[objectivistbrit]

People also fail to appreciate how much would need to be sacrificed to reach the emission reductions that are being demanded. (For example, the 80% reduction target the EU is pushing for).

Slashing energy usage means slashing many of the benefits of living in a post-industrial society. Think living in one-room houses (no cheap heating), eating bread and potatoes in winter (no imported food), working locally with little career progression (no easy commuting) and many people returning to manual labour (no cheap machinery). All this to prevent 60cm-1m of sea level rise by 2100 - something we can manage, if we maintain the civilisation we have worked so hard to build.

[JamesBarney]

A 80% reduction in carbon emissions does not mean an 80% reduction in energy use.

If we took the very dramatic changes of switching all energy to nuclear, changed to a mostly vegetarian diet, and replaced as much of transportation usage as possible with electric we would end up with an 80% or greater reduction in emissions and still enjoy plenty of the benefits of a post-industrial society.

[CalRobert]

Heat:

A combination of insulation, thoughtful design (south-facing glass, adjustable awnings, solar water heating, heat pumps vs. resistive electrical heat, etc.) and renewably sourced electricity go a long ways towards the heating issue. I live in a cold-ish city in a 2 bed apt with only electric storage heaters (which are awful) and pay for supposedly 100% renewable (wind/solar/geothermal) energy and my bill peaks at €65 a month in the winter.

Commuting:

There are also thousands of businesses within a 30 minute walk from my home. Not turning cities into parking lots and skidpads with a building dropped here and there helps. If I cycle, the number of businesses in that range increases by about a factor of 9. (I cycle around 3 times as fast as I walk, so can cover a distance roughly three times as far, or area ~9 times as great). If I don't like pedaling, an e-bike or 50-150cc scooter/motorcycle will get me even farther.

Food:

I'm not well informed enough on this to comment. Where I live already has pretty bland food with loads of bread and potatoes. Good burritos, though. I'd miss that. We'd probably eat a lot less meat. I could do with a better supply of soyrizo, anyway.

Effects:

Sea level rise is far from the only concern. Stronger storms, drought, the displacement of peoples and an ensuing refugee crisis as their crops fail and water supplies dwindle, ocean acidification, and changing weather systems from the loss of the Arctic ice cap (and possibly a chunk of Greenland) are just a few of them. Also, I suppose this makes me impossibly impractical but hey, the loss of polar bears would make me sad. Maintaining the civilisation we built at the cost of the natural world we inherited isn't fantastic; watching the forests of my home (California) be completely devastated by drought, heat, and beetles is a bummer, to put it mildly.

[objectivistbrit]

If you live in a place with geothermal energy its not surprising that you have cheap energy. Otherwise, we've already invested a lot in making buildings more energy efficient, but heating is simply very energy-intensive. Commuting by bike might work for single young urban professionals, but not for people with families. We know what a society without the motor car looks like - it looks like almost every society in history, where people either lived in villages or extremely cramped cities. In brief, most visions of ecologically-friendly future seriously underestimate the value of cheap energy and personal transport.

As for the effects of climate change, they look intimidating as a whole - when you look at each item individually, they are unpleasant but manageable. Humans have been dealing with the weather for millennia, after all.

> Stronger storms, drought

These happen routinely now. Yes, it would be preferable to have less storms and drought, but we know how to handle them.

> the displacement of peoples

In the last decade the Chinese have built scores of new cities across the third world - it's not that hard for people to move.

> an ensuing refugee crisis as their crops fail and water supplies dwindle

We grow crops in many different climates now. Crop failures happen now in poor countries with bad infrastructure and management. Societies with sufficient capital and technology can adapt to almost any climate. (In extreme climates, with desalination plants and hydroponics - or people could just move).

> Maintaining the civilisation we built at the cost of the natural world we inherited isn't fantastic

This is really the crux of the issue - should the standard of value be maximising human flourishing, or minimising human impact?

[CalRobert]

I suppose we have different ideas of what makes a place pleasant. Sprawling suburban hellscape where I'm screamed at whilst riding my bicycle and my child can't walk outside without a substantial risk of being smashed into the pavement doesn't sound like a nice place for a family to me. I hope I'm right, since I moved to the city a few years ago and am starting one now.

[yongjik]

That's FUD. Energy sources that emit little CO2 are being deployed commercially right now.

Your argument is equivalent to saying, in the 60s, "These guys believe the future is in toy computers that fit under your desk. If they succeed, the majority of people will have to turn to abacuses to do their taxes."

[objectivistbrit]

Our long-term future is in nuclear and hydroelectric power. Our near-to-medium term future requires continued use of fossil fuels.

Your summary of my argument is completely off-the-mark.