> They have failed to build systems and processess that enables sustainable living.
Mainly because they haven't tried. It simply wasn't a priority or necessity.
But looking forward, there's two options: (1) we invent new technology to sustain a high-energy civilisation - the only realistic scenario is that this invention comes from the developed world; (2) we revert to low-energy (pre 20th century) civilization.
When looking at the delayed and cost overruns of the California high speed rail, and the slow adoption solar and wind on the west coast USA, and the slow development of batter technology, and the reverted carbon tax in Australia. I would say we very much tried (1) and failed. In particular I would say politicians failed us because they were too busy handing out favorable legislation for the wealthy class, who very much relied on business as usual to keep their wealth growing.
I hold no hope that a new technology will save us, while the politicians act this way. Remember that the White house used to have solar water heaters, but they were removed under Regan.
Mainly because they haven't tried. It simply wasn't a priority or necessity.
But looking forward, there's two options: (1) we invent new technology to sustain a high-energy civilisation - the only realistic scenario is that this invention comes from the developed world; (2) we revert to low-energy (pre 20th century) civilization.
I'd prefer (1).