You added an extra 1000 lbs to the heaviest version, then rounded up. The whole entire point of standard weights is so numbskulls don’t just make up numbers for how much things weigh, like you are. The leaf is 350-3900 lbs, not 4900 lbs, not 5000 lbs. Please go back to elementary school.

A leaf is 3500-3900 lbs, not almost 5k lbs

To me the point is more that the post WW2 boom and the resulting ability of a cashier to buy a home and support a family was somewhat an aberration, not a new normal. Something similar could happen again if the conditions were right (much more modest house building via major zoning reform, free education, healthcare, and childcare, high taxes on the wealthy) but we’re not actually achieving those necessary things politically, so here we are. And even if we did achieve all that, new homes won’t look like current new homes because 4000 ft2 suburban homes are fundamentally unsustainable.

Yep. Source: am in Colorado and have triple pane tilt turn windows, and know several others with them. They are super nice and slowly growing in popularity.

We’ve moved from 17% to 40% of total energy production coming from renewables since 2020

This what you said. You’re comparing a 2020 number without nuclear to a 2022 number with nuclear. That’s dumb and misleading. That doesn’t make me a douche, it makes you wrong and petty. Grow up and just try to get your numbers and facts straight.

You said renewables are 40%, which is wrong. Then you sourced articles showing that carbon free sources are 40%, which includes nuclear. Nobody calls nuclear “renewable”, so I suggest getting your language straight so as not to confuse.

Source? I haven’t seen final numbers for 2023 from EIA yet, but 2022 was like 22%. The growth is accelerating as economics change, and in large part the IRA (thanks Biden), but it’s not 40%. I’m speaking of electricity production, but I can’t think of a reasonable metric that’s anywhere near 40% nationally. Let’s try to stick to reality here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

The weak half!

The solution of course is having a payroll type tax that funds parental leave. Everyone pays in, and the government pays out so companies, large and small, don’t have to deal with the issue you’re talking about. I’d like my employer to have zero say in things like this, unless they want to go above and beyond. Same for healthcare. Let companies be companies, and let’s use taxes to find societal needs

How is accelerationism a “long term plan that thinks beyond cutting off your nose to spite your face”? There’s no long term plan at all, it’s simply a false hope that people will rise up when things get shitty enough, and from those ashes some kind of utopia will sprout. That’s not a plan at all, that’s just a dream.

Wen you elect fascists they don’t always allow free and fair elections in the future so this “similar wins int he future” clause is ignorant. Especially when the fascist in question already attempted one coup to stay in power when he lost an election.

Is there some special type of 5000 piece enthusiast puzzle I haven’t heard of? A regular 5000 piece puzzle should take up one large table with a little spillover depending on style and like 50 hours of total work, so easily a month tops. I can’t imagine anyone taking 18 months.

Is that slow? That’s only a year out and I thought in line with everyone else, maybe a few months later. Nobody that bought a VW in the US up until now had any certainty that access to superchargers at all was happening anyway. I’m curious what sales will look like in 2024 with NACS right around the corner.

Assuming your theory is true, you don’t think an extra $7500 in pure profit will have any effect on production? If I was a company I’d try to sell more cars that have massive easy profits…

In reality, there’s a whole price elasticity of demand formula that automakers will attempt to model, and they’ll adjust everything they make to try and maximize profit, both now and in the future.

I agree that the money is much better spent on public transit, trains, bike infrastructure, etc, but that doesn’t mean we get to misrepresent the impact of massive tax credits on the market.

I’m more a fan of sticks than carrots when it comes to stuff like this, but voters need coddling and this will still move the needle. Even assuming automakers capture the full $7500, that’s pure profit and they’re going to try very hard to sell more EVs. And thanks to the IRA, that manufacturing will happen in NA. You’re absolutely right that it’s a corporate subsidy disguised as a consumer tax break, but it will still have a real effect. I’d rather just have proper emissions requirements drive the change and have a carbon fee and dividend of course, but I think this scheme is still better than nothing.

I think I gave off the wrong impression that these are more linked than they are, sorry. Many states require cost effective EE because it’s generally good policy (benefits outweigh costs), and some of those benefits include not having to build new capacity. PUCs generally also support infrastructure investments, and with guaranteed rates of return on most T&D for example, it’s a no brainer. So states are often doing both, and there are varying options about the merits of each. To your question though, one notable recent example is the gas pipeline that Gov Cuomo vetoed, which led to more gas efficiency programs in downstate NY.

I’m also embarrassed to report I can’t think of a good source for you since I’m in the industry, other than primary sources like utility financial statements, rate cases, state regulations, etc. Hope this was helpful - it’s a fascinating industry.

This is not a remotely accurate assessment of demand side management programs. Such programs are overwhelmingly required of IOUs by states since they tend to be cheaper than infrastructure upgrades for everyone. Utilities on the other hand tend to prefer infrastructure upgrades because they get a guaranteed rate of return typically. You have this completely backwards.

Classic, of course you follow with whattaboutism. Like I said, we’ve seen the Russian talking point already. Next.

Also the US isn’t single handedly supporting Ukraine. You need to dramatically increase your whattaboutism to cover the other 50 or so countries.

No amount of nuance will make your core position tenable to those that think Ukraine deserves outside (e.g. NATO) support to protect them from the Russian invaders. You simply don’t think Ukraine deserves support, condemning them to genocide. Everything else you said is weird posturing to try and disguise your actual point. It’s not our first rodeo, we can all see right through this.

Your entire rant boils down to “I disagree with Russia’s invasion, but since they did it anyway they should have no consequences, even when they commit genocide”. A conversation isn’t required to counter this dogshit position.