aart wrote:
Rather than living like a monk for the sake of the globe, I think we have the right to live our dreams, but at the same time try to create a reasonable balance. Let’s face it, the amount of fuel that many of us here use, accounts for (a lot) more than the heating of just one house.
Yes, the amount of fuel in my plane is actually a little more than the inconsequential amount of natural gas I burn heating or air conditioning my house. Some years the latter is close to zero.
More people could live in a reasonable climate if there weren’t so many people competing to do so, and the world could abandon the waste of energy associated with living in harsh climates. Unfortunately nobody is in control of human population growth and opinions (whatever they may be) probably won’t in reality have any meaningful effect on either population growth or creating the best environment for humans in the future. Regardless of that reality, and my opinion about confronting it now versus fussing around with mass-market urban environmental politics that won’t actually solve much without reduced population growth, balance will in the end be found and it might not be pretty. Reality wins every time. I think that’s the point that an intelligent, unblinkered scientist can see looking forward… And OBTW he’s not American. 
Worrying now about burning a little Avgas having fun in the first world, and its moral consequences, is a waste of human energy because stopping it entirely would have zero real world effect. There are better things to think about. I am reminded of a 130 Kg man studying glossy magazine advertisements for athletic shoes so he can run further.
I don’t think it’s quite true to say that environmentalists never mention population growth – David Attenborough would be a prominent example of someone who has done so, thoughtfully. The problems are that it’s something that’s very difficult to do anything about without bringing up all kinds of ethical dilemmas and it has a pretty grim history – take for example all the Indian men who were rounded up and forcibly vasectomised in the 1970s, or the fallout from China’s one-child policy. As a rich person consuming twenty or thirty times as many resources as much as a person in sub-Saharan Africa, it’s both hypocritical and gauche to claim that the numbers of poor people need to be limited for the good of the planet. I grew up in an ex-colonial nation, and part of my inheritance is a rebound reluctance to tell other nations what to do. None of which stops overpopulation from being a real problem.
I think there are grounds for cautious optimism. As an European, my society already has limited population growth: in fact we have the opposite problem of an impending demographic collapse. There’s a strong negative correlation between education (particularly of women) and fecundity, and rates of population growth in many other parts of the world have been dropping too. Social security is another big issue. In places with high mortality and no social security, the way to ensure you’re looked after in old age is to have lots of children and hope that some of them survive long enough to look after you. The social ideal should be for the world population to gently decrease to a sustainable level, and there are suggestions that the world population may start to fall towards the middle of this century. As a humanitarian, it pleases me that the solution to overpopulation seems to be to educate people and improve their lives.
The problem is that even if there were to be an outbreak of mass infertility now and births were to fall to zero, the population would still be high enough to cause ecological catastrophe within this century, particularly if people in poorer nations eventually attain the Western standard of living that we enjoy. So I disagree that it’s nonsensical to advocate for sustainable energy generation and use of natural resources whilst populations continue to rise. Personally I’m starting to be more optimistic. Trump may want to reinvigorate the coalfields, but it’s more likely they’ll continue to fall into ruin whilst solar and other renewables surge ahead.
the world could abandon the waste of energy associated with living in harsh climates
Nonsense: people who live in harsh climates have a far lower energy consumption than people who live in more clement regions. It’s probably true that someone in Texas or Alaska will use more energy than someone in California, but it’s also true that someone in Britain or California is likely to use 20-30 times more energy than someone living in the Sahara.
kwlf wrote:
It’s probably true that someone in Texas or Alaska will use more energy than someone in California, but it’s also true that someone in Britain or California is likely to use 20-30 times more energy than someone living in the Sahara
Fairly obviously you are conflating energy use reduction as a function of poverty (quite a bad thing, especially if it’s you) with energy use reduction as a function of living in a mild climate (clearly a good thing). Also conflating genocide with individually responsible birth rate control, which I think is unintelligent regardless of European history.
Europe is much overpopulated now, and the current negative population growth is clearly a good thing. Barring ongoing refugee immigration I think there will likely be a continued reduction in population over time, to align the number of people with depleted EU natural resources. About half as many people seems right to me as a reasonable goal, more like the US, and a third as many probably would be better (and that goes for some areas of the US too.) Places like the U.K. have way, way too many people and that is the principal ‘environmental’ problem. Whether by continuing the tradition of emigration or an outbreak of common sense, less is more. I sincerely hope that the US, notwithstanding its current population growth among the uneducated will never have as many people per square mile, and I’m happy that in my lifetime it simply won’t happen. I’m not contributing to the problem regardless.
The way I am ensuring that I’ll be looked after in old age is BTW by working harder and saving harder now, personally, and making investments from my pay that at a relatively low rate of return will continue to pay me after I can’t work.. No family or government support needed or expected. I recommend it. While doing that I will continue to produce, to fly and to enjoy life because life itself is expensive, and was not given to us to be wasted.
Unfortunately it’s impossible to disentangle attempts at population control from the history of big rich nations telling poorer nations what to do. Or of powerful people within nations telling poorer people what to do. I’m not for a moment accusing everyone who feels that population reduction is important of being genocidal, but I see no way of imposing population reduction without resorting to supra-national authoritarianism. Surely you, of all people, would shy away from that?
Turn the problem on its head: how would one design a non-genocidal population limitation strategy that didn’t disproportionately reduce the numbers of one ethnic/national/religious group? With the best will in the world I don’t think it could be done. The only way to limit population is by consent: individuals deciding for themselves that having reasonable numbers of children is the best thing to do.
Silvaire wrote:
Fairly obviously you are conflating energy use reduction as a function of poverty (quite a bad thing, especially if it’s you) with energy use reduction as a function of living in a mild climate (clearly a good thing).
Perhaps I misunderstood the original point you were trying to make, but at risk of sounding pedantic no: nobody is arguing that people living in the Sahara have reduced their energy intake because they’re poor. They were simply never rich to start off with. Wealthy people can potentially reduce energy consumption without either becoming poorer or suffering a restriction in their lifestyle. e.g. LED lightbulbs use less energy and in the long term save money, though initially they’re more expensive to buy. The distinction is important.
The average American uses 350 times more energy than the average Ethiopian despite living in a more temperate climate, so I’m afraid the idea that population growth is a greater threat to the environment than unconstrained consumption seems to me to be a convenient fallacy. It’s not without some basis – particularly in the longer term – but it shouldn’t be a get-out-of-gaol-free card either.
Anyway, speaking personally I try to fly the smallest plane available, and comfort myself in the fact that my resulting carbon emissions are far lower than those of my mother in law, who travels far and wide to Elvis conventions. I’m sure I’m still a hypocrite.
I think aviation would benefit from the availability of more, smaller aircraft. When you can burn 5-10 litres an hour in a single seater you can do more interesting flights for less money with less of an environmental impact. Could one make a Cessna 132 or a PA48 that would be similar enough to its big sisters that inexperienced pilots could convert between aircraft with ease? Obviously that won’t happen, but perhaps a ‘C41’ or similar might be a more realistic prospect and perhaps it would make sense for a flying school or club with a number of aircraft to buy one to rent out.
kwlf wrote:
The average American uses 350 times more energy than the average Ethiopian despite living in a more temperate climate, so I’m afraid the idea that population growth is a greater threat to the environment than unconstrained consumption seems to me to be a convenient fallacy.
Energy consumption is highly correlated to quality of life, and despite some fiddling with details and increases of efficiency, it will always be so. The solution is less people, not cramming ever increasing numbers of people into low quality lives – particularly when the beneficiaries and promoters are a ruling class collecting taxes, or the equivalent.
kwlf wrote:
I think aviation would benefit from the availability of more, smaller aircraft. When you can burn 5-10 litres an hour in a single seater you can do more interesting flights for less money with less of an environmental impact.
I think the main impact of GA on human living conditions is to make them better. I’m very happy flying 46 year old and 71 year old planes, using not a lot of fuel every year, the cost does not affect my life meaningfully, and living well within my means. I have no interest in wasting my resources on any other kind of plane – because I have better things to do with what I earn, as I’ve described.
Silvaire wrote:
The way I am ensuring that I’ll be looked after in old age is BTW by working harder and saving harder now, personally, and making investments from my pay that at a relatively low rate of return will continue to pay me after I can’t work.. No family or government support needed or expected.
Money won’t help you when you grow old if there are too many old people that need to be taken care of relative to the number of younger people that can care for them. That’s the demographic problem.
Hence my intentional inclusion of the phrase “relatively low rate of return” as my expectation in relation to future income from investments made now.
Money won’t help you when you grow old if there are too many old people that need to be taken care of relative to the number of younger people that can care for them. That’s the demographic problem.
How would that work?
With enough money you can buy anything… and care homes can always get extra staff if they pay them enough. The UK (and every other place in the modern world) is struggling with this issue, but it is a problem really only when people want the taxpayer to fund their care home.
I strongly agree that population growth is the biggest problem we have. Here in the south east UK it is blindingly obvious. And not having too many children correlates strongly with education which in turn correlates with income, etc. which is why obviously there is no easy solution in public policy terms (for a non dictatorial regime). However an individual can always try to take care of himself by managing his affairs suitably.
In relation to my aviation activities in the future, not only don’t I need people to make me another plane, the people who made my existing planes are very likely already long dead! All I need is a little labor to make fuel, and that’s not a lot.
Silvaire wrote:
Energy consumption is highly correlated to quality of life
That is highly disputable. It makes no difference however. There is more than enough clean energy here on earth, for all of us, it’s just that oil, gas and coal is not the correct fuel. It’s literally like pissing in your pants to keep you warm in a cold winter night. It’s just a matter of how far ahead you are willing to think. Pissing in you pants last for 5-10 minutes, and then in gets really cold. Fossil fuels last for 5 -10 decades, then it gets really hot (or cold or wet or dry, or stormy or whatever it gets). Food, on the other hand, could become a problem, as well as fresh water if the population growth continues. But then, without enough food and water, I have a hard time imagining the human population will grow all that much.
Anyway, IMO there are lots of things you can do if you are concerned about the environment. TMG, gliders, microlight, a wooden single seater is probably very hard to beat all things considered (energy used for production etc). They all pollutes a tiny fraction of what a 300+ hp Cirrus does. But, all this is temporary. There is no physical law that say energy must pollute the air. I “fill up” my car every night with clean hydropower, and have done so for 2 1/2 years, and pay almost nothing for that energy in comparison to gasoline or diesel. This will be the future everywhere, maybe not hydropower, but wind, and in particular solar energy, along with nuclear (nuclear will probably disappear due to price, it cannot compete with the other)
