led Abundance potentially involves the least amount of sacrifice, but even there a redistribution of wealth will involve sacrifice). Perhaps sacrifice hits hardest in the Circular Commons, where I’ve come to the Degrowth pathway as necessary for a course-correction. I’m also persuaded that, if we made the effort, we could make this course correction, without too drastic a shift in our lives. Define “drastic,” right! Take a look at this paragraph:
Magnuson (2013) found that current growth could be preserved under a fully renewable energy system — with investments in the $30-$40 trillion range. He references a Swiss Federal Institute study that identified a “2000-watt society” in which the 7 billion people on earth consuming an equal amount of energy would equal out to 2000 watts daily. Americans, today, consume about six times that amount daily (Magnuson, 2013). Clearly the cost and sacrifices needed to maintain current growth rates are daunting for those in affluent economies.
Can we take the challenge, Americans in a position of relative affluence? Could we cut our energy use by a factor of six? [I beg your indulgence for a brainstormed list — not thorough research] What might that involve at the individual level:
- Moving into smaller homes; adding more people to existing homes
- Making our homes smarter and more efficient (e.g., weatherization)
- Adding solar panels
- Composting …. Growing our own food to reduce food miles (enables smaller refrigerator, a big culprit, but this is admittedly a long way around)
- More efficient heating/cooling units
- Being more conscious about the eco footprint of goods
- Substituting biking for driving; moving to hybrid or electric vehicles (admittedly increases electricity footprint, but better overall for energy)
- Moving to as-a-services over owing goods to enable smaller living spaces.
Does that move the needle enough? Not sure. Probably not dramatic enough. Even these changes would surely cost more in dollars and effort, at least upfront, as well as demand a lot more effort and attention.
Obviously, there needs to be coordination at larger scales. Mixed-use development approaches, for instance, could make some of the above changes more practical.
I’m thinking of an earlier post where I discussed how futurists help clients “get aligned and in motion” with the emerging future. Applies to us as individuals too! It would be fun to hear what some of y’all are already doing on this front. What are you doing to reduce your electricity/energy consumption? – Andy Hines
Reference: Magnuson, Joel. 2013. Approaching the Great Transformation: Toward a Livable Post Carbon Economy. New York: Seven Stories Press
I’m not inclined to take any reduction in my use of electricity simply because on average Americans use more than others.
I’m not inclined to cut my electricity usage just because people living w/o electricity use less than me.
Come up with a real reason, serious alternatives, and a realistic target date.
I am with You on that. Its all about Sacrificing Western Civilization on the altar of “Climate Change”. Ask Europe how well that’s working out for them.
Agreed. The premise of the article is wrong. The objective should be to increase energy usage across the world, not reduce usage in the developed world. For the time being nuclear is the blindingly obvious way to increase energy usage while improving our climate footprint. Hydro and measured use of renewables can augment nuclear and fill any gaps. Eventually improved nuclear (thorium reactors) and fusion reactors provide growth options.