Crash Watcher: Major chance Europeans will starve after 2030

[stumuzz]

So we choose to live in such inefficient dwellings, heating-wise, that flying to a place where air-conditioning may be needed becomes, perversely, 'viable.'

No AC needed in winter.

Sorry, I thought you were flying to summer.

No North Africa, Canaries get to about 22c during the day and drops to 18c at night.

So, it is still a viable PO solution to fly away for the winter.

[emordnilap]

Peak oil, maybe.

Post, no.

[stumuzz]

Why? we know the outcome of PO. Fuel will get expensive, all fuels.
So if you use less fuel flying away than burning at home. You save.

[emordnilap]

It's better to not burn the fuel at home or fly somewhere sunnier and warmer.

You save.

[JohnB]

Why? we know the outcome of PO. Fuel will get expensive, all fuels.
So if you use less fuel flying away than burning at home. You save.

You could look on it as a selfish option for a small minority. If 60+ million people did it, the logistics of moving them all, and the land and materials used to provide the living spaces, would probably use far more energy than properly insulating their homes in Britain, and wearing more clothes.

[extractorfan]

and wearing more clothes.

but it is my right, I am entitled to wear tee-shirt and shorts at home in the middle of Winter

[stumuzz]

Why? we know the outcome of PO. Fuel will get expensive, all fuels.
So if you use less fuel flying away than burning at home. You save.

You could look on it as a selfish option for a small minority. If 60+ million people did it, the logistics of moving them all, and the land and materials used to provide the living spaces, would probably use far more energy than properly insulating their homes in Britain, and wearing more clothes.

How can using less fuel be selfish?

[JohnB]

and wearing more clothes.

but it is my right, I am entitled to wear tee-shirt and shorts at home in the middle of Winter

I thought the modern lifestyle was all about having more, not less . Despite my efforts to downsize, I will probably add a fleece or slanket to the many layers I'm wearing.

[JohnB]

Why? we know the outcome of PO. Fuel will get expensive, all fuels.
So if you use less fuel flying away than burning at home. You save.

You could look on it as a selfish option for a small minority. If 60+ million people did it, the logistics of moving them all, and the land and materials used to provide the living spaces, would probably use far more energy than properly insulating their homes in Britain, and wearing more clothes.

How can using less fuel be selfish?

A few people doing it may use less fuel, but scale it up as a solution for more people, and we would need a massive increase in airport capacity to shift all the people, encouraging more flying at other times (like how bigger roads soon fill up with more traffic).

[emordnilap]

Pity the poor folk of LA.

[stumuzz]

You could look on it as a selfish option for a small minority. If 60+ million people did it, the logistics of moving them all, and the land and materials used to provide the living spaces, would probably use far more energy than properly insulating their homes in Britain, and wearing more clothes.

How can using less fuel be selfish?

A few people doing it may use less fuel, but scale it up as a solution for more people, and we would need a massive increase in airport capacity to shift all the people, encouraging more flying at other times (like how bigger roads soon fill up with more traffic).

I'm not saying scaling up. The flash of light that was mooted last night i.e. it saves fuel to fly to the sun rather that burn fuel at home still stands?

[stumuzz]

It's better to not burn the fuel at home or fly somewhere sunnier and warmer.

You save.

So you do not burn fuel at home?

[emordnilap]

See earlier post.

[stumuzz]

Which one?

[biffvernon]

Pity the poor folk of LA.

More evidence, as if it were needed, that America is the land of the utterly bonkers.