Many studies focus on attempting to decrease average energy consumption while also attempting to make it efficient. Most of the information conducted in reports, such as PlaNYC, exemplifies that energy usage has only increased with time and as technology is further integrated into our culture, it will only continue to do so. There are two ways of interpreting the data that is presented: quantity and acceleration. The amount, or quantity, of energy consumption has only gone up over time and will likely continue to do so. However, it is the rate of acceleration which has decreased over the past few years and where the social improvement can be made. If municipalities invest in a more efficient infrastructure grid, that works on a large scale, then 20 or 30 years down the road we will be able to manage our energy consumption far better than we are today. Instead of making a futile attempt to lower energy consumption, isn’t it better that we try to prepare for it?
Is time better spent on preparing for energy consumption versus attempting to lower it?
This entry was posted in 2/25 - Energy, the Hydrocarbon Economy (Week 5). Bookmark the permalink.
2 Responses to Is time better spent on preparing for energy consumption versus attempting to lower it?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that yes, we should prepare for the future in case we do run out of energy or we over exhausted our resources, but also at least try to prevent it from happening. If we don’t inform the public or attempt to lower energy consumption, energy usage will increase at an even faster rate. Although it may be hard for us to make a drastic change and have everyone use less energy at once, but if we allow more time, lets say a decade or so, we will be able to at least have new technology that may allow us to use energy more efficiently. Since technology is increasing at a rapid place, people should invent new ways to produce cost efficient energy.
I agree with you here. A large scale overhaul isn’t feasible financially and will cause a large disruption in the current state of living. This is why the data is so important, so we can analyze the potential investments into reducing pollution and saving energy. I believe many efforts have already been made at low costs, including creating green roofs. However, like you mentioned, can New York City reach a point where stop decelerating the rate of energy consumption at a feasible price? How long lasting will these small projects be in comparison to infrastructure changes and improved transportation systems?