Los Angeles, a city famous for endless traffic jams, you are clearing some space above your head. With a vision To make electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft a reality, companies are competing for the chance to fulfill longstanding sci-fi dreams. Will switching from tailpipes to propellers really revolutionize urban mobility and decarbonise the transport sector, currently the largest? fountain of US greenhouse gas emissions? That seems like the real fantasy.
As a systems transition designer, I spend a lot of time considering the various post-carbon futures we might be moving toward and how best to achieve a more equitable one. Climate mitigation measures are not simply a means to an end; the media are actively training the end. Too often, a supposed fix can ease the pain of a broken system while entrenching its underlying conditions. Why invest in flashy and resource intensive proposals when we are faced with simpler and more elegant interventions?
To talk about these trends in decarbonization, I use a framework I call the “glamour matrix.” The x-axis represents net greenhouse gas emissions and the y-axis reflects how much capital and technology is involved in the proposed solution. Here’s an edible example. A Big Mac falls into the high emissions, high capital/tech quadrant, given the 1.9 billion pounds of beef McDonald’s processes each year and the resources needed to distribute it to more than 100 countries. A wagyu steak is high emissions, low capital/tech, because although the meat itself is equally emissions-heavy, cows are often raised and slaughtered on smaller, less industrial farms. A lentil burger is low-emission, low-capital/tech, as legumes are relatively cheap and easy to grow, producing 60 times fewer emissions than beef for every gram of protein. And beyond the hamburger markets itself as low emissions, high capital/tech, although some are skeptical on whether plant-based meat can back up its sustainability promises.
irina v wang
US climate initiatives tend to channel private finance, corporate innovation, and government action into the low emissions, high capital/tech quadrant, while neglecting the low emissions, low capital/tech quadrant. we engineer photovoltaic shingles because solar panels have become an eyesore, yet we rarely integrate passive architectural features such as adobe and baoli, which are used around the world to collect thermal energy and facilitate evaporative cooling. Even though low-income communities are priced out of price for new LEED-certified skyscrapers, we overlook the adaptive reuse of older buildings, which can create affordable housing without the high energy and material costs of demolition and manufacturing.
Some techno-optimists would say that we no more We need to deny ourselves a buffet of goodies to save the planet, that we can have our bioengineered cake and eat it too. And I am not suggesting that we go back to pastoralism or give up the technologies that have improved the lives of many people around the world. But right now, resources are disproportionately tied to approaches that build financial, social, and human capital within the high-tech quadrants of the matrix, largely because that’s where the money is. Venture capital and private equity firms are willing to gamble $53.7 billion in climate technology startups because patent-protected technologies promise exclusive benefit to the companies and their investors. While the public waits for those riches to flow, there is a dearth of funding for open source equivalents that could offer more immediate benefits.
This phenomenon plays well with American consumer culture. The economic value of selling low-carbon lifestyle options and the social value of extolling decarbonization make a lucrative pairing. When $20 million xp award rewarding premium brands of vodka and carbon negative yoga mats, betting on consumerism as a prerequisite for innovation, and suggesting that decarbonisation is possible if the public had a shinier range of products to buy.
These high capital/tech alternatives are popular because they generally reinforce the status quo rather than revise it. That can come at a cost. The new electric Hummer, for example, claims that “fold EV skeptics become EV believers” with its massive macho mass and, as a result, requires an incredible amount of resources. With a battery that weighs more than an old one priuscauses more upstream and incarnate emissions that some smaller gasoline cars emit from the tailpipe. Movements like this tend to slide up the y axis with marginal change along the x axis. And yet they captivate public officials. It’s more politically It is riskier to suggest that we fundamentally change our lifestyle than to encourage the purchase of a new solution in the short term.
—————————————————-
Source link