dublinpilot wrote:
So there are actually very generous tax breaks to be had for those who make a change.
Fairly obviously, if you reduce your consumption of a severely taxed item, you will reduce your taxes. I think the issue is not that, but instead how best to create energy security for an indefinite period. As aart says, quite correctly, that takes time and in the meantime I think reducing energy consumption can be achieved by reducing population growth a lot more effectively than reducing per capita consumption as the number of people rises exponentially and unchecked. In my mind there is a very clear reason why the underlying problem of population growth is rarely discussed by government: more people = more power, and if they have miserable lives as a result of low consumption and high taxation, that’s relatively unimportant 
Peter wrote:
Interesting how close GA is to big jets, per mile. In the TB20, LHR-JFK would be some 30-40hrs at 10 USG/hr.
I consume a great deal more energy as a ‘recreational’ passenger in big jets every year than flying my planes. I think I’d have to fly my planes six times as much to equal my 2-person families’ airline usage.
Silvaire wrote:
in the meantime I think reducing energy consumption can be achieved by reducing population growth a lot more effectively than reducing per capita consumption as the number of people rises exponentially and unchecked.
There’s a good reason we aren’t concentrating on reducing population growth in Europe, which is simply that our population is shrinking already. I also see this as a good thing – except insofar as I would prefer to see a more gradual decline in our population.
How would we reduce the population growth in other parts of the world? The only really acceptable method is by promoting education and healthcare, particularly for women. And lo and behold, as places like India and Africa are developing, fertility is dropping. The rise in population is no longer exponential and – accepting that it is about as hard to predict as climate change – some of the predictions are now for stable/decreasing global population by 2100.
The population outside of Europe is not directly within the remit of any European government – and nor should it be. But energy policy most definitely is.
~
I’m a scientist by training, but find that most of the debate on climate change is beyond me – or at least it would take more time than I can spare in order to really come to anything more than a superficial understanding of the issues.
The most convincing document I ever found, that global warming is real, is this one:
http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
They say that you should always look for sources that contradict your own point of view, so I decided to read it – or at least some of it. I looked up a random selection of these scientists, how they were represented in the document, and what their research actually seemed to be saying. A few of them were genuinely high calibre scientists who were sceptical about global warming. I can respect that – there have to be real concerns about the feasibility of predicting such a complex phenomenon as the global climate. But a fairly large proportion of the entries were very dubious. For example I can accept that a TV weather presenter might have a degree in meteorology, but you should need a lot more than that to justify having your views on climate change included in such a document. Lots of people have degrees in meteorology – celebrity alone shouldn’t make his opinion more valid than anybody else’s. A fair amount of the others actually seemed to believe that anthropogenic climate change was a serious issue, but with caveats that were being over-emphasized or in some cases misrepresented. A few people seemed to be being simply misrepresented altogether. Others were scientists speaking on topics well outside their own disciplines.
I found myself thinking ‘if that’s the best you can do when you’re setting out to produce a minority report then the evidence for global warming really must be persuasive.’
Archie wrote:
I’m not implying much, just that it’s good fun to only know part of the truth all the time: But the findings do conflict with more than a decade of research indicating that Antarctica is losing ice and that the loss has contributed to rising global sea levels.
To quote another bit of the article:
Right now, it’s believed that ice loss in Antarctica contributes to roughly 8% of global sea level rise. This rise can been seen in recent high tides in coastal cities like Miami.
If this study is correct, and Antarctica is not contributing to this rise in sea level, that means scientists must be underestimating the impact from other sources of sea level rise — such as from melting from Greenland or the heating of the oceans.
If there is any truth about global warming, it’s that it’s complicated and there are going to be anomalies in every direction. Nobody sensible ever claimed otherwise.
kwlf wrote:
How would we reduce the population growth in other parts of the world? The only really acceptable method is by promoting education and healthcare,
Yep, and I’d suggest that resources being specifically focused on reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe (as a separate issue from energy security) would be better spent on that effort, given that Europeans will not meaningfully affect the climate through per capita reduction in their CO2 emissions.
PS If I were King 
I’d set a public goal for 60% reduction of European population. I think It would be a much sustainable place as a result, as well as nicer for those who live there. Just my POV.
NCYankee wrote:
with no statistically significant warming in the last 18 years
This is something that AGW deniers always claim, but it is misleading almost to the point of being an outright lie. It was literally true up to a year ago, but only because 1998 was an outlier – a single year much warmer than the years before and after. If you disregard that single outlier, there has indeed been a constant and statistically significant warming. Anyway, this claim is not even literally true anymore since 2014 was even warmer than 1998.
The significance of manmade GW warming cannot be negotiated anymore. Really every recognized scientist worldwide will acknowledge this today.
Donald Trump doesn’t think so, okay, but that’s what i would have expected :-)
Very valid point, Silvaire, that population growth is a real problem. Not only for energy but of course also for all other resources.
The suggestion to reduce the population in Europe may be a valid one, but note that it is already underway, disregarding refugee influx for a moment. Most families have less children than needed to support the population number. The only thing that hampers the reduction is that the oldies are healthier than ever!
Kwlf: while Africa may be waking up to reduce birth rates, China has relaxed the one-child policy. There’s where the real numbers are.
aart wrote:
China has relaxed the one-child policy. There’s where the real numbers are.
No… partly China has relaxed the one-child policy because it can and partly because it must: like Europe, it risks becoming top-heavy with lots of retired elderly people and too few working youngsters to support them. The population predictions for China are that the population may well start shrinking shortly.
aart wrote:
but note that it is already underway, disregarding refugee influx for a moment
Reality check: Europe (EU) still has a population growth rate of 0.22%. Refugee influx accounts for roughly half of that.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d set a public goal for 60% reduction of European population.
60% of me are now very much offended!
