WITH fuel bills and gas prices vastly higher as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for many of us, the question of cutting back on energy use isn’t one of if, but how. So where to start?
Perhaps a thought experiment from Swiss researchers could help. If you shared all the energy produced in the world, everyone would get roughly 2000 watts of continuous power, the equivalent of 48 kilowatt-hours a day. Those who made this calculation in the 1990s envisioned a 2000-watt society, where everyone had access to no more, no less.
Advertisement
This idea is appealing for several reasons. It takes what can feel like trivial or arbitrary lifestyle changes and puts them towards a specific goal. How much closer will you get to 2000 watts by foregoing the tumble dryer or by cycling to work? It is also based on principles of equity, forcing us to think less about how much we would like and more about how much there is to go around. Adding to the appeal, the Swiss vision of a 2000-watt society is one where everyone can still live comfortably. You don’t have to forego the good life.
If that all sounds idealistic, it is because it can be. As our New York City-based reporter found in our cover story this week (see “2000-watt challenge: How to reduce your energy use and still live well”), getting to 2000 watts is no picnic there (the average person in the US uses energy at four times this rate).
Still, it is a worthwhile challenge, if you dare to accept it, not least because it brings into focus the limitations of our personal decisions when it comes to energy consumption. Your energy budget will quickly get used up by things that are out of your control, such as public transport or street lighting.
Which brings us to what is perhaps the most important thing about this thought experiment. It only works if everyone is involved – including governments, which can have an outsized impact by enacting low-energy policies. It is rarely politically popular to focus on less rather than more, but our Swiss friends have shown us that, paradoxically, the more investment there is in helping people live on less, the better off we all are.
