5.2 kWh? kW means nothing for a battery.

What? Just do both. I don’t follow your logic.

No wastewater treatment plant??

There’s a course that’s been required for engineering degrees at my university for some years about sustainable development, in which they even mention collapse.

Of course almost nobody gives a fuck or even go to class.

https://archive.is/KQS9q

From my experience, the problem is not climate denialism anymore, at least not where I live. If you ask someone to tell you about the climate problem and its causes, most will get it right.

What they do get wrong is on who is to blame. And I’m constantly seeing the same here. They blame the rich for making the problem worse. They blame China for polluting more than its fair share. They blame the politicians for adopting inadequate measures.

But they never blame themselves. They drive a 2 metric ton car everyday, perhaps they have 3 kids, or work in finance. Or they’re broke and just can’t stop thinking about money all the time.

The rich are rich because we keep making them richer. China overpollutes because we overconsume. Politicians take inadequate measures because they do what the population wants to be reelected on the next term.

From my point of view, if you are emitting more than 1.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent before 2050 (Paris agreement) and 0 tonnes after, you’re the problem. If you don’t have the wits or will to see through the advertising wanting you to keep overconsuming, you’re the problem. If you keep blaming the others and not seeing how the problem takes its root from you, you’re the problem.

The problem is at the bottom. Thus solutions will not come from the top, they will come from the bottom. Stop waiting after “those than can actually do anything”. If you’re not happy with the society you live in, know that you are always free to stop participating in it, and should.

When enough people do so and labor shortage becomes rampant, when the stock market collapses, when only a fraction of people participate in elections and pay their taxes, only then will things change. Society, our sick society, will have collapsed then, willingly, and something better will have taken its place.

Air conditioning inspired by Hobbits is also surprisingly effective.

While I wholeheartedly agree with what is said the article, I cannot fathom how banning cars could even begin to happen. The car is strongly anchored in western culture, a majority of people own one, and there are no alternatives that would satisfy these people.

Evolving into a car-centric democratic society is a one way transition. By the point the majority of voters own a car, all possible alternatives are delayed and watered down to the point of become insufficient, if they are implemented at all. Some places in Europe have never fully adopted the car. North America though? Forget it.

Let’s say some city administrators believe in transition. Thus, they decide to build a tramway for the city. Of all the voters, 70% own a car, and 50% oppose the project, perhaps having been convinced by the opposition that the project will make their taxes jump through the roof. By the time the project starts, the term has ended and the administration is voted out, the project is dropped.

The asbestos comparison is flawed in that asbestos didn’t have a hundred billion dollar industry backing it, lobbying and brain washing the population into thinking a life without a car is impossible. People didn’t need asbestos for earning their livelihood.

People know cars are dangerous. Everyone who has taken a walk down a busy street or uses a bicycle know it. Ironically, the best way to protect yourself from cars is to own a car, the biggest car you can get. So people who care about their safety buy bigger cars, exacerbating the problem.

Let’s also not forget that most people lack the ability to plan years ahead of time. They make choices that will be good for them today. Hence a majority of the population don’t give a fuck about the climate change, because they’re not affected by it today (or so they believe). Now .when the choice to make is about diverging from a path taken by all your friends and family for three or four generations (owning a car), it’s very nearly impossible to give a fuck.

So to be honest, I have zero hope for a transportation transition in western societies. I believe it will take something more. A collapse of the fossil fuel supply, lasting multiple years.

https://archive.is/E1pzo

To be honest I would prefer millions of people doing zero waste perfectly and a handful eating the rich. There aren’t many of them after all.

Modern industrial agriculture has one outstanding advantage: productivity. Hundreds of acres of land can be cultivated with the labor of three or four persons.

Permaculture on the other hand doesn’t allow for such productivity. Most people will need to grow their own food to some degree. That’s actually great in the sense that food production becomes increasingly local, produced where it is consumed, in such a way that all nutrients make their way back to the soil in a cycle which has been broken by modern agriculture.

As another commenter pointed out, permaculture can seem unscientific at times. And it’s perfectly fine. We all have different sites, climates, soils and experience, no size fits it all and it’s often difficult in such circumstances to find the best solutions. Some will employ more unconventional ideas, as long as it works for them.

In the end, it will always make a lot more sense than planting a few hundred acres with a genetically engineering crop monoculture that can only survive with a constant supply of pesticides and fertilizer, while depleting the soil.

More reading: https://leanlogic.online/glossary/lean-food/

What about the '20s?