|
||||||||
|
|
Thread
started on 9/6/2008 12:35
Very interesting and thought provoking site. http://www.ltmcollection.org/futuregenerator.html What do you think the future will be like from the 4 scenarios given there: Mine were: Carbon Controlled 6% Anybody else wanna go? cheers Tom »
login to post comments
Hear, Hear!written on 10/6/2008 01:07
That was a great point made about how people see carbon rationing. I believe that governments are considering it as a solution to a dire scenario. But that does not mean we have to be dour about it. I also think that if we made cars more efficient, or got rid of cars, at least the larger ones, we’d be better off. And we’d be better off if our homes and our appliances were made more efficient. That is a form of personal carbon reduction too. And it makes sense. And if we produced geothermal or solar hot water heating in our homes… » login to post comments
|
rationing: symbol of dystopia? or path to the future we want?
ahayden
I visited the site and my overall results were almost identical to Tom’s – which is probably not that surprising since we’re both CRAGgers:
Carbon Controlled 7%
Living Local 79%
Energy Shock 0%
Always On 14%
It’s an interesting exercise, which provoked a few immediate thoughts. The way they presented the different scenarios seemed to lead people away from some options and toward others. It’s striking that they put carbon rationing under the gloomy “Carbon Controlled” scenario, but both Tom and I are both more attracted to the “Living Local” future. They’ve presented carbon rationing as being Orwellian and unappealing, eventually driven out of necessity due to a lack of early action and inadequate technological advances. I would tend to see carbon rationing, or other similarly strong policy measures such as cap-and-share, for example, as the way to get to a future we want, rather than being the future we want to avoid. But it may be worth reflecting on the fact that those behind the site (and presumably others) see carbon rationing as a symbol of a bleak future? And maybe it’s an indication of a need for more effort to link carbon rationing proposals and CRAGs to a positive vision of a future that people can find attractive?
Anders