Archive talk:000/Minimal consumption scenario: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[User:Elie|Elie]] ([[User talk:Elie|talk]]) 22:54, 24 May 2022 (EDT) | [[User:Elie|Elie]] ([[User talk:Elie|talk]]) 22:54, 24 May 2022 (EDT) | ||
==Bar graph approach== | |||
Maybe use [[File:energy-demand-status-quo.png]] with labels of "this section can be dealt with by..."? Or use that idea on other pages - for example [[walkability]] would say "this page deals with 'road vehicles - passenger'. See other pages to deal with other sections of this bar graph" idk<br />[[User:Elie|Elie]] ([[User talk:Elie|talk]]) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 00:42, 29 May 2022
Is the intro too long?
Do we really need the first part before 'the scenario'? I get a feeling it might be better on a different page. Elie (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2022 (EDT)
Emphasis on globalness
This isn't just about "how can westerners reduce their consumption", it's also about "how can other countries develop sustainably".
So for the analysis, we want to estimate the resources that would be needed if this scenario were to happen globally. Compare it to the global status-quo (extreme inequality).
Is it easy for people to see that that's the intended analysis? Or should the bottom section be rephrased?
Elie (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2022 (EDT)
Bar graph approach
Maybe use 
with labels of "this section can be dealt with by..."? Or use that idea on other pages - for example walkability would say "this page deals with 'road vehicles - passenger'. See other pages to deal with other sections of this bar graph" idk
Elie (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (EDT)