More of an environmental Skyhawk, actually

That was a great watch - it’s cool to find out the history.

I must say, society is much better off without widespread use of TEL, but as someone who used to do racecar things, TEL works like magic. A little goes a LONG way, and Midgely did legitimately stumble upon something with very high effect for the concentration (they also touch on ethanol in the video which has the drawback of needing a lot).

I’m not opposed to using it in a small scale racing context (like definitely not NASCAR) because it’s so fucking useful and the quantity is unlikely to cause harm. Unfortunately so much bad has been done with it at this point, I don’t think that’s a very popular opinion.

Whatever your views on it, it’s the only thing that can make gasoline legitimately 120+ octane, and that has huge implications for some types of racing.

It’s approved as of last fall, but the FAA spent well over a decade stonewalling it with unnecessary bureaucracy.

Now we’re left with the chicken-and-egg problem of the market, where nobody will offer unleaded because it’s more expensive, but it’s expensive because it’s not widely used. The feds should subsidize it down to $4/gal for 5 years to get it off the ground.

Yes, some light planes have fuel economy similar to efficient cars (which is very impressive considering how fast they are relative to cars). If you consider the advantages of direct, straight line routing, it’s not hard for planes to do better on fuel economy.

We’re not talking about jets here, though some of those do very well in mpg on a per passenger basis.

I gave up kids to have flying!

Worth noting that the amount of aviation fuel burned annually should make it a negligible contributer to environmental lead contamination compared to widespread automotive use (although I’m sure it contributes on airport grounds).

Edit: All the pilots I know want to use unleaded, and it was recently approved after being stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare process, but market forces may make it hard to adopt.

It was caught in FAA-Bureauctatic hell for 15+ years and just approved last year. It will be still be slow to become available and adopt for reasons that are complicated, but amount to bureaucracy, economics, and an insane degree of risk aversion. The vast majority of pilots want unleaded and it’s also much better for the engines.

Have you seen the unbelievably entitled, self-centered assholes who play music on trails because they’re too cool for headphones and fuck what anyone else wants?

There’s a lot of land in North Dakota as well. It’s super flat, boring, and winters are ultra cold and windy as hell. There are very good reasons it has a low population. It’s further south than most of the places in Canada you’re talking about.

EDIT: I’d like to add that “we’re not overpopulated, there’s plenty of land!” isn’t really the whole story, either. Occupying every square mile that can be occupied should not be a goal. Leaving more places in a natural state without human impact is highly desirable, IMO.

Huge areas of Canada are at high latitudes and very dark, cold, and inhospitable in the winter. Something like 50% of Canada’s population lives south of the northern extent of the US (i.e. south of Seattle, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, half of MN, and almost all of MT/ND.

https://www.secretmuseum.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/canada-population-density-map-this-is-how-empty-canada-really-is-photos-huffpost-canada-of-canada-population-density-map.gif

Huge areas of Australia are desert.

The population distribution of Canada and Australia is not an accident. The coasts and more temperate climates are much more hospitable.

It sounds like we generally agree that there are structural reasons quite aside from population growth, and agree that they desperately need to be addressed (i.e. regulatory). I’m arguing from the perspective that we should absolutely attempt to address these reasons, but that ANY population growth from any source is essentially adding fuel to the fire.

I think a lot of emphasis gets put on “supply-side” solutions that sound a lot like “just build more houses, NBD!”. From what I’ve observed we can’t get there with the existing land without (IMO) excessive densification and/or sprawl which has an easily-felt deleterious effect on livability. I’ve spent the last couple of decades living in very different places, and watched them change due to growth. In all cases growth has caused traffic that never existed before, MASSIVE crowding of local attractions that can’t be mitigated without restrictive permitting, and astronomical increases in the price of real estate. Without being hyperbolic at all, more population has quite literally been felt as less freedom. Some of this is due to the rise of the global middle class, but they have their hands in my home places at the expense of locals, and it’s gone from great to hellish in about 20-30 years.

The problems with new housing seem to be:

1. limited/no affordable land available in places where people have historically lived (and which have jobs, nice weather, natural attractions, etc)
2. materials are at a premium due to increased global demand (and, admittedly the pandemic)
3. Local first-world labor has never been more expensive - labor doesn’t scale like computing and related tech
4. densification in the form of attached dwellings on small land parcels, and no/fewer personal vehicles is a large decrease in QOL compared to the historic “American dream”

Like if you think you can find 10 million people to give up LA/Seattle/NY/etc and move to central Kansas, where there’s no ocean, no mountains, no lakes, no jobs, and nothing to do, more power to you. People live in interesting places for good reasons, and other places are cheap for good reasons.

An adjacent point: nature abhors a vacuum. If the QOL is better in the US and there are ~8 billion possible candidates for immigration, our population could easily double in a month. The demand is there. We could adopt a policy of open borders until QOL reaches equilibrium at some much lower level and immigration stops - we could also make immigration virtually impossible - or anything in-between. I’m of the opinion that lower influx means > QOL pretty close to 100% of the time.

EDIT: tl;dr - more individuals translates to reduced individual freedom. I’m not going to get weird and libertarian about it, but that’s the relationship I observe.

I appreciate the data-supported arguments but the comment on doubling was a stated goal of the Canadian national government. The Canadian population is presently projected to double in 26 years. Geographically constrained places with high immigration like Australia and Canada are shockingly unaffordable right now. These places are the canary in the coal mine for the US, which may have plenty of usable land on paper, but has the same issues with a self perpetuating cycle of the major metro areas having all the jobs and limited room to grow. The population is up 50% in my lifetime and I think that accurately reflects real estate becoming increasingly unattainable.

Edit: I guess what I’m saying is that housing-as-investment is wrong, but the basis for housing-as-investment (and indeed all investment) is the projection of increased future demand. In developed nations, this comes from immigration. If the population were shrinking indefinitely, housing certainly wouldn’t be increasing in value

That was a different time before a reasonable house in a major metro area cost $500k-$1m. Capitalists want endless population growth forever to make their investments go up, and the only way they can get it in educated nations with low birth rate is immigration. Canada explicitly targets it. The population is doubling at the expense of affordability. I’ll never be able to afford a house because everyone wants to live here, and immigration policy is set by those who favor endless growth.