To Stop Climate Crisis (scam), Americans Must Reduce Their Energy Use By 90%

Who’s going to make this happen?

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

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.

You’re down with all this in your own lives, right, Warmists? You’re happy to comply, right?

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.

Still good, Warmists? You want to live this life, right? Who is supposed to make all this happen? The study avoids mentioning the answer.

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.

There aren’t any, not during this time period. What might have been considered decent living standards hundreds of years ago with no energy aren’t these days.

“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.”

Oh, so a completely political study. Who’s actually making money which low energy and no travel? Where’s it coming from for all this stuff with no economic growth? What would really be massive devolution of economies.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “To Stop Climate Crisis (scam), Americans Must Reduce Their Energy Use By 90%”

  1. The Neon Madman says:


  2. lynn says:

    I am fairly sure that all of the warmists are cutting back their lifestyles and appetites right now, right Al Gore ?

    • Hairy says:

      Much easier yo nuy carbon offsets
      Typically that would add only 2% to the cost of an airline ticket or about 10 cents to a gallon of gasoline
      That is the “skyrocketing” cost that Teach is always fearmongering about

  3. […] To Stop Climate Crisis (Scam), Americans Must Reduce Their Energy Use by 90% […]

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C without relying on negative emissions technologies requires not only rapid decarbonisation of global energy systems but also deep reductions in global energy use (Grubler et al., 2018, IPCC, 2018). At the same time, billions of people around the globe are still deprived of basic needs, and current routes to sufficient need satisfaction all seem to involve highly unsustainable levels of resource use (O’Neill et al., 2018). The way societies design their economies thus seems misaligned with the twin goals of meeting everyone’s needs and remaining within planetary boundaries (O’Neill et al., 2018, Raworth, 2017).

    Just like we didn’t limit crazy men killing a score of 6 yr olds with an assault weapon, we will not limit global warming to 1.5C. Apologize now to your children and grandchildren.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Not science, Rimjob, but being the dipshit you are, it’s understandable you don’t know the difference between a actual scientific study and a Sociology thesis.

      Bwaha! Lolgf

      • Hairy says:

        Was that comment meant for Teach”s post ?
        Of course I am sure that Teach himself checked the numbers in that article
        80,000 kWh? Even st 10 cents per kWh that comes out to $8000

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The Reason article, written by libertarian Ron Bailey and further re-interpreted by the prolific Teach, made conclusions not found in the actual science article.

    The article by Vogel et al merely pointed out what it would take to limit global warming to 1.5C while at the same time not punishing developing nations. Humans will not do this. Don’t worry, be happy.

  6. Patrick Wood says:

    Just wait until all of these proposed electric vehicles come online. California can’t handle the demand now.

    • Zachriel says:

      Patrick Wood: Just wait until all of these proposed electric vehicles come online. California can’t handle the demand now.

      You have hit the crux of the problem. What may not be a problem for a fifty million may be a problem for five billion. The world is rapidly industrializing. That means billions of people with cars, air conditioning, and modern electronics. The problem is to provide those resources, especially the energy, without continued degradation of the environment and climate system. The solution must be technological.

    • Hairy says:

      It is estimated that the entire energy needed for the USA could be powered by a solar farm about 100 miles x 100 miles square

    • Hairy says:

      Currently most people charge their cars at night during offpeak hours while st home

  7. Di says:

    Let every progressive, socialist, climate change believing, Democrat American try it for one year. Let the rest us see how it goes.

  8. Di says:

    The rest OF us. Whoops.

Pirate's Cove