But that wouldn't 'solve' climate change. Building a massive amount of nuclear plants would be a good thing in my book - it's part of the solution. neo-liberal ideology).Дisagree with the beginning though. The reason this will never happen is not physics, but economics, bureaucracy and public opinion.ДЄgree with the bolded - though I'd bring it back to ideology (i.e. All that needs to happen is the construction of lots and lots of nuclear reactors - the kind that have already been producing 20% of the electricity in the US and much more than that in France, Sweden and elsewhere for decades. If we really, really wanted to, we could power the whole world (except maybe airplanes) with energy not derived from fossil fuels in about a decade and this would not even require any new technology. I'm tempted to say it'd be 'post-capitalism,' but I guess it's more consensual to say it'd at least be 'post-neo-liberalism.'

Transitioning, to my eyes, means going beyond the ideas that have been dominant for about 200 years. We agree that the 'standard of living' would be at least equivalent though -possibly even higher.ДЄgain, semantics. From where I'm sitting, there's just no way our daily life would be the same if we took the global environmental crisis seriously. If all corporations are forced to put environmental concerns ahead of profits, then our 'civilization' is in fact over, and we've moved to something else. If corporations are forbidden to indulge in planned obsolescence -and other disastrous practices-, then the ideology that is currently dominant has already been vanquished. The feeling I get is that the crux of our disagreement is that you're reluctant to admit that we're talking about a paradigm shift here. More people than not would be pleased if corporations gave up on planned obsolescence and everything lasted longer.Дepending on semantics/definitions, we agree far more than we disagree. Even with phones and computers, the work to transfer to the new device is barely worth the improvement in quality nowadays. Very few people actively enjoy changing light bulbs or water heaters or microwave ovens or other large appliances. I think our fundamental disagreement here is that I do not consider this to be a reduction in the standard of living at all. You don't necessarily need stagnation everywhere it would be sufficient to do it in endeavors which are resource constrained. The only way out is to somehow do more with less which we are currently trying to do (see below for examples). It is not necessary (and not plausible) to reduce the standard of living.

Game of thrones civilization