I would add Ecocidal Negligence to the title----- anthropocentrism is what brought us to this sixth (?) extinction. (I read somewhere that there may have been more than 5 prior to this)
I believe it was Abraham Lincoln.
Very frustrating that even the critics of this woefully inadequate fake “plan” still do not talk about demand reduction. How about we USE A LOT LESS ENERGY?
MASSIVE ENERGY WASTE AND FRIVOLOUS USE AND UNNEEDED PRODUCTION DEFINE THE ENTIRE ECONOMY.
We can EASILY slash energy use MASSIVELY. IF we face the truth, which is apparently impossible, so hey let’s all die for no good reason.
I guess all of us who relished the same genre were in essence seeing the fortelling of our futures.
Excellent idea WebWalk, but we can’t even get half of the country to wear masks to protect themselves and others.
The same thing will happen with Healthcare if Biden wins.
because "Nothing will Fundamentally Change"
And they won’t even do that. No, our future is America getting more and more dictatorial and hellish as it collapses before climate collapse ends all our suffering.
Dinocrats will do little to nothing to mitigate the problems
This whole COVID situation has convinced me without a shadow of a doubt that humanity, in the U.S. at least, can’t do anything to help themselves and deserve nothing better than extinction.
Nope, in fact they will help exasperate it.
A roadmap to the end of humanity.
Not even close to what is needed but maybe all the ignorant populace will accept.
Of course, especially since they will be deluded that it is better than what Trump would have come up with.
I would normally say something like “well humanity had a good run” but reflecting back on human history. No, no we really didn’t.
The populace is ignorant and misled because of them, their donors, the media they own and the educational system they have all but dismantled.
The Democrat Party elites view climate collapse as a problem. They do not see it as a all hands on deck emergency demanding a radical revision of our fundamental economic, political and environmental policies so they continue with half measures that are meaningless in terms of reversing this mass extinction event. That being the case, we are screwed. The elitist leaders of both parties do not have the vision or desire to come to terms with this increasingly rapid moving catastrophe.
After reading every post, Youvbintook’s “Any vehicle purchased must be electric or hybrid” made the most sense because it includes hybrid EVs. By my calculations, plug-in hybrids should garner 60% of EV market demand and BEVs the remainder for mostly small EVs. Tesla and Daimler’s (huge battery) freight trucks should also be hybrid to distribute scarce battery and renewable charging resources equitably and effectively.
Years ago, the LA Times published an article about plug-in hybrid (PHEV) tech titled “The 500mpg Solution.” An internal combustion engine can utilize bio-fuels which includes hydrogen more practically than in a fuel cell. The household with a PHEV in the garage gains a backup power supply that will save lives in a utility grid power outage; gains the means to more closely monitor and reduce fuel/energy consumption for both driving and household appliances; gains the choice that leads to driving less whereby local economies grow and more trips become possible without having to drive.
My take on this existential reordering of modern living standards and livelihoods began in the 1990’s with the Portland 2040 Regional Plan which has since been squelched by supposedly liberal progressive Silicon Valley technofix junkies.
Webwalk’s “Massive waste and frivolous use and unnecessary production” follows as closest to the solution which I sum up thusly, "We drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. We fly too much. We truck and ship goods around the world too much at too high cost and impact. It’s very frustrating for me to again and again try to explain how to use technology sparingly though that will mean fewer luxuries as well as much less waste.
Yes, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln.
I believe you are correct, and I believe I saw it again someplace a few days ago. A few years ago I managed to track it to a letter to a prominent businessman in Baltimore. Unfortunately I did not make notes. I think the original wording was slightly different, but recognizable.
Perhaps we’ll both live long enough to see the end right in front of us, coming directly toward us.
Might be scary, or it might be welcomed.
Are you a writer MCH?
What bothers me at an even more basic level than the lack of discussion of demand reduction is discussion of what MIGHT be sustainable and what is certainly NOT sustainable. That last includes the present level of energy throughput, and more broadly, resource throughput in general. These are not abstruse subjects, but understandable by any middle schooler with even a modest education to that level.
I suppose that after all the squacking about driving humankind back to the stone age, the the truth tellers threw in the towel on the assumption that our Manichean thinking requires that it be all or nothing.