TKS’s Utopia…
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.
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.
How do Vogel and his colleagues arrive at their conclusions? First, they assert that "globally, large reductions in energy use are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C." The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
Comments
-
These idiots need to assume room temperature.
-
How many of Vogel and his colleagues are limited to 2,100 calories and 7,500 kWh of electricity? None. Phucking hypocrites.MikeDamone said: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.
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.
How do Vogel and his colleagues arrive at their conclusions? First, they assert that "globally, large reductions in energy use are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C." The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." -
And they aren’t giving any land back to Indians or writing a personal check for slavery reparations.WestlinnDuck said:
How many of Vogel and his colleagues are limited to 2,100 calories and 7,500 kWh of electricity? None. Phucking hypocrites.MikeDamone said: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.
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.
How do Vogel and his colleagues arrive at their conclusions? First, they assert that "globally, large reductions in energy use are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C." The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." -
Some Americans will have to cut their energy usage.MikeDamone said: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.
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.
How do Vogel and his colleagues arrive at their conclusions? First, they assert that "globally, large reductions in energy use are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C." The 1.5°C temperature increase limit they cite derives from the 2015 Paris Agreement in which signatories agreed to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." -
Put on a sweater at home
-
I was told if I like my energy consumption I could keep it.
-
640 ft2 homes for families of 4😂😂😂
-
So, what will happen to all the current homes over 640 sq ft?
-
This is Agenda 21. The truth is "in order to save the Planet from Catastrophic Climate Change" people in affected nations will have to identify the programs, the funding sources, and the locations of their governments' Weather Weapons Projects, then arrest and kill all of the perpetrators, from the order followers to the top dogs, who are attempting to destroy economies and standards of living under the guise of "Climate Change," which these perpetrators are causing.
-
Part of the reparations package….doogie said:So, what will happen to all the current homes over 640 sq ft?
-
They can come try to enforce that in America, but they’ll end up in the dirt.
-
they will be commandeered for the homelessdoogie said:So, what will happen to all the current homes over 640 sq ft?
-
So you’re saying, if I want to live in a Lake Washington waterfront home, I should stop bathing and head to Walmart to buy a tent?
-
As always, the rich elites are exempt from all this
-
I can't even comprehend even three people living in a 640 square foot apartment or tiny house. Yeah, if you're in the fucking third world. GTFO with this and your insect diets.
-
It’s for the greater good.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:I can't even comprehend even three people living in a 640 square foot apartment or tiny house. Yeah, if you're in the fucking third world. GTFO with this and your insect diets.
-
Homeless sheltersdoogie said:So, what will happen to all the current homes over 640 sq ft?
-
My 640 sqft apartment at UW was too small for me living alone
-
Let's just get rid of clothes altogether ... simple solution
-
In it together?MikeDamone said:
It’s for the greater good.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:I can't even comprehend even three people living in a 640 square foot apartment or tiny house. Yeah, if you're in the fucking third world. GTFO with this and your insect diets.
-
As a 452 pound lover of nachos, I’m all for this.Tequilla said:Let's just get rid of clothes altogether ... simple solution
-
If Mrs. Swaye, myself and FRANNY tried to live in this together it would probably end in murder. Most likely mine. -
The architect appears to have taken full advantage of the view of the tree
-
I told them I wanted a place for BearsWiin to live.doogie said:The architect appears to have taken full advantage of the view of the tree
-
The Tiny House idea is horrendously wasteful of resources and requires 5x the maintenance of multi-family housing.
Dumb ideas catch onto libs and spread like wildfire. The more childish and cutesy the idea, the further it travels. -
You mean the libs that live in huge mansions using as much electricity and gas and water as a small neighborhood and have private jets and yachts and a fleet of cars? Those libs love this idea.TurdBomber said:The Tiny House idea is horrendously wasteful of resources and requires 5x the maintenance of multi-family housing.
Dumb ideas catch onto libs and spread like wildfire. The more childish and cutesy the idea, the further it travels. -
All libs. Across all classes.Sledog said:
You mean the libs that live in huge mansions using as much electricity and gas and water as a small neighborhood and have private jets and yachts and a fleet of cars? Those libs love this idea.TurdBomber said:The Tiny House idea is horrendously wasteful of resources and requires 5x the maintenance of multi-family housing.
Dumb ideas catch onto libs and spread like wildfire. The more childish and cutesy the idea, the further it travels.
Wealth doesn't affect their stupidity. -
The Obama family are leaders as always
-
Just another thing the haters don't get about Trump and his ilk. They love what they can buy and don't waste time telling you that you shouldn't. They tell you to go for it because AMERICA baby
-
No solar panels anywhere. Weird.RaceBannon said:The Obama family are leaders as always
