Of course this is from TreeHugger on a post labeled Efficiency is important, but it is time to get serious about sufficiency where the theme on the post how to decrease overall energy use and just not make things more efficient in their use of energy (because we keep making more and more things that use energy). This snippet pretty much covers it (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Sufficiency can involve a reduction of services (less light, less travelling, less speed, lower indoor temperatures, smaller houses), or a substitution of services (a bicycle instead of a car, a clothesline instead of a tumble drier, thermal underclothing instead of central heating). Unlike energy efficiency, the policy objectives of sufficiency cannot be expressed in relative variables (like kWh/m2/year).
Instead, the focus is on absolute variables, such as reductions in carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, or oil imports. Unlike energy efficiency, sufficiency cannot be defined and measured by examining a single product type, because sufficiency can involve various forms of substitution. Instead, a sufficiency policy is defined and measured by looking at what people actually do.
It sounds harsh. Even Kris concludes that “This is sure to be controversial, and it risks being authoritarian, at least as long as there is a cheap supply of fossil fuels.“
Authoritarian? Of course it does and fits in with the theme that Treehugger talks about but protests that they’d never want to enforce it: lower your standard of living because GAIA! And of course and right on cue, we get the almost-obligatory “No energy usage at all” by the almost-obligatory meme:
No the most important thing is cutting back on the population. We need an Armageddon Nuclear war to drop it by half or more. There are simply too many people on this planet.
Never fails to show and never fails to not get an offending rebuke from any of the commenters. Well, of course, except for me:
Every time I see something like this I have to laugh as the author never offers to go first (e.g., leading by example); it’s always seems to be an “after you not me” outlook.
Certainly there are those on that site that actually do what they believe – commendable in leading by example. Far too often for my likes they are also very quick to turn to Government to force others, like you and I, that would rather not follow that lifestyle (I have no desire to shop for “fresh food” every day so don’t force a max size fridge on me or grow a garden). I bring up liberty and freedom – they aren’t too hep on the concept, because, GAIA and CO2 and future generations and enforced Communitarianism! Rack’em and stack’em and leave the environment pristine from humans! Be like the cave people of yore as we’ll force you to be in a “walkable” city limiting where you can go (unless by public transit).
Fun times, fun times, these folks want for us…except this type follow on comment scares me:
That would be the most efficient way to solve the problem and as I have pointed out above, efficiency is NOT necessarily a system requirement or even a top priority. The NAZI final solution may have been an efficient way to solve their perceived problem but every solution must place public health and safety high on the list of system requirements
The green end justifies the means?