Chapter 20 - Adaptation Strategies

20.1Adaptation Strategies¶

We made it to the final chapter. How are we doing? Anxious? Excited? Alarmed? Inspired? This book has compressed a perspective that took the author many years to absorb. Exposure in one short sprint would likely be overwhelming, and might even generate an impulse to reject the message as both unfamiliar and grim—thus hopefully wrong?

Up to this point, the theme of the book might be characterized as one of closing lots of exits. Growth can’t continue indefinitely—requiring a whole different economic model. Space is not a realistic escape hatch. Fossil fuels are what made this life possible, but will not last and are causing disruptive climate change. The alternative options all have their own practical limitations, and offer no drop-in replacements for fossil fuels. At least sunshine offers a ray of light as a super-abundant energy flow. But when it comes to making collectively smart decisions about a future path, more obstacles surface on the human side. Success requires long-term planning and not the more common crisis response.

This chapter changes gears a bit to touch on individual actions and values that could amount to big things in aggregate. At the very least, it may provide individual-scale escape hatches allowing some peace of mind about personal contributions to the problem.

20.1.120.1 Awareness¶

How many people do you know who are concerned about a legitimate threat of collapse of our civilization? It is an extreme outcome, and one without modern precedent. It seems like a fringe, alarmist position that is uncomfortable to even talk about in respectable company. Yet the evidence on the ground points to many real concerns:

Growing your own food is a great way to lower your impact and be closer to nature. Photo credit: Irina Fischer.

^© 2022 T. W. Murphy, Jr.; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Lic.; Freely available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/energy\_ambitions.

• 1. The earth has never had to accommodate 8 billion people at this level of resource demand;
• 2. Humankind has never run out of a resource as vital as fossil fuels;
• 3. Humans have never until now altered the atmosphere to the point of changing the planet’s thermal equilibrium;
• 4. We have never before witnessed species extinction at this rate, or seen such dramatic changes to wild spaces and to the ocean.

Just because something big has not happened yet does not constitute strong evidence that it cannot or will not. But more important than that argument—which is always true—is the number of credible causes for concern that are evident today.

Also important to recognize is that a challenge cannot be effectively mitigated unless it is first identified and acknowledged. The very lack of collective awareness about a credible risk of collapse is itself unsettling. If open discussion of the possibility of collapse were not so uncomfortable and off-putting, we would stand a better chance of preventing its unfolding. It would be a huge relief to be wrong about the concern. But not taking it seriously represents a colossal risk.

20.1.1.0.1Box 20.1: The Y2K Scare¶

The Y2K¹ scare in 1999 offers a good template for how to mitigate a potential disaster. Computer systems became the dominant means for managing financial and government records, transactions, and accounts in the 1960s through 1980s. A two-digit code was used for the year in many records, not anticipating the roll-over to 2000 decades away. The early programmers either doubted that their code would still be functioning in 2000² or assumed it would be cleaned up in time. In the year or two leading up to Y2K, the issue got tons of coverage and predictions of mayhem, as peoples’ digital lives—a new phenomenon—were tossed into any number of unknown upheavals. But the very fact that the issue dominated public consciousness was exactly what ensured a smooth transition. Every bank and agency got on the job and Y2K came and went without a ripple. It would be great to see a repeat in the case of potential collapse. The lack of a specific time prediction is one barrier, unlike Y2K. Without a firm deadline or a clear-and-present danger, the temptation to delay serious attention is strong.

¹: Y2K is short for year-2000.

²: Surprise—it was!A key contributor to awareness is in how information sources and activities shape opinions and views. A world overflowing with information can be difficult to navigate, and has a tendency to coagulate into isolated domains that cater to predispositions. The result can be disagreement on basic facts, making coordinated progress difficult. Luckily, attentive individuals can perform an assessment of the trustworthiness of various information outlets. The process is to watch an entire live event, like a

1: Y2K is short for year-2000.

2: Surprise—it was!

debate or a hearing, and see how the event is covered by various news sources. Does the coverage³ reflect the event as you experienced it? Did it focus on the key developments or on distractions that might be emotionally “triggering?”

Entertainment is another source/activity that can influence mindsets in subtle ways. For example, the grossly simplified and virtual world of video games promotes a false sense of what is possible—rather than helping model responses to real-world challenges, constrained by many layers of practical considerations. Reaching level 42 without suffering too many damage points is a fairly empty accomplishment⁴ that just means having followed some game designer’s artificial and arbitrary rule set pretty well, combined with some skill in pressing buttons. More impressive is building or creating something, repairing something, or having some beneficial impact in the external world that would not otherwise have happened.

Likewise for movies and shows, which can provide healthy joy and social bonding. But because the industry is not constrained to follow rules of nature, it is easy to form dangerous misconceptions about what humans are capable of doing.⁵ As a result, not only does the likelihood of disappointment increase, but the necessary sort of deliberate and unglamorous work that must be initiated well before crisis becomes apparent is less likely to materialize if the populace is trained to hold out for unrealistic and spectacularly successful outcomes.⁶ 6: . . . jet packs, flying cars, fusion power,

20.1.1.120.2 Communication¶

In a democracy, collective public awareness drives the issues politicians serve. Only by having voters demand action will progress follow. Conversations with friends and family then become necessary to raise awareness among others. Effective communication that accomplishes this goal without turning people off is tricky. When the message contains bad news or suggests sacrifice, the effort can easily backfire.

It is important not to polarize the conversation by “bossing” people or projecting a sense of authority. An effective strategy is to fairly represent uncertainty, while still conveying credible concern. Caveats like “it seems that,” or “it appears to me that,” or “I may be wrong, but” go a long way to taking the edge off of the message and inviting the listener into a constructive conversation. It is possible to couch the language in uncertainty while still hitting the main points. Words like “possible,” “likely,” “plausible,” and “risk” can be useful to soften the tone but still express concern.

Division in the U.S. is frighteningly high right now, so that distrust is a real barrier to sharing a common factual basis. The communication needs to be “we,” not “you.” For instance, "we really should be concerned 3: Boring coverage turns out to be a decent indicator of accuracy!

4: Sure, some games aim to improve cognitive skills, which could transfer to real-world application. Is this the most effective path to making a difference?

5: . . . a space-faring future; an untrained hero saving the world; the message that anything can be built—just awaiting a genius idea from an unlikely source

Mars colonization, teleportation, food replication, and warp drive—always just in time

about X" rather than “I think you should X.” It is best to try to convey a sense that we are all in this together. Expressions like “I worry that,” or "Do you also feel that. . . " bring a human touch and invite a sense of inclusion and collaboration.

One potentially interesting approach is to appeal to the fundamentally conservative nature of most people. This is conservative with a small “c,” rather than the Conservative (right-leaning) political party. In this sense, conservative means:

• 1. low risk: let’s not gamble the future on speculative notions;
• 2. conservation⁷ of resources and quality of the earth environment; 7: It’s right there in the name!
• 3. laying the groundwork for future generations (e.g., grandchildren) to have a livable world.

By these traditional definitions of conservative, many in the Conservative wing are more fairly labeled as free market radicals—willing to risk future stability and damage our environment in exchange for short term financial gain. This approach is not inherently conservative.⁸ Political identities in the world may, in fact, be ripe for a massive realignment wherein many traditionally conservative values pair more naturally with the political “left” (liberal wing) than with the “right.” In recent decades, the left has been more concerned about environmental issues and ecological damage. It would make sense that the most conservative or low risk—proposals for future paths would emerge from the political left.

An apt analogy is that our society is, metaphorically, barreling toward a cliff. Faced with credible warnings, the low-risk (conservative) approach would be to alter course: get serious about a non-fossil infrastructure and transition away from growth. At the very least, let off the gas pedal: reduce resource use while we learn more. Keeping the foot down on the pedal and seeking to accelerate as fast as possible is probably the least wise⁹ decision, yet best characterizes the current approach. 9: This decision would be okay if we knewUnfortunately, a common tendency of people on the receiving end of the kind of message this book advances is to get frustrated when the story is not tied up neatly into a happy ending. Perhaps our story-telling culture has irreversibly conditioned people to expect resolution at the end of every movie or show. Nature and the world are under no such obligations to satisfy our psychological need for closure, so it is unfair to blame the messenger for accurately conveying the perils and uncertainty of our times. Perhaps people seek a hopeful conclusion so that they can walk away unencumbered—satisfied that everything is under control and that somebody will figure something out. But this tendency is perhaps counter-productive, in that only by internalizing and burdening oneself with the daunting nature of our challenge will it be possible to mount a collective and effective response. If human nature is such that unpalatable stories don’t gain traction, it is another way to say that we are not built to overcome a global dilemma of this scale. So push back

7: It’s right there in the name!

8: Ask yourself: what conservation efforts have Conservatives championed lately?

that the cliff is not there, but we can’t know that, and plenty of evidence suggests reason for concern.

on any criticism demanding that you need to supply a happy picture at the end of the story. Challenge the listener to deal with the tension, as this book has attempted to do. Tough love.

20.1.1.1.120.2.1 Predicament, not Problems¶

It may also be advisable to avoid characterizing the set of interconnected global challenges as “problems,” because the word problem implies a solution. It implicitly isolates the issue at hand into a stand-alone simple issue, promoting "what if we just. . . " proposed solutions. The real story is far more intricate, and more like a game of whack-a-mole.¹⁰ 10: . . . a game where heads pop up out of A simple “fix” to one corner of the problem makes something worse elsewhere. A better word is predicament, intoning a more serious and possibly intractable situation. Perhaps a predicament can be viewed as an interconnected set of thorny challenges rather than a collection of isolated problems.

Predicaments don’t have solutions, but responses. Piecemeal fixes are unlikely to “solve” the current predicament in a way that permits moving on and relegating the problems to the past.¹¹ 11: . . . as was the case for curing polio, for But we can imagine recrafting our world, responding to the challenges by adapting our mode of living to be compatible with planetary limits. Problems can be faced head-on and be defeated, whereas predicaments call for stepping around and finding a different path.

20.220.3 Personal Adaptation and Guidelines¶

Previous chapters have discussed the challenges democratic governments have in imposing any form of reduction that feels like sacrifice to the population. Since political power in democracies starts with individuals, we focus here on what individuals can do to reduce their demand on energy resources. If enough individuals are not willing to make such adjustments, it is doubtful that the U.S. government, for instance, would exert authority over this sensitive domain of personal freedom.

This section addresses ways to take personal control of energy expenditures.¹² 12: Energy usage correlates strongly with The presupposition is that the reader is interested in ways to reduce their impact, or footprint, on the planet and its resources. Collective progress on this front would reduce the current 18 TW demand on energy, making it that much easier for fossil fuel replacements to satisfy a more modest demand. A voluntary course of reduction on a broad enough scale would reduce vulnerability to forced reduction that would ultimately accompany declining fossil resource availability or climate-motivated reduction targets. It is also good preparation for potential scarcity.

holes to be hammered down, only to see other heads pop up elsewhere

instance

resource usage, in general.

We will first look at attitudes and framing, then some overarching guidelines, followed by specific quantitative assessment of energy expenditures. Readers can identify for themselves areas for potential change in their own habits and expectations.

20.2.0.120.3.1 Overall Framing¶

In the absence of a major shift in public attitudes toward energy and resource usage, motivated individuals can control their own footprints via personal decisions. This can be a fraught landscape, as some people may try to out-woke each other and others will resist any notion of giving up freedoms or comforts—only exacerbated by a sense of righteous alienation from the “do-gooders.”

Some basic guidelines on effective adaptation:

• 1. Choose actions based on some analysis of impact: don’t bother with superficial stuff, even if it’s trendy.
• 2. Don’t simply follow a list of actions or impart a list on others: choose a more personalized adventure¹³ 13: . . . resulting in a mindful pursuit and based on quantitative assessment.
• 3. Avoid showing off. It is almost better to treat personal actions as secrets. Others may simply notice those choices and ask about them, rather than you bringing them up.¹⁴ 14: A joke illustrates the usual pitfall: "How
• 4. Resist the impulse to ask: “what should I buy to signal that I’m environmentally responsible?” Consumerism and conspicuous consumption are a large part of the problem. Buying new stuff is perhaps counterproductive and may not be the best path.
• 5. Be flexible. Allow deviations. Rigid adherence makes life more difficult and might inconvenience others, which can be an unwelcome imposition. Such behavior makes your choices less palatable to others, and therefore less likely to be adopted or replicated.
• 6. Somewhat related to the last point, chill out a bit. Every corner of your life does not have to be perfect. We live in a deeply imperfect world, so that exercising a 30% footprint compared to average is pretty darned good, and not that much different than a “more perfect” 25%. Doing a few big things means more than doing a lot of little things that may drive you (and others) crazy.
• 7. In the end, it has to matter to you what you’re doing and why. It’s not for the benefit of others.¹⁵

The first two items on the list are not easy: most people are not themselves equipped to quantitatively evaluate the impact of their choices. But some simple guidelines can help.

not an impersonal set of imposed chores

will you know if a new acquaintance is vegan? Oh, don’t worry, they’ll tell you within 10 minutes."

15: . . . except, of course, in the broadest collective sense: it’s for people you will never meet who are not even alive yet, and for other life on Earth you will never see.

20.2.0.220.3.2 Energy Assessment Principles¶

This section contains a number of key insights that can guide actions. Each starts with a simple statement in bold font, followed by elaboration and then an example or two¹⁶ for most. 16: A number of the examples require someHeat is costly. Anything whose job it is to create thermal energy (heat) is a power-hog: clothes dryer; home heating; hot water heater; space heater. A small device called the Kill-A-Watt is handy for assessing power draw by plug-in appliances.

Example 20.3.1 How much energy does it take to dry a load of clothes using a 5,000 W clothes dryer?

Assuming it takes about an hour to run, this is 5 kWh, or 18 MJ.

Example 20.3.2 How much energy does it take to heat all the water in a 40 gal (150 L) tank from 10◦C to 50◦C?

Recalling Def. 5.5.1 (p. 73) or the definition of the kilocalorie, heating 150 L (150 kg) by ^Δ푇 ^{= 40}◦^C will take 6,000 kcal, which converts to 25 MJ or 7 kWh of energy.

How often is it on? Duty cycle matters a lot: how often it’s on. A microwave oven uses a lot of power, but not so much energy, because it is hardly ever running. The Kill-A-Watt mentioned above accumulates kWh and allows determination of the average power of a device.

Example 20.3.3 How much energy is a 1,500 W microwave oven at home likely to use in a day, compared to a 25 W television tuner box running 100% of the time?

The microwave might be on for 12 minutes per day, or 0.2 hours. That makes 0.3 kWh¹⁷ for the microwave and 0.6 kWh for the tuner box. 17: . . . 1.5 kW times 0.2 hours Time matters.

Large $\Delta T$ is costly. The power it takes to maintain a temperature difference is proportional to the temperature difference.¹⁸ For related reasons, a refrigerator in a hot garage has to work especially hard¹⁹ to maintain a large $\Delta T$ .

¹⁸: See heat loss rate and Sec. 6.3 (p. 86).

¹⁹: . . . and at lower efficiency according to Eq. 6.10 (p. 95)Example 20.3.4 How much more daily energy does it take to keep a home at 25◦C inside when it is 5◦C outside versus keeping it at 15◦C inside?

In the first case, ^Δ푇 is 20◦C, while it’s just 10◦^C in the second case. So it will take twice as much energy to keep the interior at 25◦C compared to 15◦C.

Use common units. Cross-comparison of energy usage is made more difficult by different units. Table 20.1 provides conversions to kWh as a thought and estimation, which is not typical of assigned problems but may be advantageous here to promote the kind of thinking that is useful when applying to personalized situations.

17: . . . 1.5 kW times 0.2 hours

¹⁸ 18: See heat loss rate and Sec. 6.3 (p. 86). For related reasons,

Eq. 6.10 (p. 95)

standard. In terms of power, many appliances are rated in Btu/hr, which is 0.293 W. So a hot water heater at 30,000 Btu/hr is equivalent to about 10 kW and will consume 5 kWh if running for half-an-hour, for instance. Putting everything in the same units (kWh as a suggestion here) allows useful comparisons of choices.

Example 20.3.5 In a month, the utility bill for a house shows 600 kWh, 20 Therms, and the two cars of the household used a total of 60 gallons of gasoline. How do these stack up, when assessed in the same units?

Using Table 20.1, the gas amounts to 586 kWh—almost identical to electricity—and the gasoline totals about 2,200 kWh, far outweighing the other two.

Electricity source matters. Your local source for electricity²⁰ can impact choices. It should be possible to determine your local mix via online sources [126]. The fact that conventional power plants tend to convert chemical energy into delivered electricity at 30–40% efficiency needs to be considered in comparing direct use of a fossil fuel against electrical solutions based on fossil fuel. A heat pump design for a water heater can compensate for this loss, and then some.²¹
20: ... coal vs. natural gas vs. hydroelectric, for example
[126]: Nuclear Energy institute (2019), State Electricity Generation Fuel Shares
21: ... if the COP is higher than 2.5, forExample 20.3.6 A hot water heater using natural gas is likely about 85% efficient at transferring the heat of combustion into the water (enclosed, insulated), while an electric hot water heater manages to get 100% of the delivered energy into the water via a heating coil immersed in the water. If the source of electricity is also natural gas form a power plant achieving 40% efficiency at converting thermal energy into electricity and then transmitting it to the house at 95% efficiency, which method uses more total fossil fuel energy, and by what factor?

We compare 85% efficient for the direct usage to 40% times 95% times 100%.²² 22: This last one is for the immersed coil, The ratio of 85% to 38% is 2.2, so it will take 2.2 times more gas at the power plant than in the home to produce the same result in heated water.

Weight is a guide. A rough rule of thumb is that the energy cost of consumer goods is not too far from the energy contained in the equivalent weight²³ in gasoline, meaning 13 kWh/kg (Table 20.1). Should you use paper or plastic bags? The one that weighs more probably required greater energy and resource use. Should you drive back home if you forgot your reusable bag? Compare the amount (weight) of gasoline you’ll use to the weight of the disposable bags the store uses.²⁴ High-tech gadgets, like smart phones, almost certainly break this rule and cost far more energy to produce than their gas-equivalent weight—as can be approximated in the next point.

23: ... really we mean mass

24: ... almost certainly not worth it to drive back; can you manage without any bags at all and not risk dropping anything?#### Table 20.1: Conversions to kWh.

for example

Electricity Generation Fuel Shares

instance, which it usually will be

and does nothing to the answer.

23: . . . really we mean mass

back; can you manage without any bags at all and not risk dropping anything?

Example 20.3.7 Should you buy a new, more efficient refrigerator that will use 1.8 kWh per day (75 W average) instead of your current one that uses 2.4 kWh/day (100 W average)?

At a mass around 150 kg, the refrigerator’s manufacture might require ∼2,000 kWh,²⁵ taking about 9 years to pay back at the 0.6 kWh/day 25: . . . 150 kg times 13 kWh/kg saving. This is long enough that considerations such as material resources and disposal might tip the scale against replacement.

Cost is a guide. A secondary approach to figuring energy content is to suspect that the item’s cost is appreciably greater than the cost of the energy that went in. Perhaps a reasonable number is that 15% of the total cost goes toward energy.²⁶ 26: This is not a capricious estimate, as it Conveniently, a typical retail price of electricity of $0.15/kWh then translates to 1 kWh for each $1 of consumer spending. When results from the two approaches (by mass or by price) differ, the higher energy cost number may be the safer bet.

Example 20.3.8 What do the two methods say about a 1,500 kg car that costs $25,000 and a smart phone that costs $1,000 and has 200 g of mass?

The car estimates are 1,500 kg times 13 kWh/kg for about 20,000 kWh or $25,000 times 1 kWh/$ for 25,000 kWh. In this case, they’re pretty close and it hardly matters which one we favor.

For the phone, the mass estimate is just 2.6 kWh, but by price it would be 1,000 kWh. In this case, for reasons argued above, the larger one is more likely on target.²⁷ 27: We would not go so far as to say that

Focus on the big. Keep your eye on the big impacts. We are not actually under threat of running out of landfill space, for instance. So while recycling is a preferred approach,²⁸ very visible in society, and should be practiced when possible, the impact is not dramatic: it still takes a lot of energy to process recycled goods. Metal recycling (especially aluminum) is most effective from energy and resource standpoints, and paper from a resource standpoint (trees), but plastic is less clear on both energy and resource bases. Reducing its use may be best.Example 20.3.9 How effective is it to buy a water bottle for my daily needs?

Compare the weight and cost of the water bottle to the weight and cost of all the plastic cups it displaces²⁹ 29: Consider the duration of ownership or as a reasonable guide to the relative impact.

The best of all worlds is not buying something for the purpose, but finding something you already have that will get the job done.

Reduction rules. Reduction is by far the action with the biggest impact. Buy less stuff. Live more simply. Travel less often and less far.³⁰

25: ...150 kg times 13 kWh/kg

is approximately representative of energy costs in our society as a whole—stacked a little higher here to better reflect manufacturing activities, which are bound to be more energy-intensive than the economy as a whole. Also note that energy intensity, as seen in Fig. 2.2 (p.19), is characteristically around 5 MJ/$, which is 1.4 kWh/$ and not far from our rule of thumb here.

either method is “right.” They should be viewed as very approximate guidelines that at least can help differentiate big deals from insignificant things.

28: Better yet is to try getting by without purchasing items that require later disposal.

of usage and how many disposable cups are avoided.

30: A side benefit to these actions is saving money, maybe working less hard and Adapt retiring earlier.

yourself better to the climate.³¹ Eat more responsibly. The next section digs into related actions in more quantitative detail. 31: It is okay to put on more clothes and sit under blankets in a cooler winter house.#### 20.3.3 Quantitative Footprint

A useful exercise is to compare your own energy footprint to national averages. How much more or less are you using? For some categories, information is hard to assess. For instance, how much oil is used to transport the goods you buy and the food you eat? How much energy is used in the industrial and commercial sectors on your behalf?³² In part, your level of consumerism is a good clue, but it still may be hard to compare to others. The following items offer some guidance. The first two entries can be derived from Fig. 7.2 (p.105), after unit conversions and dividing by the U.S. population.
32: Wouldn’t it be great if consumer goods had labels revealing embedded energy and resulting CO2?Electricity: A typical American uses 12 kWh of electricity per day in their residence. To get your own share, look at an electricity bill for your residence and divide by the number of people living in the place and by the number of days³³ 33: . . . usually a month: about 30 days in the billing period.

Example 20.3.10 In 2019, the author’s utility bills³⁴ indicate total use was 3,152 kWh for a household of two. What is the daily average per person and how does it compare to the national average? ³⁴: See the banner image on page 68 for a3,152 kWh divided by 365 days and 2 people is 4.3 kWh per person per day, about one-third of the national average.

Natural Gas: A typical American uses about 13 kWh of natural gas per day in their residence, amounting to 0.44 Therms per day.³⁵ 35: . . . typical billing unit; one Therm is To get your own share, look at a gas bill for your residence, if applicable, and divide by the number of people living in the place and by the number of days in the billing period.

Example 20.3.11 In 2019, the author’s utility bills³⁶ indicate total use was 61 Therms for a household of two. What is the daily average per person and how does it compare to the national average?
³⁶: See the banner image on page 68 for a one-month sample.61 Therms divided by 365 days and 2 people is 0.084 Therms (2.4 kWh) per person per day, about 20% of the national average.

Gasoline: A typical American buys about 400 gallons of gasoline³⁷ per year for personal transportation, amounting to a daily equivalent of 41 kWh³⁸ of energy use. Keep track of your fuel purchases³⁹ and compare how much you use. In the case of multiple occupancy in the car, your share can be computed by dividing how many gallons were used in the trip by the number of people. Knowing an approximate fuel economy⁴⁰ for the car and distance traveled is enough to estimate fuel usage.under blankets in a cooler winter house.

had labels revealing embedded energy and resulting CO2?

33: ... usually a month: about 30 days

one-month sample.

29.3 kWh; see Table 20.1

one-month sample.

37: Personal transportation accounts for about 65% of gasoline in the transportation sector. per

38: . . . 36.6 kWh per gallon, or 9.7 kWh/L

39: This practice is good for tracking fuel economy as well.

40: . . .e.g., miles per gallon or L/100 km

Example 20.3.12 The author’s household has two vehicles,⁴¹ one of which drove 400 miles and used 22 gallons of gasoline in 2019, and the other covered 8,660 miles using 69 gallons. What is the daily average use per person in the household, and how does this compare to the national average?A total of 91 gallons for two people is about 45 gallons per person, equivalent to 4.5 kWh/day, and 11% of the national average.

Air travel: Expressing an average in this case is inappropriate, as many Americans do not fly at all, while all use some combination of electricity, gas, and gasoline in some capacity. The average works out to 2,300 miles (3,700 km) per year when averaging all people, but among those for whom air travel is a utilized, the number is generally a good bit higher. To put it in context and enable useful comparisons, we will compare it to ground transportation.

Typical passenger jets get approximately 90 miles per gallon (m.p.g.) per seat⁴² (2.6 L/100 km) for a fully-occupied plane—worse if seats are empty: down to 45 m.p.g. per passenger if half full, for instance. So traveling 1,000 km in a full airplane uses the same amount of fossil fuel energy per person as driving the same 1,000 km in an efficient doubly-occupied car that gets 45 m.p.g. (5.2 L/100 km). For an 80% full airplane,⁴³ the effective per-passenger mileage is about 70 m.p.g., coming to an energy cost of about 0.5 kWh per mile (0.32 kWh/km) per passenger. Because air travel tends to involve long trips, the energy used (thus CO² emissions) for air travel can easily exceed that for personal car usage, as is seen in the next example.

Example 20.3.13 The author, in 2019, flew about 4,200 miles for personal travel and 9,600 miles work-related. How many kWh per day does this translate to in the two categories, and how does it compare to expenditures in electricity, gas, and personal gasoline?

For personal air travel, 4,200 miles times 0.5 kWh per mile is 2,100 kWh or 5.8 kWh/day, which is slightly larger than the 4.3, 2.4, and 4.5 kWh/ day from electricity, natural gas, and personal gasoline computed in previous examples, but still really in the same ballpark. Business travel⁴⁴ accounts for 13 kWh/day, by itself exceeding the sum of 44: Ugh. Wish I didn’t have to. household expenditures.

Example 20.3.14 If three people are traveling from San Diego to San Francisco at a distance of 700 km, how good does the car’s gas mileage need to be to beat an 80% full airplane that would get 90 miles per gallon per passenger if full?

Being 80% full knocks the effective fuel economy down to 72 m.p.g. per passenger. For the three people in question, a car achieving 24 m.p.g. (9.8 L/100 km) will match the airplane’s energy expenditure, so

muting plug-in hybrid that mostly uses electric drive, charged at home (the electrical demand for which is represented in Example 20.3.10)

42: The airplane as a whole gets less than one mile per gallon, but each passenger’s share of gallons used makes it better on a per-passenger basis. It takes almost the same amount of energy to fly a plane from point A to point B independent of passenger load. Most of the energy is used to fight air resistance, which is related to the size and speed of the airplane, essentially independent of the number of passengers inside.

43: . . . guessing this to be typical

44: Ugh. Wish I didn’t have to.

Note that we didn’t need the distance. This may seem like a “trick,” but consider that life is even trickier: real-world problems have no (or maybe all available) information provided, and it’s up to us to sort out what’s relevant.

anything getting better performance will deliver the three people at a lower energy cost.

Diet Impacts: Modern agricultural practices result in a 10:1 energy expenditure on the production, distribution, and waste of food—so that each kilocalorie of food eaten requires 10 kcal of energy input [97]. A [97]: Pfeiffer (2006), Eating Fossil Fuels typical 2,100 kcal/day diet translates into 2.4 kWh/day, and applying the 10:1 ratio means that about 24 kWh of energy input is required to cover a typical American’s diet—which is substantial on the scale of residential/personal energy use. Because food is also grown for livestock and poultry, then those animals convert the food to meat at some low efficiency, raising animals for meat is a net energy drain: directly eating the grown food ourselves⁴⁵ 45: . . . preferably in not exactly the same would use less energy and fewer resources.

20.2.0.2.120.3.4 Dietary Energy¶

This last point on food energy deserves some elaboration, setting the stage for a quantitative evaluation of diet choices. For any food type, it is possible to characterize the amount of energy spent producing the food as a ratio to the metabolic energy contained in the food.⁴⁶ Key results of some such studies ([127] and [128]) are provided in Table 20.2. Treat these as rough guides rather than absolutely definitive numbers, since specific agricultural, feeding, or fishing practices play a huge role in the energy requirements: large variations can be expected, in practice. All the same, fruits and vegetables consistently require small energy expenditures relative to meat and dairy products.

Let’s be clear about what Table 20.2 says. The production of 100 kcal of rice requires an input of 48 kcal, making it a net energy gain. Meanwhile, 100 kcal from beef takes 1,600 kcal of energy to produce, as an energy loser. Lamb and shrimp are very costly, while herring is a steal. It may seem surprising that eggs require more energy input than chicken,⁴⁷ 47: Owning egg-laying chickens and feeding them scraps is a delightful win, however. but consider that it takes longer for a chicken to produce its weight in eggs than for a chicken to get large enough to be processed for meat.

Armed with this information, it is possible to assess a dietary energy factor⁴⁸ for various dietary choices. where.

form!

46: In this sense, it is the inverse of EROEI: energy invested to extract the food divided Key results by energy delivered.

Global Warming"

[128]: Pimentel et al. (2007), Food, Energy, and Society

Table 20.2: The ratio of energy invested in producing various common foods to the metabolic energy delivered by the food (sort-of an inverse EROEI), broken into five categories. High ratios indicate large energy costs. When known, the distribution within the category is given for standard American diets. Beef is grain-fed, salmon is farmed, and milk is a stand-in for dairy products more generally. Data synthesized from [127, 128].

47: Owning egg-laying chickens and feed- ing them scraps is a delightful win, however.

^48: “Dietary energy factor” is a term used in this textbook; not likely to be found else-

Definition 20.3.1 The dietary energy factor is a weighted sum of individual energy ratios for food categories:

where ^푓x factors are the fraction of one’s diet in form “x,” in energy terms (calories; kcal), and ^푅x values are the aggregated relative energy ratios for food category “x,” as found in Table 20.3. Subscripts indicate vegetables, red meat, fish, poultry, and dairy/eggs, respectively. Note that care must be exercised to insure that all five ^푓x factors add to one.

In Table 20.3, the first column of numbers is a weighted average of factors from Table 20.2, using the distribution weights listed where available, and assuming equal spread otherwise. The next column scales the energy ratios so that the vegetable category has ^{푅v =} 1, making the dietary energy factor a measure of energy requirements relative to a strictly plant-based diet. For instance, red meat requires 37 times as much energy as vegetable matter, for the same metabolic energy content.

What follows in the table are four diet types, reflecting the average American diet and three variants, each having its own set of ^푓x factors.⁵⁰ 50: Note: contrived to add to 1 in each case.

Example 20.3.15 Let’s replicate the American diet result in Table 20.3 using Eq. 20.1.Using $f_v = 0.72$ , $f_{rm} = 0.09$ , $f_f = 0.01$ , $f_p = 0.05$ , and $f_d = 0.13$ , then $R_v = 1$ , $R_{rm} = 37$ , $R_f = 55$ , $R_p = 8.5$ , and $R_d = 8$ , the dietary energy factor computes to $0.72 + 3.33 + 0.55 + 0.425 + 1.04 = 6.07$ , confirming the final row. By breaking things out this way, the red meat category stands out as contributing more⁵¹ than any other category. ⁵¹: Red meat is 3.33, which is 55% of theCompared to a strictly plant-based (vegan) diet, the typical American diet requires about six times the energy. Since the average American diet accounts for 24 kWh per day, a vegan diet is therefore down to 4 kWh/day. A vegetarian diet partaking of dairy and eggs (lacto-ovo diet) is 2.4 times⁵² the vegan diet, or a little less than 40% of the American diet (about 9 kWh/day). Just replacing all meat consumption with chicken (final column) cuts energy demand in half. These are just a few of the countless examples that may be explored using Eq. 20.1 or variants thereof to evaluate the energy impact of dietary choices.Table 20.3: Dietary energy factor computations for various diets. Energy factors are aggregations over categories from Table 20.2, assuming equal distributions when unknown (e.g., each fish type is 25% and each plant type is 10% of that category’s intake). The net effect, at bottom, is a weighted sum of the individual energy ratios, and spans large factors in terms of energy impact.

⁴⁹ 49: The second column of numbers is the first column divided by 0.65.

50: Note: contrived to add to 1 in each case.

total energy cost while providing only 9% of the dietary benefit.

52: The actual number depends on the fraction of calories coming from dairy/eggs (푓d), and can be dialed at will: it’s not stuck at exactly 2.4.

Get on it! Evaluate your own diet and how you might modify it.

Example 20.3.16 What is the dietary energy factor for a diet in which one-third of caloric intake is from red meat, 10% is from dairy/eggs, and the rest is plant matter?

Setting $f_{rm} = 0.33$ and $f_d = 0.10$ , we require that $f_v = 0.57$ in order that all three sum to 1.0. Now using $R_{rm} = 37$ , $R_d = 8$ , and $R_v = 1$ , the dietary energy factor computes to 12.2+0.8+0.57 = 13.6 for red meat, dairy, and vegetable matter, respectively. This diet requires more than twice the production energy as a standard American diet.It is possible to abandon Eq. 20.1 and roll your own formulation following similar principles. Rather than adopt the distributions from Table 20.2, the technique can be customized to any diet for which energy factors can be found.

Example 20.3.17 A diet that is 35% rice, 35% wheat, 15% corn, 10% milk, and 5% chicken has an energy cost of $0.35 \cdot 0.48 + 0.35 \cdot 0.45 + 0.15 \cdot 0.40 + 0.10 \cdot 4.9 + 0.05 \cdot 5.5 = 0.17 + 0.16 + 0.06 + 0.49 + 0.28 = 1.15$ . This has not been normalized to $R_v = 1$ yet,⁵³ so we divide by the aggregate 0.65 value for the plant energy ratio found in Table 20.3 to get a dietary energy factor 1.8 times that of a strictly plant-based diet. Note from the sum that milk and chicken are the largest two contributors, despite being a small fraction of the diet.The 10:1 input:output energy ratio mentioned at the beginning of this diet segment may at first glance not square with the whole-diet energy factors computed here (e.g., a factor of 6 for the typical American diet). Missing is food waste. The U.S. produces 1.8 kcal of food value for every 1 kcal consumed [127]. This amount of waste may be hard to fathom, but consider waste at restaurants, cafeterias, and grocery stores when perishable items are not consumed before health standards suggest or require disposal. Still, this is an area ripe for improvement. [127]: Eshel et al. (2006), “Diet, Energy, and Global Warming”#### 20.3.5 Flexitarianism

Echoing Point #5 in the list in Section 20.3.1, it is worth pointing out that energy and resource concerns are a largely quantitative game. One need not become a strict vegan to affect energy demands substantively. For instance, eating meat one meal a week,⁵⁴ and tending to stick to poultry 54: . . . out of about 40 meals when doing so would drop the energy factor of Eq. 20.1 to a value so near to 1.0 that the difference is of little consequence.

Example 20.3.18 For instance, if one meal per week, or about one in 40 of your meals looks like the last column in Table 20.3—72% plant-based and the rest poultry and dairy—what is the dietary energy factor for this diet?

Since only one in 40 meals is of this type, multiply the poultry and

© 2022 T. W. Murphy, Jr.; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Lic.; Freely available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/energy\_ambitions.

sort of calculation for 10% contributions from each of the ten plant-based foods in Table 20.2, the raw result would be 0.65.

Global Warming"

54: ... out of about 40 meals

dairy contributions by $\frac{1}{40}$ and adjust $f_v$ to bring the total to 1.0. Doing so yields $f_v = 0.993$ , $f_p = 0.00375$ , and $f_d = 0.00325$ . Multiplying by the respective $R_x$ values and summing produces 1.05.Thus, the one meal of poultry/dairy per week achieves 99% of the journey from normal-American (6.1) to full vegan (1.0), from an energy perspective.

The result of Example 20.3.18 is so nearly 1.0 that it is essentially indistinguishable from a purely plant-based diet, quantitatively. This is especially true in the context that the rule-of-thumb factors are themselves not to be taken literally as high-precision numbers. All pork will not have an energy ratio of 27.0. All tuna will not be 17.0. All wheat will not be 0.45. The methods of producing the food—of all types—become important at this stage. Note that gardening (and canning) one’s own food is a way to nourish ourselves at a super-low resource burden—undercutting the nominal vegan energy factor even further.

The quantitative focus suggests an approach best called flexitarianism. If energy and resources are the primary concern, rather than ethical issues around eating meat,⁵⁵ then the occasional meat treat is no big deal. 55: . . . valid in its own domain Under this scheme, it is still possible to enjoy traditional foods on special occasions like holidays.⁵⁶ 56: . . . arguably making them more special If a friend serves meat at a dinner party, just do the quick calculation and realize that you can easily offset later⁵⁷ 57: . . . or note that you have already offset and make this special-occasion meal disappear into the quantitative noise. The perception you generate is therefore more likely to be as a grateful friend, rather than as a person whose needs are difficult to satisfy.

More people are likely to be attracted to join in responsible behaviors if they are not too rigid or strict. Imagine ordering a bean, rice, and cheese burrito only to take a bite and discover a morsel of meat inside. Score! Meat Treat! It doesn’t have to be a bad thing, if resource cost is what matters most. This flexibility can also apply to waste food. Before watching meat get thrown into the trash, intercept with your mouth. From a resource point of view, wasting meat—or any food, really—is also something we should strive to avoid: better that the energy investment produce metabolic benefit than be utterly wasted.

20.2.0.320.3.6 Discretionary Summary¶

We don’t have direct and immediate control over all the energy expenditures made on our behalf in the same way that we have control over our own light switches and thermostats. Yet, we must accept our communal share of energy and resources used by governmental, military, industrial, agricultural and commercial sectors providing us with structure, protection, goods, and services. The 10,000 W average American power frequently used as a benchmark throughout this book—and mapping to 240 kWh per day—is not all in our direct control. Individuals can make

55: ... valid in its own domain

56: . . . arguably making them more special

it by prior actions

political, consumer, and dietary choices that exercise limited control over these distant activities, but effects are small and gradual.

Of the things that are under our discretion, as discussed in the sections above, Table 20.4 summarizes the average American values and those of the author in 2019.⁵⁸ Recall that the average American air travel corresponds to just 2,300 miles (3,700 km) per year. If adding consumerism to the personally-controlled energy toll, perhaps an average American spends $10–20,000 per year⁵⁹ on “stuff,” which would amount to another 25–50 kWh per day if using the rule-of-thumb 1 kWh/$ from Section 20.3.2.
⁵⁸: ... only counting personal travel, and a mostly vegetarian (though not vegan) diet.
⁵⁹: The author might guess $5,000 for himself as an upper limit, or another 13 kWh per day in this mode.Combining the discretionary factors in Table 20.4 and a consumerism estimate, Americans have direct control over about half of their total energy footprint.⁶⁰ As the author demonstrates, it is possible to make 60: Recall: 240 kWh per day total. drastic cuts to this portion—in this case a factor of three lower than average. Mostly, this comes about by a combination of awareness, caring, and tolerance for a simpler life without every possible comfort.

20.2.0.3.1Box 20.2: Out of Our Control¶

Many energy expenditures are part of a consensus social contract that individuals cannot easily control. Examples would be lighting and interior temperature control policies for large common spaces like office buildings, campuses, libraries, and airports, for instance. Likewise for street lighting in neighborhoods and along highways. Only by large scale shifts in values would the community potentially prioritize energy and resource costs over financial cost or public health and safety.

20.2.120.4 Values Shifts¶

In the end, a bold reformulation of the human approach to living on this planet will only succeed if societal values change from where they are now. Imagine if the following activities were frowned upon—found distasteful and against social norms:

1. keeping a house warm enough in winter to wear shorts inside;

Table 20.4: American average and author’s 2019 expenditures energy on a daily average basis expressed in kilowatt-hours.

mostly vegetarian (though not vegan) diet.

self as an upper limit, or another 13 kWh per day in this mode.

60: Recall: 240 kWh per day total.

• 2. keeping a house so cool in summer that people’s feet get cold;
• 3. having 5 cars in an oversized garage;
• 4. accumulating enough air miles to be in a special “elite” club;
• 5. taking frequent, long, hot showers;
• 6. using a clothes dryer during a non-rainy period;
• 7. having a constant stream of delivery vehicles arrive at the door;
• 8. a full waste bin each week marking high consumption;
• 9. having a high-energy-demand diet (frequent meat consumption);
• 10. upgrading a serviceable appliance, disposing of the old;
• 11. wasteful lighting.

At present, many of these activities connote success and are part of a culture of “conspicuous consumption.” If such things ran counter to the sensibilities of the community, the behaviors would no longer carry social value and would be abandoned. The social norms in some Scandinavian countries praise egalitarianism and find public displays of being “better” or of having more money/stuff to be in poor taste. Abandonment of consumerist norms could possibly work, but only if it stems from a genuine understanding of the negative consequences. If curtailment of resource-heavy activities is imposed by some authority or is otherwise reluctantly adopted, it will not be as likely to transform societal values.

While it may seem objectionable, it is worth recognizing that public shame carries surprising power.⁶¹ A recent experiment in Bolivia put traffic monitors on the streets wearing zebra costumes⁶² to combat irresponsible driving habits endangering pedestrians. The zebras would “call out” violators by making a show and pointing to the offenders. That simple action has been effective. Other cultures have required perpetrators of unsavory acts to stand in a public place for a day wearing a sign announcing their transgression, recognizing the power of public shame. It is difficult to imagine similar remedies today, and for many good reasons.⁶³ 63: . . . e.g., not a very nurturing approach

Yet our society has perhaps gotten too far away from personal ownership of actions. Anonymity in our modern world promotes rude behavior: on roads, on the internet, and in heavily-populated urban areas, where often no one within sight is familiar. If environmentally costly activities were to acquire taboo status, it is pretty certain we would see far less of it, for fear of shame.

20.320.5 Flexibility as an Answer to Uncertainty¶

No one has a crystal ball. No one can credibly say what the future holds. Anyone claiming that we’re heading for certain complete collapse should not be trusted. But neither should someone who says everything will be glorious. It is not hard to find either sort of message in this world, yet we cannot discern with confidence which is ultimately correct.

61: The author became aware of this power in the context of student project demonstrations open to the whole department to watch. The prospect of public failure provided supplemental motivation for students to work super-hard—harder than the author typically observed in other courses.

62: The costumes served to simultaneously maintain anonymity and allude to blackand-white crosswalk patterns.

to promote change

While this text may seem more aligned toward a grim outlook, it is somewhat intentional as a means to raise awareness toward what seems like a minority view—without crossing the line and claiming any certainty on the possible perils ahead.

right about threat utter disaster ghting chance to avert danger see, we were ne minor inconvenience wrong about threat plan A plan B

Another rationale for this book’s tone relates to asymmetric risk (Figure 20.1). If we take potentially catastrophic threats seriously and at least formulate plans to mitigate them, then little harm is done if the threat does not materialize: just “wasted” time and effort being careful.⁶⁴ 64: . . . and oh darn—we might end up with But ignoring the threat could mean “game over.” Even if the probability of the threat is low, like 10%, it is worthy of attention if the consequences of ignoring it could be devastating. People routinely buy insurance for similar reasons: to mitigate low-probability but potentially debilitating events.

That said, how does a person navigate their own life choices under a cloud of existential uncertainty? One answer is to pick avenues that can be useful in either eventuality. Choosing a route that only makes sense if things hum along as they have done for the past many decades could be risky. So put some thought into directions that are likely to be valued whether or not the human endeavor suffers large setbacks. Be flexible. Mostly, this involves imagining a more difficult future and asking what paths still work in that scenario, while still having a place in today’s world.

What skills or functions will likely always be valuable? One approach is to think about what elements of human existence are likely to always be present. We will always need food, shelter, health care, transportation, fabrication capability, resource utilization, wisdom, and entertainment. The exact form ranges from primitive to high-tech. But not every profession supported today has an obvious place on this list. In the face of this, it seems worthwhile to learn the fundamentals of any vocation you elect to pursue, so that if deprived of all the technological assistance available today, you can fall back on the basics and still achieve some worthwhile results.

A first step may be to become less reliant on technology for simple tasks. Use brains more and devices less. The practice will lead to greater mental capacity—in any outcome. Do math in your head. Learn and retain⁶⁵ 65: . . . internalize; own important facts and concepts, so that Google is not required to form full thoughts.

Figure 20.1: Asymmetric risk in the face of a potential devastating threat. Plan A is the natural response if the threat is not believed to be real, and Plan B is appropriate for mitigating the threat. The downside of the threat being real but sticking to Plan A is catastrophic, whereas pursuing Plan B unnecessarily is not ideal, but not nearly as bad. We don’t get to choose reality (column), but we do get to chose the plan (row). Are we feeling lucky, or conservative?

a renewable energy infrastructure earlier than we really had to have it! After all, it’s pretty clear that we need to get there eventually.

65: ...internalize; own

Try modes of living that are less cushy than normal, even if temporarily. A week-long backpacking trip is a great way to feel like a part of nature, and come to understand that some level of discomfort or hardship is tolerable—or even confidence-building.⁶⁶ 66: Ideally, start small on a one- or two-The first few days may be a difficult adjustment, but it is surprising how well and how quickly adaptation can happen—given time, decent weather, and a constructive attitude. After doing this a few times, minor inconveniences or discomforts that arise might be met with far greater grace. The person who remains stable in the face of adversity will be more resilient than many of their peers, and can help others hold things together in crisis.

Keep in mind that humans evolved outdoors, dealt with seasons, and often went many days without food. When did we become so fragile that we need to live within a narrow temperature range to be comfortable, and lose our heads if we don’t get three square meals a day? What would our ancestors think of us? By learning to toughen up, the future whatever way it goes—will have less power over us. We can strive to be less vulnerable and at the mercy of events beyond our control. We will have some agency to cope and help others cope with any variety of outcomes. Just by having some confidence in our ability to deal with a bit of adversity or discomfort will allow us to keep cooler heads and be able to recognize important opportunities if and when they come along, rather then being paralyzed by distress.

Hopefully, such preparedness will never be truly needed. And how bad would it be if we “built some character” along the way for no reason.

20.3.0.120.6 Upshot on Strategies¶

No one can know what fate awaits us, or control the timing of whatever unfolds. But individuals can take matters into their own hands and adopt practices that are more likely to be compatible with a future defined by reduced resource availability. We can learn to communicate future concerns constructively, without being required to paint an artificial picture of hope.⁶⁷ 67: The hope lies in how we react to the Our actions and choices, even if not showcased, can serve as inspiration for others—or at least can be personally rewarding as an impactful adventure. Quantitative assessment of energy and resource demands empowers individuals to make personal choices carrying large impacts. Reductions of factors of 2 and 3 and 4 are not out of reach. Maybe the world does not need 18 TW to be happy. Maybe we don’t have to work so hard to maintain a peaceful and rewarding lifestyle once growth is not the driver. Maybe we can re-learn how to adapt to the seasons and be fulfilled by a more intimate connection with nature. The value of psychological preparedness should not underestimated. By staring unblinking into the abyss, we are ready to cope with disruption, should it come. And if it never does in our lifetimes, what loss do we

night trip, and accompany someone experienced at backpacking to learn how to avoid rookie mistakes that could turn you off of the activity forever.

challenges, not necessarily in eliminating, conquering, or denying them.

rent path has us hurtling forward to certain involuntary termination of growth (a dead end, or cliff, or brick wall), very probably resulting in overshoot and/or crash.

really suffer if we have chosen our adventure and lived our personal values?

In this sense, the best adaptation comes in the form of a mental shift. Letting go of humanity’s self-image as a growth juggernaut, and finding an “off-ramp” to a more rewarding lifestyle in close partnership with nature is the main goal. The guidelines provided in this chapter for quantifying and reducing resource demands then simply become the initial outward expressions of this fresh vision. Ignore the potentially counterproductive allure of fusion, teleportation, and warp drive. Embrace instead a humbler, slower, more feasible future that stresses natural harmony over conquest and celebrates life in all forms—while preserving and advancing the knowledge and understanding of the universe we have worked so hard to achieve. Picture a future citizen of this happier world looking back at the present age as embarrassingly misguided and inexplicably delusional. Earth is a partner, not a possession to be exploited. Figuratively throwing Earth under the bus precludes our own chances for long-term success. A common phrasing⁶⁸ of this sentiment is that humans are a part of nature, not apart from nature. Let’s not lose the path in a flight of fossil-fueled fantasy.

Continuing the freeway metaphor, the cur-rent path has us hurtling forward to certain involuntary termination of growth (a dead end, or cliff, or brick wall), very probably resulting in overshoot and/or crash.

⁶⁸: . . . attributed to Marc Bekoff, 2002

20.3.120.7 Problems (Predicaments?)¶

• 1. What barriers do you sense that suppress open communication about collapse possibilities?
• 2. Why is the lack of open acknowledgment that collapse is a distinct possibility itself more likely to facilitate exactly that outcome?
• 3. Try constructing a statement that communicates the grave risk we create for ourselves as we flirt with potential collapse without being too off-putting or unjustifiably certain.
• 4. Try crafting a diplomatic and persuasive response to someone who says that the problem with your story—concerning possible bad outcomes—is that it’s a real downer and lacks a message of hope.
• 5. Come up with an example in life of a predicament that can’t be directly solved, but perhaps side-stepped to get around it without eliminating or “solving” the problem’s origin.
• 6. A person loses their snazzy stainless steel water bottle that they carry everywhere—again. So they go to the store to replace it. What elements of the list in Section 20.3.1 are in danger of being violated?
• 7. Which of the following devices is likely to consume a lot of power, when it is on/running? Explain your selection.

e. Em- natural erving rse we appier uided

68: ... attributed to Marc Bekoff, 2002

• a) laptop computer
• b) phone charging
• c) toaster oven
• d) television/display
• e) lighting for a room
• 8. A microwave oven and a space heater might each draw 1,500 W of electrical power. What determines which one uses more energy, and describe a realistic scenario in which one uses a lot more energy than the other.
• 9. If the temperature outside is steady at 10◦C, how much more energy must you expend over some period of time⁶⁹ in order to 69: . . . effectively power, then keep the inside at a shorts-and-short-sleeves temperature of 22◦C vs. a dress-more-warmly 13◦C inside?
• 10. A utility bill for April indicates that your household used 480 kWh of electricity and 20 Therms of natural gas. In addition, your household has two cars, each using an average of one gallon of gasoline per day. Convert everything to kWh per day for direct comparison, and also express in W or kW of average power to put in context against the 10 kW American overall average.⁷⁰ 70:
• 11. Following the setup for Problem 10, if the household consists of two people, what is the per-person footprint in terms of kWh per day for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline, and how does this compare to U.S. national averages per person?
• 12. In looking at the utility bill referenced in Problem 10, and converting Therms to kWh, it may seem that natural gas is a larger energy expenditure. But if your local electricity is primarily sourced from natural gas, converting the combustion energy into electricity at 40% efficiency (via a heat engine), what is the effective amount of kWh used in the form of natural gas for the electricity, and now how does this compare to the gas used directly in the household?
• 13. Use the two rule-of-thumb approaches (by mass and by cost) to estimate the energy investment in a farm tractor, whose mass is 2,400 kg and cost is $25,000. If the results are even within a factor-of-two of each other, we can conclude that the estimate is probably pretty decent as a rough guide.
• 14. Use the two rule-of-thumb approaches (by mass and by cost) to estimate the energy investment in a laptop computer, whose mass is 1.4 kg and cost is $1,300. If the estimates are strikingly different, which do you suspect is more representative of the truth?
• 15. You and three friends want to take a trip together and are debating whether to fly or drive in a gasoline-powered car. In the context of fossil fuel energy use (and thus CO² emission), how good does the car’s fuel efficiency need to be (in miles per gallon) in order for

69: ... effectively power, then

i Most is outside the home. the driving option to use less fuel (per person) than would a fullyoccupied airplane, if the airplane gets 90 m.p.g. per passenger? Is it easy to find cars whose performance is at least this good?

• 16. What does the dietary energy factor become for a person who gets one-quarter of their energy from meat, but only in the form of chicken—the rest from plant matter? How much of the way⁷¹ 71: For example, going from 6.1 to 3.8 is a from the standard American dietary energy factor (6.1 times vegan) to a purely plant-based diet is this?
• 17. What does the dietary energy factor become for a person who is mostly vegan, but eats like a standard American one day a week on that day getting 28% of their energy as outlined in the American column of Table 20.3? How much of the way⁷² from the standard 72: See margin note for Prob. 16. American dietary energy factor (6.1) to a purely plant-based diet is this?
• 18. What fraction of caloric intake in a Lacto-ovo diet (dairy/eggs but no meat or fish) would allow a dietary energy factor of 2.0, which is 80% of the way from the American 6.1 to the vegan 1.0?
• 19. How might you imagine our society managing to change values to shun heavy resource usage: what might transpire to make this happen? Do you think this would be a desirable outcome?
• 20. List three professions around today that will be very unlikely to exist if we revert to a lower energy/resource, less high-tech state.
• 21. Describe the circumstances and outcomes of the four boxes in Figure 20.1 in the context of a tornado reported heading for your town—which may or may not hit your house if it even hits your town at all. Plan A would be to do nothing in preparation. Plan B would be to board up the windows on your house and take cover in a tornado shelter. Describe the relative costs and feelings about your decisions in the aftermath for all four scenarios.
• 22. Comparing the human body to a car with a gas tank, and recognizing that a human can live⁷³ 73: . . . not comfortably, and this is not recfor about two weeks without food, provided adequate water and shelter. How many skipped meals does this represent, on the standard of three meals per day? If the body had a fuel gauge indicating how close to “empty” (death) we are, what percentage of “full” does our gauge typically read when we “pull into the station” for another fill-up (meal) in the standard case when we get three meals per day?

move of 2.3 of the 5.1 total distance to get to 1.0, or 45% of the way “home.”

72: See margin note for Prob. 16.

ommended!

Note that, unlike a car, the body does not function just as well at 25% “full” as it does when it is 100% full. Thus the analogy is very flawed. Yet, in primitive times, it was surely routine to dip well below hunger levels not often tolerated today.