Not assuming, more like hoping. I'm willing to bet on it, because I think it's a good bet and I think the alternative is a sure loser.
Lets narrow this down to just energy consumption. I'm skeptical that we can reduce energy consumption^ enough to meaningfully impact anything. National/global energy austerity (like economic austerity) hits a wall very quickly. Whether that is at 5% or 20% doesn't matter. It certainly isn't near enough. Therefore, it is not a viable solution. If we are paying (via unemployment, etc) to avoid climate change.
OTOH, clean energy obviously is possible. Reforestation is possible. Various geoengineering projects are possible.
What makes them viable is, they carry the possibility of allowing us to massively increase our energy consumption. That is what cheap means, that we can afford more of it and be wealthier.
^Voluntarily. Obviously a major plague or somesuch could.
You'll note in my original post I talked about 'changing our lives' that doesn't necessarily mean wearing hair shirts. So, energy consumption can certainly be helped by mandating insulation standards in building codes, by outlawing incandescent light bulbs, by introducing stringent emission standards for cars or introducing carbon fee and divided regulations.
None of those mean "austerity", or unemployment, but they do mean adjustments. Moreover fee and dividend produces a nice market-driven mechanism to speed up the adoption of clean energy.
You're right. These are not terribly austere, though some are hard/costly in some circumstances (eg insulation). I do think we should do these both as personal choices and as mandates, but..
These aren't what I'd consider solutions. They don't add up to enough. Austerity (I still think we should do a little of this, temporarily) follows shortly after these "freebies." Travel fewer kms. Have fewer houses. Even with a little austerity, I don't think we can (or should) achieve negative growth in our energy consumption.
A "solution" would be a clean grid, using technologies that have the potential to improve over time and allow us to consume more energy. This means getting to cleaner and cheaper.
Also, at least here (Ireland/EU), people are very willing to talk about this level of inconvenience. More than willing. It's even at a point where politicians are promoting relatively pointless minor inconveniences (eg ban straws, divide recycling more) for political points.
I may have gone somewhat overboard with my comment though, reacting to other conversations I've had with other people (always a poor choice).
Thanks for the debate, I don't think we are that far apart and I absolutely agree about green theatre being ultimately damaging. Don't get me wrong, I also agree about the need for clean and cheap energy. I'm less convinced that growth in energy is actually needed (at least for us rich people in the West). It would be interesting to see countries at least consider Gross Domestic Happiness rather than Gross Domestic product as a mesasure of success.
Lets narrow this down to just energy consumption. I'm skeptical that we can reduce energy consumption^ enough to meaningfully impact anything. National/global energy austerity (like economic austerity) hits a wall very quickly. Whether that is at 5% or 20% doesn't matter. It certainly isn't near enough. Therefore, it is not a viable solution. If we are paying (via unemployment, etc) to avoid climate change.
OTOH, clean energy obviously is possible. Reforestation is possible. Various geoengineering projects are possible.
What makes them viable is, they carry the possibility of allowing us to massively increase our energy consumption. That is what cheap means, that we can afford more of it and be wealthier.
^Voluntarily. Obviously a major plague or somesuch could.