When California asks people to buy electric vehicles, then tells them not to charge the cars, we witness more than fiscal stupidity. The middle class is being forced to shoulder the burden of a haphazard green agenda that squeezes regular Americans in the short term for the sake of achieving foolish long-term energy goals. California’s clumsy attempt to transition to renewable energy is mirrored nationally by the Biden administration.
Americans are paying higher prices now because of Biden’s regulatory war on fossil fuels. Senior Editor David Harsanyi put it well when he wrote, “Democrats are rigging the market to force you to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when you already have increasingly efficient models in your driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world.”
“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added. “Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”
As David points out, a Berkeley study found over 90 percent of taxpayer subsidies for electric vehicles went to the top income quintile as of 2015. The numbers overall are striking. “Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other ‘clean energy’ investments,” wrote the authors. “We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%.”
Taxpayers have been funding subsidies for people who can already afford them. Money goes out of their paychecks and into their rich neighbors’ Chinese solar panels. Renewables in general will replace our dependence on OPEC with dependence on China. Alternatively, we could allow Americans to go about business as usual while eliminating excess emissions where it’s affordable (see: carbon capture), improving nuclear technology, and making other energy sources more efficient.
If countries like China and the quickly growing India don’t meet emission reduction goals, Americans will have suffered needlessly. China emits more greenhouse gases than every developed country combined.
Higher fuel prices don’t affect John Kerry like they affect the 58 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. For the laptop class, much of which resides in walkable cities, an extra few bucks in gas or taxes is annoying but fine. For others, it’s enormous stress, it’s a second job, it’s less time with their children, more debt, or fewer drives to see relatives.
Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving. That amounts to a war on American culture. It’s a political gift to Republicans and a moral imperative to fight. Not for the sake of cheap cuts of beef at Outback Steakhouse, but for the sake of communities and human flourishing.
When white-collar Republican politicians talk about “pain at the pump” this fall, what they’re really talking about is the consequence of a culture war on America’s middle class — one that burdens the unwashed masses with lifestyle sacrifices our elites can weather more easily or simply refuse to give up altogether.
Many wealthy policymakers and investors will profit majorly off the transition to “clean” energy while they force others to change their lives and fork over more of their paychecks. This is easy messaging for Republicans. Worried about culture warriors talking about Drag Queen Story Hours and abortion? First, don’t be. Second, consider “ESG” — environmental and social governance — as an all-encompassing corporate agenda to join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood to bulldoze our culture. The left sees these causes as intertwined, and the right must understand that.
As working-class voters shift away from the Democratic Party, the left’s agenda becomes increasingly entangled with the interests of elites, from environmentalism to student loan bailouts to marriage to policing. Republicans should be shrewd enough to recognize the opportunity and smart enough to understand the stakes are higher than partisan politics.
I'm curious as to where you sourced this from.
I agree that electric vehicles are not the end-all some make them out to be. But they are an slight improvement on gas powered vehicles, so before we dismiss them out right, that might be considered. Also, it is obvious to all but the most stubborn climate change deniers that something has to be done to get us off of using so much petroleum. There is no viable argument against that.
“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added.
“Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”
That's highly debatable. I'd like to know who came up with that idea and where.
Agree other highly populated countries need to do their share to reduce emissions. No argument there!
"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."
Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving." Absolutely! To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
When California asks people to buy electric vehicles, then tells them not to charge the cars, we witness more than fiscal stupidity. The middle class is being forced to shoulder the burden of a haphazard green agenda that squeezes regular Americans in the short term for the sake of achieving foolish long-term energy goals. California’s clumsy attempt to transition to renewable energy is mirrored nationally by the Biden administration.
Americans are paying higher prices now because of Biden’s regulatory war on fossil fuels. Senior Editor David Harsanyi put it well when he wrote, “Democrats are rigging the market to force you to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when you already have increasingly efficient models in your driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world.”
“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added. “Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”
As David points out, a Berkeley study found over 90 percent of taxpayer subsidies for electric vehicles went to the top income quintile as of 2015. The numbers overall are striking. “Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other ‘clean energy’ investments,” wrote the authors. “We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%.”
Taxpayers have been funding subsidies for people who can already afford them. Money goes out of their paychecks and into their rich neighbors’ Chinese solar panels. Renewables in general will replace our dependence on OPEC with dependence on China. Alternatively, we could allow Americans to go about business as usual while eliminating excess emissions where it’s affordable (see: carbon capture), improving nuclear technology, and making other energy sources more efficient.
If countries like China and the quickly growing India don’t meet emission reduction goals, Americans will have suffered needlessly. China emits more greenhouse gases than every developed country combined.
Higher fuel prices don’t affect John Kerry like they affect the 58 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. For the laptop class, much of which resides in walkable cities, an extra few bucks in gas or taxes is annoying but fine. For others, it’s enormous stress, it’s a second job, it’s less time with their children, more debt, or fewer drives to see relatives.
Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving. That amounts to a war on American culture. It’s a political gift to Republicans and a moral imperative to fight. Not for the sake of cheap cuts of beef at Outback Steakhouse, but for the sake of communities and human flourishing.
When white-collar Republican politicians talk about “pain at the pump” this fall, what they’re really talking about is the consequence of a culture war on America’s middle class — one that burdens the unwashed masses with lifestyle sacrifices our elites can weather more easily or simply refuse to give up altogether.
Many wealthy policymakers and investors will profit majorly off the transition to “clean” energy while they force others to change their lives and fork over more of their paychecks. This is easy messaging for Republicans. Worried about culture warriors talking about Drag Queen Story Hours and abortion? First, don’t be. Second, consider “ESG” — environmental and social governance — as an all-encompassing corporate agenda to join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood to bulldoze our culture. The left sees these causes as intertwined, and the right must understand that.
As working-class voters shift away from the Democratic Party, the left’s agenda becomes increasingly entangled with the interests of elites, from environmentalism to student loan bailouts to marriage to policing. Republicans should be shrewd enough to recognize the opportunity and smart enough to understand the stakes are higher than partisan politics.
I'm curious as to where you sourced this from.
I agree that electric vehicles are not the end-all some make them out to be. But they are an slight improvement on gas powered vehicles, so before we dismiss them out right, that might be considered. Also, it is obvious to all but the most stubborn climate change deniers that something has to be done to get us off of using so much petroleum. There is no viable argument against that.
“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added.
“Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”
That's highly debatable. I'd like to know who came up with that idea and where.
Agree other highly populated countries need to do their share to reduce emissions. No argument there!
"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."
Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving." Absolutely! To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.
That’s a good take Bri, EVs are not there yet, but once the solid state battery is ready, and we generate electricity with more renewables, it will be a big improvement for the climate. Until that occurs, we need to end coal immediately. I wonder if TJ agrees?
When California asks people to buy electric vehicles, then tells them not to charge the cars, we witness more than fiscal stupidity. The middle class is being forced to shoulder the burden of a haphazard green agenda that squeezes regular Americans in the short term for the sake of achieving foolish long-term energy goals. California’s clumsy attempt to transition to renewable energy is mirrored nationally by the Biden administration.
Americans are paying higher prices now because of Biden’s regulatory war on fossil fuels. Senior Editor David Harsanyi put it well when he wrote, “Democrats are rigging the market to force you to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when you already have increasingly efficient models in your driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world.”
“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added. “Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”
As David points out, a Berkeley study found over 90 percent of taxpayer subsidies for electric vehicles went to the top income quintile as of 2015. The numbers overall are striking. “Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other ‘clean energy’ investments,” wrote the authors. “We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%.”
Taxpayers have been funding subsidies for people who can already afford them. Money goes out of their paychecks and into their rich neighbors’ Chinese solar panels. Renewables in general will replace our dependence on OPEC with dependence on China. Alternatively, we could allow Americans to go about business as usual while eliminating excess emissions where it’s affordable (see: carbon capture), improving nuclear technology, and making other energy sources more efficient.
If countries like China and the quickly growing India don’t meet emission reduction goals, Americans will have suffered needlessly. China emits more greenhouse gases than every developed country combined.
Higher fuel prices don’t affect John Kerry like they affect the 58 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. For the laptop class, much of which resides in walkable cities, an extra few bucks in gas or taxes is annoying but fine. For others, it’s enormous stress, it’s a second job, it’s less time with their children, more debt, or fewer drives to see relatives.
Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving. That amounts to a war on American culture. It’s a political gift to Republicans and a moral imperative to fight. Not for the sake of cheap cuts of beef at Outback Steakhouse, but for the sake of communities and human flourishing.
When white-collar Republican politicians talk about “pain at the pump” this fall, what they’re really talking about is the consequence of a culture war on America’s middle class — one that burdens the unwashed masses with lifestyle sacrifices our elites can weather more easily or simply refuse to give up altogether.
Many wealthy policymakers and investors will profit majorly off the transition to “clean” energy while they force others to change their lives and fork over more of their paychecks. This is easy messaging for Republicans. Worried about culture warriors talking about Drag Queen Story Hours and abortion? First, don’t be. Second, consider “ESG” — environmental and social governance — as an all-encompassing corporate agenda to join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood to bulldoze our culture. The left sees these causes as intertwined, and the right must understand that.
As working-class voters shift away from the Democratic Party, the left’s agenda becomes increasingly entangled with the interests of elites, from environmentalism to student loan bailouts to marriage to policing. Republicans should be shrewd enough to recognize the opportunity and smart enough to understand the stakes are higher than partisan politics.
I'm curious as to where you sourced this from.
I agree that electric vehicles are not the end-all some make them out to be. But they are an slight improvement on gas powered vehicles, so before we dismiss them out right, that might be considered. Also, it is obvious to all but the most stubborn climate change deniers that something has to be done to get us off of using so much petroleum. There is no viable argument against that.
“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added.
“Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”
That's highly debatable. I'd like to know who came up with that idea and where.
Agree other highly populated countries need to do their share to reduce emissions. No argument there!
"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."
Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving." Absolutely! To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.
That’s a good take Bri, EVs are not there yet, but once the solid state battery is ready, and we generate electricity with more renewables, it will be a big improvement for the climate. Until that occurs, we need to end coal immediately. I wonder if TJ agrees?
Yes, L, solid state batteries would reduce the carbon footprint of EVs- less material, lighter, faster to charge. The question is (and to me it's a rhetorical one) is, Can we sustainably have electric vehicles for anyone who wants one in a planet with 8 billion people living on it? I believe the truth is that our quest to continue being a car culture can only happen at the expense of the health of the planet, especially as that mode of transportation becomes universally desired (and we have them, why should not people in Myanmar or Somalia or Mozambique and all the other 3rd world countries want cars of their own?)
Totally agree, using coal must end.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."
Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving." Absolutely! To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.
Yah, that's an interesting statement. It seems the goal is not to make any sacrifices, and be able to keep doing what we're doing, and the problem will fix itself.
I don't generally agree with that. The more people there are, the more people are out there polluting and consuming resources. The earth has a finite supply of resources, so that's less resources for everyone (or we speed up to the point the earth can't sustain it's population).
but yah burning less fuel, eating less steak, and having fewer kids would result in less pollution lol.
So far the best idea anyone's got is EV's, but I don't think we're avoiding the trainwreck if that's all we come up with.
"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."
Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to
normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving." Absolutely! To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.
Yah, that's an interesting statement. It seems the goal is not to make any sacrifices, and be able to keep doing what we're doing, and the problem will fix itself.
I don't generally agree with that. The more people there are, the more people are out there polluting and consuming resources. The earth has a finite supply of resources, so that's less resources for everyone (or we speed up to the point the earth can't sustain it's population).
but yah burning less fuel, eating less steak, and having fewer kids would result in less pollution lol.
So far the best idea anyone's got is EV's, but I don't think we're avoiding the trainwreck if that's all we come up with.
Yeah, exactly, Zod. These issues, of course, just won't go away by magic. And I agree (sorry to say) about the coming train wreck. I think at this point, the question is, How well will we deal with it. Some little part of me holds out hope that we will rise to the challenge. I mean. after all, no one wants to suffer!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's an article that is right leaning for sure, but it does show how you can easily divide people. "Dems don't care about the middle class and only their agenda!"
What I do get from it and it does make you wonder why is Cali's elec grid sucks. We have known that for years, so why the push for something that uses more electric burden on the system?
It's an article that is right leaning for sure, but it does show how you can easily divide people. "Dems don't care about the middle class and only their agenda!"
What I do get from it and it does make you wonder why is Cali's elec grid sucks. We have known that for years, so why the push for something that uses more electric burden on the system?
Our electric grid sucks partly due (at least here in northern California) to the habit of PG&E giving million dollar bonuses to its top brass instead of upgrading it's infrastructure. But two major fires (the one the burned down the town of Paradise and part of Magalia, and the one that burned down a neighborhood in Santa Rosa) kicked them into gear and they have been doing an excellent job now of rebuilding much of that ailing infrastructure.
The other problem is the simple fact of California being literally loved to death. WAY too many people have moved here (and, to some degree at least, too many people reproduce in ways that expand population). Add to that the massive tourism that constantly flows into California (State and National Parks that used to have fairly easy access now often require several months advance reservations), and what we have is a huge overload of people. If visitors could see how much this state has changed just in my lifetime, they would be shocked. It is not at all the same place it was in one mere lifetime. This may be true of most any place, but few places have seen such changes as we have in most parts of this state.
As to why the push for EV's which will further over-tax the electric grid? First off, ask billionaires like Elon Musk and what matters to them. Also, if we spent all the money that is going into EV's on upgrading and expanding railroads, light rail, and other public transportation, and if more people lived closer to work, carpooled, and consolidated errands for each outing, and stopped the ridiculous waste of petroleum on things like jet skis, motor boats, massive pickup trucks for show and commuting, leaf blowers, rock bands with fleets of trucks, etc, the problem would be vastly improved. But, no, we insist on pretending we can carry on this out-dated car culture.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
...Or, perhaps a band could announce a full 30 stop US tour, performed over multiple legs, maximizing chances fans won't drive 1300 miles to catch two shows (like this idiot), because the only show 30 miles from his home, first in 6 years, in a metropolitan area of 25 million, features fans traveling from all over the world to see them at this alleged "iconic" arena, and tickets were out of control.
And the singer of this band actually was publicly happy about all this needless travel. Talk about abundent use of fuel.
...Or, perhaps a band could announce a full 30 stop US tour, performed over multiple legs, maximizing chances fans won't drive 1300 miles to catch two shows (like this idiot), because the only show 30 miles from his home, first in 6 years, in a metropolitan area of 25 million, features fans traveling from all over the world to see them at this alleged "iconic" arena, and tickets were out of control.
And the singer of this band actually was publicly happy about all this needless travel. Talk about abundent use of fuel.
It all could start here. But it won't.
Ouch, bummer.
I'm certainly not against bands touring, but there are better ways. Maybe more big-time bands could take a cue from this idea, because traveling by train is the most fuel efficient way to go:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Billionaire No More: Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company
A half century after founding the outdoor
apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who
became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on
capitalism, has given the company away.
Rather
than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife
and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia,
valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed trust and a
nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company’s
independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a
year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land
around the globe.
The
trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their
closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its
commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its
profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the
family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift.
The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its
common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the
Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the
company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because
the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make
unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit
for its donation.
MORE AT LINK.
What a hero Mr Chouinard is, for me, more than ever. I absolutely love this man and his efforts
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Billionaire No More: Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company
A half century after founding the outdoor
apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who
became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on
capitalism, has given the company away.
Rather
than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife
and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia,
valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed trust and a
nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company’s
independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a
year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land
around the globe.
The
trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their
closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its
commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its
profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the
family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift.
The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its
common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the
Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the
company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because
the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make
unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit
for its donation.
MORE AT LINK.
What a hero Mr Chouinard is, for me, more than ever. I absolutely love this man and his efforts
This is wonderful! Thanks so much for sharing, Brian
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Billionaire No More: Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company
A half century after founding the outdoor
apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who
became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on
capitalism, has given the company away.
Rather
than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife
and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia,
valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed trust and a
nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company’s
independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a
year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land
around the globe.
The
trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their
closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its
commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its
profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the
family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift.
The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its
common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the
Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the
company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because
the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make
unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit
for its donation.
MORE AT LINK.
What a hero Mr Chouinard is, for me, more than ever. I absolutely love this man and his efforts
This is wonderful! Thanks so much for sharing, Brian
Glad you enjoyed reading it, Ben!
You also might like his excellent book, Let My People Go Surfing. The book is a combination of biography, history of the Patagonia Company, and template for an environmentally responsible way to do business. I just loved it!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Sag harbor is where Billy Joel lives. There is money in that area.
Interesting day for this..
if we get a major storm residents will scream and yell bloody murder when it takes time to get out of town crews all the way to the south fork.
at the very least politicians should hold voters responsible for their decision (lol) that impact restoration. If it’s more important to not disturb nature, so be it, but take responsibility for it
no one likes to visit LI. It’s murder getting thru the city and getting out to the hamptons is even worse. Getting crews onto the island is extremely challenging, they’ll fill up the needs anywhere else impacted before trekking out here. The state mandated razor thin full time crews, which means we need out of town crews to get the lights back on. We have millions of trees and traffic that are no comparison to places like FL. BTW there are something like 30,000 crews less than 24 hours after a storm waiting to help that state. You never see that on the island, no one wants to be here, including Pearl Jam
Yet long islanders will stand in the way of improvements with no understanding why it’s tremendously challenging restoring electricity in this location. It’s not just this project, same thing happens all the time.
Sag harbor is where Billy Joel lives. There is money in that area.
Interesting day for this..
if we get a major storm residents will scream and yell bloody murder when it takes time to get out of town crews all the way to the south fork.
at the very least politicians should hold voters responsible for their decision (lol) that impact restoration. If it’s more important to not disturb nature, so be it, but take responsibility for it
no one likes to visit LI. It’s murder getting thru the city and getting out to the hamptons is even worse. Getting crews onto the island is extremely challenging, they’ll fill up the needs anywhere else impacted before trekking out here. The state mandated razor thin full time crews, which means we need out of town crews to get the lights back on. We have millions of trees and traffic that are no comparison to places like FL. BTW there are something like 30,000 crews less than 24 hours after a storm waiting to help that state. You never see that on the island, no one wants to be here, including Pearl Jam
Yet long islanders will stand in the way of improvements with no understanding why it’s tremendously challenging restoring electricity in this location. It’s not just this project, same thing happens all the time.
Anything east of Meadowbrook is not worth seeing IMO sans the Sunken Meadow park and robert Moses Causeway. Everything in the middle is poop. The Hamptons? Never understood why people hype that up so much?
But, you are right. Everything should be underground and not in the air anymore. If they don't want it there it needs to have an alternate route.
Ha! Mind you I'm speaking from a traveling aspect. Montauk is great when no people are there.
I'm fed up w the traffic and amount of people on LI. I live 30 minutes from lots of things and don't need to travel east until fall and spring when it's less crowded. I know you understand, lol!!!
Ha! Mind you I'm speaking from a traveling aspect. Montauk is great when no people are there.
I'm fed up w the traffic and amount of people on LI. I live 30 minutes from lots of things and don't need to travel east until fall and spring when it's less crowded. I know you understand, lol!!!
I'm in Long Beach.
I’m in Huntington and many around the US don’t get how confining it is living on LI, outside the beautiful beaches on both the south and north shores.
Despite plenty of areas having poor traffic like socal or maybe NC, the island is unique. We need to battle thru the biggest city, two rivers/bridges, to go anywhere. The ocean, sound and bays are gorgeous, especially Montauk, but getting to Camden or Ottawa is a toxic battle to get thru the biggest city by far in US /Canada. How about the trains? Due to construction, haven’t had reliable weekend service in five years. Thanks for that honesty, cuomo!
Ha! Mind you I'm speaking from a traveling aspect. Montauk is great when no people are there.
I'm fed up w the traffic and amount of people on LI. I live 30 minutes from lots of things and don't need to travel east until fall and spring when it's less crowded. I know you understand, lol!!!
I'm in Long Beach.
I’m in Huntington and many around the US don’t get how confining it is living on LI, outside the beautiful beaches on both the south and north shores.
Despite plenty of areas having poor traffic like socal or maybe NC, the island is unique. We need to battle thru the biggest city, two rivers/bridges, to go anywhere. The ocean, sound and bays are gorgeous, especially Montauk, but getting to Camden or Ottawa is a toxic battle to get thru the biggest city by far in US /Canada. How about the trains? Due to construction, haven’t had reliable weekend service in five years. Thanks for that honesty, cuomo!
Huntington line has been a mess for a few years now. It was one of the better LIRR runs there too.
Anyone East of the Meadowbrook has an awful commute West...
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
I think at this point, the question is, How well will we deal with it. Some little part of me holds out hope that we will rise to the challenge. I mean. after all, no one wants to suffer!
What I do get from it and it does make you wonder why is Cali's elec grid sucks. We have known that for years, so why the push for something that uses more electric burden on the system?
And the singer of this band actually was publicly happy about all this needless travel. Talk about abundent use of fuel.
It all could start here. But it won't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate-philanthropy-chouinard.html?unlocked_article_code=N9aujNsA_-wVTubdeaeYy2Ukw6KvhoyChfVP9TMfIVsfnKyMOCBlHgUlJ9MNUAiMY4t0q29PbcB8QtJPAFLNYn1s81d3fMUd7xljJ7giJBLc4A5pXkpsHrOXt62Ulo2Fh_pln9e1m5jpXbVQmqMru-BbnTqnDqXhEEu1npi6WZUrtgAL91VoettCdPO_swE7Cgcf1NA6OLe7AqnjUDvClneFSIvc9-irWWxbuPQk3nrfYIiZimBGO2uwafFi46I2vkCLu22OsrhqsnUJ5h2vuWi9XDw7jda_dD4ycd01EKSX-mgoC7w2YXy5WY028BOneYUBDc8uwvTwRSwxd033y2crbsl4b05sEM9IlsfDHNYWT6E&smid=share-url
Billionaire No More: Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company
A half century after founding the outdoor apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on capitalism, has given the company away.
Rather than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia, valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed trust and a nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company’s independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land around the globe.
The trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Here is an older article.
https://www.danspapers.com/2022/06/pseg-li-host-greenbelt-cable-hearing/
Newer article
https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2022-09-28/the-fight-to-preserve-the-long-pond-greenbelt-continues
Sag harbor is where Billy Joel lives. There is money in that area.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Glad you enjoyed reading it, Ben!
at the very least politicians should hold voters responsible for their decision (lol) that impact restoration. If it’s more important to not disturb nature, so be it, but take responsibility for it
no one likes to visit LI. It’s murder getting thru the city and getting out to the hamptons is even worse. Getting crews onto the island is extremely challenging, they’ll fill up the needs anywhere else impacted before trekking out here. The state mandated razor thin full time crews, which means we need out of town crews to get the lights back on. We have millions of trees and traffic that are no comparison to places like FL. BTW there are something like 30,000 crews less than 24 hours after a storm waiting to help that state. You never see that on the island, no one wants to be here, including Pearl Jam
Yet long islanders will stand in the way of improvements with no understanding why it’s tremendously challenging restoring electricity in this location. It’s not just this project, same thing happens all the time.
But, you are right. Everything should be underground and not in the air anymore. If they don't want it there it needs to have an alternate route.
I'm fed up w the traffic and amount of people on LI. I live 30 minutes from lots of things and don't need to travel east until fall and spring when it's less crowded. I know you understand, lol!!!
I'm in Long Beach.
Anyone East of the Meadowbrook has an awful commute West...
On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful.
Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels