The solution to maximizing the number of available natural resources and energy per capita is to reduce the number of people. The world has bred to the point of obscenity and there are no more unpopulated continents happy to take the overflow.
By my observation, governments that are nowadays pushing the ‘green’ agenda are those in places that are peaking or a little earlier in the mass consumerism stage of their life cycle, with a population that has yet to be jaded by it. Green is a way to simultaneously justify maintaining consumer behavior, supporting industry and keeping the larger number of taxpayers and associated government budget that ensures that virtually no government even mentions the root of the problem. I think ‘this too will pass’ as the green agenda inevitably fails to solve the resource problem, leaving in its wake some good, some bad and a population that has matured into a less zealous and more practical world view. This might take a while because there are plenty of other places that have yet to peak in consumer behavior, or even get close.
My cars are on average 21 years old, the ones driven daily average 13 years old. I drive those to about 150 to 170K miles. My newest motorcycle is 19 years old, my aircraft is 50 years old. All except my daily driver were bought used. Works for me on several levels, minimizing depreciation cost being one of them.
For sure a Cherokee 6 is the practical solution to family transport. They aren’t wildly in demand because not many people actually want to transport their whole family and luggage in a plane at one time. Planes and flying are in many ways not analogous to cars and driving, more like motorcycling based on weather constraints, risk, anxiety held by some, skill and attention required to do it properly and so on. There aren’t many motorcycles to carry the whole family either 
My cars are on average 21 years old, the ones driven daily average 13 years old. I drive those to about 150 to 170K miles. My newest motorcycle is 19 years old, my aircraft is 50 years old. All except my daily driver were bought used. Works for me on several levels, minimizing depreciation cost being one of them.
The problem with people like you (and I am one of them too) is that “industrial society” would collapse
Let’s open a big green summit where they will discuss which is better : petrol vs diesel vs hybrid vs electric vs nuclear vs wind vs solar vs natural gas vs biomass vs chinese battery cells vs fuel cell vs green hydrogen vs wood pellets vs low carbon concrete vs keeping your old car/stuff vs change to the newest gadget vs digitalize everything vs OMG the web burns resources like crazy vs let’s return back to paper vs oh but what about the forest vs we will plant millions of trees in Haiti where people die of disease and violence oh we must save those people first let’s bring back peace everywhere but was it ever everywhere and what about human rights in china we must defend taiwan but russia is threatening ukraine too
In about 40 years, they will come back to us with a solution
As we say in French : “road to hell is paved with good intentions”
Silvaire wrote:
The solution to maximizing the number of available natural resources and energy per capita is to reduce the number of people. The world has bred to the point of obscenity and there are no more unpopulated continents happy to take the overflow.
As much as I agree to that observation, as difficult it is for me to figure out a solution/action.
It would be 100 Mio. more Brazilians and almost 500 Mio. more Russians until they reach US population density levels (and this is entire US including Alaska). It would be a billion more Chinese until they reach German population density levels.
So any “fair” method of distributing the “available seats” amongst the countries would imply very drastic measures for population reduction in Europe and US. I don’t want to imagine all implications of that …
Malibuflyer wrote:
As much as I agree to that observation, as difficult it is for me to figure out a solution/action.
Birth control? It worked for me.
Nothing especially wrong there @Malibuflyer, but we all must draw our own line somewhere and isn’t in funny how the latest green miracle always involves us consumers spending a load of cash ;-)
There are considerations beyond NOx emissions and local particle emissions, not least the finite supply of rare-earth elements.
Silvaire wrote:
Birth control? It worked for me.
And me. The world doesn’t need more people, although reproducing is a fundamental evolutionary urge – seemingly uncontrollable for many.
Graham wrote:
And me. The world doesn’t need more people, although reproducing is a fundamental evolutionary urge – seemingly uncontrollable for man
Same. Not only is the urge to procreate uncontrollable for many, this is also fueled by policies that reward having kids. All in the name of ‘family values’, but in reality of course to breed more consumers and, most importantly, tax payers.
You people are awfully cynical. Possibly comes with age. I’m very glad to have kids. I don’t think population density should be a long term problem. We should aim for the stars and colonise the galaxy…lots of space out there :)
MedEwok wrote:
You people are awfully cynical. Possibly comes with age.
I don’t think we are. I’d call it realism that comes with experience (call it age if you wish). Fact is that population density leads to aggression, you can view this behavior anywhere from lab rats in cages to humans in slums. Only exception to this general observation seems to be Japan. Japanese society seems to have mastered overcrowding by having an extremely ritualized society with very little personal freedoms. While I love Japan, it’s not a place I would like to live.
