Small is Beautiful | Global Energy

Comment by Rahul Dewanjee on March 20, 2010 at 12:03am

You definitely have a point.

Would you still say the same if we consider a country as vast as Australia with population quite thinly dispersed in most parts of the country while cities are to some extent seen as nerve centers of economic and social life? What say those from Down Under?

Comment by Jessica Gomes on March 24, 2010 at 2:57am

I'll go for small too!

Comment by Sarah Shaw Tatoun on March 30, 2010 at 5:38am

I think the only answer is both: obviously large scale energy savings are going to be necessary- hopefully driven by major technological innovations. In places where virtually everyone is dependent on an energy grid, advances in technology can deliver major savings with minimal disruption of people's lifestyle. On the other hand, enormous savings can often be achieved through relatively small changes in individual habits and practices. The Czech Republic-- and European countries in general, use far less energy per capita than the US. The differences are brought about by fairly minor differences in habits: here, for instance, there is a much cheaper 'night tariff' for electricity, so people use their washing machines at night, outside of peak electricity demand. In the US there is no difference in price so many people don't even realize that there are savings to be had through evening out demand.

In places where there is little infrastructure, of course, 'large scale' energy savings become impossible: If there is no grid, there is no point in trying to make it more efficient. The 'large scale' changes that need to be made there are finding energy sources for people that are simple, cheap and sustainable, so that the land they and their families live on remains able to support them.

In summary I'd say that I think we need to think less about the scale of the change and more about the possible effects-- good and bad-- on our habitat.

Comment by Jenny Siler on April 1, 2010 at 9:36pm

Great conversation topic Rahul. I agree with the overall concensus that the little things generally ad up to more than the large-scale projects. In addition, the results have a potential to be exponential, as one person decides to change his/her energy-consumption habits, 20 other people might be watching. Say three of those people buy into the example and adjust their own habits. You get the point, the little things have the potential to create widespread movements.

Comment by Rahul Dewanjee on April 1, 2010 at 10:05pm

Thanks AV, Sarah, Jessica and jenny for putting your views and participating in this discussion. I hope more will follow as well....how would some of us see the relevance of large changes?

Comment by Michele Baron on April 2, 2010 at 2:16am

small increments of change can have far reaching effects; a power grid might be effective for large population centers, but, as remotely-located dwellings are only peripherally serviced by centrally-located facilities, so, to, must individual-scaled power production and usage mechanisms be recruited in the struggle for sustainable energy production and consumption.

Comment by Rahul Dewanjee on April 2, 2010 at 12:21pm

Thanks Jenny, Ethan & Michelle for showing that small changes in our consumption pattens would be most effective. Most us the agents who have participated on this debate have resonated in this direction. Should we have anyone who wish to speak for large scale changes at all?

Speak now or forever hold our speech....lol!

Comment