Climate Change

[Buster Highmen]

I see them as the same thing.

I didn't get that at all from what you wrote above.

To wit:

I'm calling bullshit on any single person willing to sacrifice either money, convenience, affluence, or lifestyle (or a combo of any of these) to make any meaningful benefit.

With which I completely disagree.

One is done upstream of the individual, the other by the individual. Most of them done by the individual cost money and are more easily achievable for those with some sort of disposable income, or a real dedication to prioritizing money to those choices.

There's a lots of meaningful stuff people can do that's affordable. Eat less farmed meat, less processed food, recycle, buy used, stay local.

Most of the problem is the tribal rejection of what has been pretty well established. Once people see that, I think they're more willing to take steps, however small.

The latter are imposed by the government, incentivized by the government, or in the form of taxes or downstream consumer price increases to meet government restrictions.

In the end, they all affect the individual (usually).

Again, I'm kind of confused by the distinction since I don't see government as intentionally run by some disjoint cabal, as cast by the corpocrats and their lobbyists. They're very good at playing the tribal id game.

There's only some truth to the cabalist view because we've let the very wealthy have too much influence in government instead of being better educated voters.

Government in the USA is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people[/i].

[old goat]

That's a very cynical view from a healthcare worker How could you work in a profession "saving lives" and hold such a volatile world view on humanity! Oh the shame of it all.

My grandfather was a lifelong communist who made a lot of money in real estate and insurance. I inherited the gene that lets me hold contradictory views comfortably. (And vascular surgery is rarely about saving lives; more about letting people live out their last days more comfortably.)

It's really quite simple. We need to stop burning shit for heat or power. As soon as possible. We have all kinds of alternatives and most don't require sacrifice, but they will require change. For many, the change won't really affect them (when you flip a light switch you want your lights to come on - do you care what made that happen?). But fossil fuel workers and communities face disruption, and fossil fuel owners will lose value.

This is just the first step, but it's a big one. More than 70% of emissions is from energy. Stop. Burning. Shit.

It's easy to say very hard to do. Figure how many how many cars need to be replaced in the US alone, how many home furnaces, how many windfarms and solar farms. Think of the environmental impact of all that. How do you make that happen in the real world. It's not A to B, it;s A to Z, with a lot of collateral damage.

[Trackhead]

My

I inherited the gene that lets me hold contradictory views comfortably.

All humans have that gene, and it’s not recessive. You just acknowledge it.

[WMD]

It's easy to say very hard to do. Figure how many how many cars need to be replaced in the US alone, how many home furnaces, how many windfarms and solar farms. Think of the environmental impact of all that. How do you make that happen in the real world. It's not A to B, it;s A to Z, with a lot of collateral damage.

Change is hard, for sure. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We just need to take those first steps.

When your furnace is ready to be replaced, replace it with a heat pump. When you need a new car, get an electric one. Hot water heater - yep, replace it with an electric heat pump version when it wears out. Never buy another new fossil fuel powered anything. If electric versions don't work for what you need now, buy a used, not new fossil fuel powered device and go electric when the right device is available.

There will be a lot of mining for all of this but there is modeling that overall mining will decrease by ~80% because we will be building things that last a long time, not digging up stuff to burn it.

This is just the start...

[neufox47]

My grandfather was a lifelong communist who made a lot of money in real estate and insurance. I inherited the gene that lets me hold contradictory views comfortably. (And vascular surgery is rarely about saving lives; more about letting people live out their last days more comfortably.)



It's easy to say very hard to do. Figure how many how many cars need to be replaced in the US alone, how many home furnaces, how many windfarms and solar farms. Think of the environmental impact of all that. How do you make that happen in the real world. It's not A to B, it;s A to Z, with a lot of collateral damage.

Yes, but replacing the energy production, HVAC, appliance and transportation systems is also a major potential economic engine over the next 30-50 years. Sure there will be an environmental impact but far less than if we don’t replace them. And we can minimize it by not allowing mining companies to run rampant and using low carbon energy to make the replacements.

[neufox47]

I don't get decrying individual efforts versus national, cultural or governmental efforts.

I apologize if I came off as dismissing individual efforts. Individual efforts will help but there’s little an individual can do to offset their local power being produced by a coal plant. I was really trying to dismiss the purity test of individual responsibility that Trackhead and so many others promote; that no person can call for collective action unless they themselves have already made significant sacrifices to reduce their carbon footprint.

[Trackhead]

You misread my intent.

My intent was to read the barometer for self sacrifice of money and convenience to improve humanity. Whether that sacrifice was self imposed or by the government.

I personally think we need more financial incentives for replacement of internal combustion motors and inefficient appliances etc. Electric cars/tools are cool, but a financial nudge from the government helps tip the on the fence consumer in there favor.

How much extra in fed taxes do we all have to pay to support rebates, etc?

And, per Harvard smart person. Are EV rebates equitable? That entire concept needs to be reconsidered as it seems it only benefits upper middle class at this point.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00862-3

[k2skier112]

I'd say 1/4 of my neighbors have $25,000+ invested into grid tie solar on their roofs, many drive full EV plug-in cars. I live in an overwhelming republican county. So your assessment is judgmental and biased with an odor of elitism. These are all above average income folks, who can afford environmental affluent things. Much like yourself, environmentalism in solar, EV, etc is an affluent trend not all can afford. The trailer park in town doesn't have any of those things. I think people in my area view solar as a fuck you to "big electricity" and energy independence more than doing something for the environment. The plug-ins are owned by commuters.

I think "living simply" is not only good for the environment, but also the mind/soul. Less "stuff" is liberating. It's also compatible with not having debt, which is equally nice.

Regarding self sacrifice, I don't mean voluntary self sacrifice. I'm talking, how much are you willing to pay out of your income in taxes for infrastructure supporting clean energy, etc? Is the collective willing to say, increase your tax liability by 10-20% if it was efficiently spent by the feds/state on clean energy infrastructure?

Not arguing, just questioning the dedication to the movement.

Your small sample size of Montonians is not indicative of all of Montana. But good for you neighbors...you sure the EV and solar roofed people are all R?

https://seia.org/solar-state-by-state/
41st out of 50
Montana is not a good location for solar installations

Montana Solar Data
Data Current Through: Q2 2024

National Ranking: 41st (28th in 2023)

Total Solar Installed (MW): 305

Total State Solar Jobs: 352

Percentage of State's Electricity from Solar: 1.69

Enough State Solar Installed to Power: 42139 homes

https://www.iseecars.com/states-with...ric-cars-study
43rd out of 50

43
Montana
0.5%


This is what's called a perceived truth vs objective truth

[Trackhead]

Your small sample size of Montonians is not indicative of all of Montana. But good for you neighbors...you sure the EV and solar roofed people are all R?

I don't talk politics with my neighbors, do you?

Something is better than nothing, right? Why belittle Montana as being slower on the uptake of solar?

My neighborhood is mostly new homes, wealthy people moving here from Bozeman, retired. These are the people in my community that have $25,000 of disposable income to invest in solar. Also, solar and latitude are a thing, notice southern states have higher adoption rates. Why is that? Return on investment is easier in Arizona than it is in Montana.

In terms of EV car adoption, Montana is a big state, it's cold as fuck here, there isn't a shit ton of EV infrastructure. Lithium cars inarguably are challenged by distances, and cold. Maybe that has some influence on adoption, as well as income. Most of the states with higher EV use are also states with higher household income.

Do low income people rent, or own homes? Most rent. Would you want to invest whatever $$ in home charging station in a rental home, an apartment, a condo in a place you might only live for a few years? What is the $$ incentive to invest in effecient home appliances/tools for the renter?

There is a bigger picture than politics at play here.

[Buster Highmen]

I do talk politics and environment with my neighbors. I'm surrounded by homes with enormous lawns; I offer to give them trees to plant. I've gotten 1 taker.

And yeah, something like little induhvidual efforts _are_ better than nothing. When combined, that's the groundswell that drives government to encourage more policy and infrastructure that addresses cc. That's the point and it is political.

I'm so fucking stupid, I can't see how in one breath the geas is laid on the gubbermint and simultaneously dismissing politics and the induhvidual. None of these arguments make sense to me.

It just seems so limp wristed to dismiss what each persona can do, how the responsibility is on each of us.

[Trackhead]

I do talk politics and environment with my neighbors. I'm surrounded by homes with enormous lawns; I offer to give them trees to plant. I've gotten 1 taker.

We've planted three aspens, two pines, and two mountain ash on our lot since moving in three years ago. But I'd take you up on the offer if you want to send a donation to Montana for us to plant more.

[Flounder]

Why belittle Montana

Bloody hell, I didn’t belittle Montana. Your original post said you don’t see anyone doing anything at a personal level other than stereotypical comments about immigrants. I posted what I’ve done on a personal level and pointed out others are doing the same. I then suggested that maybe you aren’t seeing it in your area of Montana but it’s happening elsewhere.

Since then you’ve pointed out that contrary to your original post, you see lots of individual action in your area and freaked out that I was elitist for suggesting rural Montana wasn’t doing anything. All I was going on was your post saying you didn’t see anything being done in your area. No intent to belittle Montana.

[Trackhead]

All I was going on was your post saying you didn’t see anything being done in your area. No intent to belittle Montana.

Context is difficult to interpret on forums, sorry.

On a side note, I'm saving money to pay cash for a new car, was looking at RAV4 Prime, plug in hybrid. Doesn't qualify for fed rebate because it is not assembled in US apparently, yet meets the KWH requirements. That kinda blockade is part of the problem for EV adoption. The rebate would put the price similar to regular RAV4, a financial incentive to buy. I guess it's the "Inflation Reduction Act" (Signed by Biden) which apparently amended the fed rebate to require "final assembly" in the United States to qualify for rebate.

So we do good for the economy on one end, and bad for EV adoption (in the short term) on the other end.

[bodywhomper]

It’s interesting, where I live, I try to engage my neighbors and local friends in having less trees and vegetation, in general, and the efficacy and efficiency of broadcast burning for property maintenance. There’s also effort to educate about landscaping and reduce amount of several beautiful invasive. All to reduce wildfire hazard in my neighborhood. Catastrophic wildfires in California result in a lot of emissions (CO2 and more toxic gases from structural fires). And rebuilding neighborhoods or relocating people (currently) results in a lot of new emissions. The federal and state government is trying to throw money at this and focus on disadvantaged communities.

[k2skier112]

I don't talk politics with my neighbors, do you?

Something is better than nothing, right? Why belittle Montana as being slower on the uptake of solar?

My neighborhood is mostly new homes, wealthy people moving here from Bozeman, retired. These are the people in my community that have $25,000 of disposable income to invest in solar. Also, solar and latitude are a thing, notice southern states have higher adoption rates. Why is that? Return on investment is easier in Arizona than it is in Montana.

In terms of EV car adoption, Montana is a big state, it's cold as fuck here, there isn't a shit ton of EV infrastructure. Lithium cars inarguably are challenged by distances, and cold. Maybe that has some influence on adoption, as well as income. Most of the states with higher EV use are also states with higher household income.

Do low income people rent, or own homes? Most rent. Would you want to invest whatever $$ in home charging station in a rental home, an apartment, a condo in a place you might only live for a few years? What is the $$ incentive to invest in effecient home appliances/tools for the renter?

There is a bigger picture than politics at play here.

I like MT, I never "belittled it". Just pointing out that you live in an area that has far more than the average amount of EV's or solar panels in MT as a whole

I even showed you the stats. MT is very hudge and diverse. I'd consider moving there if retirement taxes weren't a sideways move from OR

I should ski Whitefish before I make any absolute statements tho

[Buster Highmen]

It’s interesting, where I live, I try to engage my neighbors and local friends in having less trees and vegetation, in general, and the efficacy and efficiency of broadcast burning for property maintenance. There’s also effort to educate about landscaping and reduce amount of several beautiful invasive. All to reduce wildfire hazard in my neighborhood. Catastrophic wildfires in California result in a lot of emissions (CO2 and more toxic gases from structural fires). And rebuilding neighborhoods or relocating people (currently) results in a lot of new emissions. The federal and state government is trying to throw money at this and focus on disadvantaged communities.

We live in different climates.

Our house is located on acreage that was logged in the 50s or 60s and still has a few huDge cedars, sitka spruces, hemlocks and doug firs. That was native, but lots of developments around here culled the big trees and put in ridiculous mansions with sprawling lawns that don't absorb the rain and radiate heat in the summer. Xeriscaping for us means something different.

[bodywhomper]

I understand and that was the point that I was trying (unsuccessfully?) to make.

“there is the real possibility of creating stand structures with no natural analog, as low-density or low-biomass stands likely have little precedent in moist westside forests.” https://foreststewardshipnotes.wordp...est-structure/

Have mags been following the new DOI desert leases for solar farms and debate by some academics, like Dustin Mulvaney, that there are better and less destructive solutions that could be faster to implement, like PV on rooftops and fallowed fields. Sry if already discussed, I am not keeping up on this thread.

[Buster Highmen]

I understand and that was the point that I was trying (unsuccessfully?) to make.

“there is the real possibility of creating stand structures with no natural analog, as low-density or low-biomass stands likely have little precedent in moist westside forests.” https://foreststewardshipnotes.wordp...est-structure/

It's just nuts to see these developments go in where they take a beautiful stand of what's likely second growth, still 2 to 4 foot diameter, 60 to 100 foot tall trees, and mow it all down and replace it with dense housing with lawns that require watering. In summer those neighborhoods are 5 -8 degrees warmer than ours which has a few decent stands left. So, we plant trees and offer them to the people with the big lawns, who don't see their lawns as a problem. It's just another little thing we try.

Have mags been following the new DOI desert leases for solar farms and debate by some academics, like Dustin Mulvaney, that there are better and less destructive solutions that could be faster to implement, like PV on rooftops and fallowed fields. Sry if already discussed, I am not keeping up on this thread.

I made that point before, that when people say the desert is ugly, I think the ugliest thing is a housing development and that's where the solar panels should go. Less line loss, less environmental disturbance.

[bodywhomper]

I grew up in SoCal burbs. The culture for green water intensive lawns is relatively old. My father grew up with it and my mother conformed to it (she grew up with most soil space used for food growing). My folks’ home has a native garden that doesn’t get watered, some established non-native trees, fruit trees, and a food garden. There are only a few homes in their subdivision with a drought tolerant native-type landscaping. There are local economic incentives for people to replant their landscaping in this manner. In the US, it’s going to be a big cultural lift to shift away from the grassy lawns.

In California, there’s a newly state and federally protected species, the foothill yellow legged frog. One of the reasons the species is in jeopardy is the manipulation of the hydraulic cycles in California due to water development for human consumption and for efforts to conserve protected anadromous fish.

[mcski]

I grew up in the grassy suburbs of LA as well. It completely blew my mind the first time we went to visit relatives in Indiana and none of them had sprinklers. There’s no way lawn grass would grow in SoCal without them but they all had beautiful lawns. I think back in the old days it was a way to show you had money as the English estates all had great big lawns. Grass in SoCal and many areas is an enormous water waste, but it pales in comparison to the water pilaging taking place in the Central Valley by farmers growing water intensive crops like almonds. I love almonds but they waste more water than any other crop in CA

[old goat]

In Sacramento ("City of Trees") the neighborhoods with big old trees are ten degrees cooler than newer or poorer areas. People in the treed neighborhoods try to put in drought tolerant landscaping but the trees still need water and the drough tolerant stuff doesn't do well in the shade. And lawns lower temperature to--by transpiration if not by shade.

If you live in a place like LV, with no trees or lawns then go with the drought tolerant landscape (ie rocks) but humans will be leaving the SW soon anyway. (Sacramento too.)

[bodywhomper]

Lots of data supporting trees and shade in urban and suburban areas for improved quality of human life.

California hydraulic cycle and growing stuff, I think it’s difference compared to the iron belt and the East was popularized in the book East of Eden. Im not sure if there was a widely read account of it before that book was published.

I met an old forester that wrote a book about how the developed areas of the Sierra ended up with so many big and older nonnative trees. Basically, they were imported as fast growing shade trees by immigrants to the area that the immigrants were familiar with. Shade trees were needed to replace all the native trees that were logged for various reasons (eg structures and heating). My understanding is that a similar story can be told throughout older developed areas of Northern California.

[Buster Highmen]

Funny but the hippies that built our place in 1982 put in a sequoia which is now about 70 feet tall. Maybe that was visionary?

I put in natives, red cedars, douglas firs, sitka spruce and hemlocks, though the hemlocks have suffered from the heat of recent years and a few have died.

[PB]

Trees are all well and good, but they require much more maintenance than most people realize, especially in residential/suburban areas. And Dog save us from city planners who think they know what trees to plant and where, and then decide that they're no longer responsible for them. As iconic as redwoods are, they should never be planted in the CA Central Valley.

[abraham]

Of course redwoods aren't a good fit, the Central Valley demands almond trees.