As for eating fused atoms (or burned oil) we in a sense do that now with fertilizers and farming machinery. Even with less damaging techniques (hydroponics, etc) electricity will still be required.

If, as you say, you are interested in a “just” society, then it seems to me that you are indeed interested in “what people want.” Is it “just” to dismiss the desires of poor Chinese and Indians to escape abject agrarian poverty?

I don’t think you’re so much interested in a “living planet” so much as a living society. The planet is not in danger — WE are.

Lindsay

It seems this is our point of departure. I’m not interested in what people want, I’m interested in a living planet and a just society and what that requires. We can fantasize all day about what we want, but that doesn’t mean that fantasy is realistic (or just). An unsustainable mode of society will eventually fail by definition. An indigenous lifestyle practiced by 6.5 billion people may not be physically possible, but nor is an american lifestyle for 6.5 billion. Perhaps then the real issue is: There’s not a sustainable lifestyle that can be practiced by 6.5 billion people, which means we’re overpopulated. No amount of techno-wizardry or fusion will help that. I can’t eat fused atoms.

Evan

Clean water, health care, and food preservation are not products of the electrical age. We can do that without electricity. We can look at indigenous practices for thousand+ year old case studies to this effect.

Evan

As a part of the gang over at Step It Up who started pushing for 80×50, I’m thrilled to see that more radical targets are becoming mainstream. If “climate positive” becomes a major message, all the better.

But let’s remember how that process works . . . less than a year ago, 80×50 was just a radical idea that no one but enviros were talking about. Because the amazing work of organizers around the country and the thousands of students at Power Shift, it went mainstream: Nancy Pelosi lead a chant of “80×50″ at Power Shift infront of 6,000 students, 80×50 is the leading platform on Hillary and Barack’s climate plans, and 80×50 has been passed into legislation in states around the country. We’ve gone from fringe to legislation in a year.

That’s a major accomplishment – together, we’ve completely shifted the debate. This couldn’t have happened if we just said “Stop Global Warming” or “Step It Up.” Because we got specific, we defined the debate in the media and in congress. We made it unacceptable for politicians to talk about any other target. Perhaps most importantly, we gave people a clear way to judge existing policy – does Warner-Lieberman meet 80×50? No. Well, then it isn’t acceptable.

Is it everything we need? Of course not. But let’s not throw out the idea of targets completely. Motivational language is great, positive visions essential, but in the end, we’re also dealing with politics and chemistry. Those sometimes require specifics. If we can pair the two together – as we tried with our mantra (I like that) “Step It Up, Congress: Cut Carbon 80% by 2050!” sometimes we can get amazing things done.

Seriously, we can be more efficient, but the world as a whole needs more electricity not less (though you can use less in the US with efficiency improvements). We have low carbon technologies that can be used to buy time until either energy storage is perfected for renewables or until other advanced technologies are available (fusion?). We have options.