Look I get it, I love cycling and own a few nice bikes ($1-4k) but let’s not pretend that the value is there at $11k. Outside of world tour riders, there’s no way you’re actually faster or more comfortable at $11k than about $5k. You already get carbon frame/wheels and near top of the line components for $5k-ish. So to OPs question, to me that’s the upper limit for what fancy bikes should cost for actual normal humans. Realistically 2k for road/gravel, maybe 3k for MTB is jusy barely slower and almost imperceptively less nice than 5k bikes. “High end” is only meaningful if there are actual tangible benefits that come along with the price tag. I support anyone out there on bikes, i just think $11k is a bit silly in a world with this much wealth inequality. I’m sure some folks think the exact same thing about me and my bikes tbf. Have fun and be safe out there.

What does this have to do with any economist? Are they supposed to be able to predict a cheeto imposing absurd global tarriffs? “Once in a lifetime” is just an expression the media likes to use.

It seems like the obvious solution is to use education and career experience to bring folks over that will support their economies. The side benefit will be relatively good cultural alignment. No need to bring race into this at all, just do the brain drain.

I am of the fuckcars persuasion myself, so while this economic policy is beyond stupid I can’t help but see a silver lining here.

What a mess. It seems like the fundamental issue here is allowing the grandfathering of old NEM rate structures, much like CA allows folks to grandfather in their old property taxes while screwing over new purchasers. Nobody should expect rate certainty for 20 years into the future, that’s just an absurdly long time period to expect guaranteed rate structures.

It’s not that complicated at a high level really - when nobody has solar, full net metering is reasonably fair. When everyone has solar, the whole scheme collapses because production doesn’t align with usage exactly. So every few years during a rate case, they should all work together and shift the value of solar generation accordingly (likely downward). Folks need to take on a little risk with their major purchases because anything else is even more unfair to early and later adopters. The time value of solar production varies year to year and solar owners should be compensated accordingly. Batteries will bring value back to solar by allowing for load shifting, and much like solar, can be done by individuals or utilities.

Obviously the specific details are muddy as hell and will be contentious, but that’s normal and reasonable compromises usually prevail.

The reality is some east facing panels in LA aren’t that valuable these days. And the person with east facing panels from 5 years ago shouldn’t get massive long term benefits locked in because they did the install earlier.

I live in Colorado, have solar, and fully expect the value of my generation to reduce over time. Expecting full retail value of my excess June production to offset power I badly need in Jan to run my heat pump simply isn’t fair.

Honda is reliable too. I get it, I have an older Outback and I’m trying to keep that thing going until EV prices come down more. Subaru will be adding hybrid crosstreks and foresters soon (Toyota tech). Get the most efficient and reliable car you can and don’t worry about it too much (except don’t buy a Tesla of course). Best thing we can do is advocate for walkable/bikeable/transit oriented development but I’m veering off topic so I’ll stop.

Toyota has significant ownership of Subaru…

Toyota has pushed against efficiency standards for years because their cash cows are their trucks/SUVs with abysmal efficiency. Nothing new here.

It’s not a “feel good statement”, it’s reality. Gas is terrible. It’s responsible for a significant portion of climate change and gas stoves cause myriad health issues. This is basic stuff. Of course the transition isn’t all sunshine and rainbows but electrification is far from some insurmountable ideal, and it can be quite cost effective.

The vast majority of HVAC equipment will be replaced on burnout, and when you do the economics of a new gas furnace (and almost certainly AC these days) vs an ASHP, it’s simply not $30-50k extra. There are state and local incentives, the federal tax credits, utility incentives etc., but I agree the IRA programs are on thin ice (even though Biden awarded funds before leaving). I bought a high end cold climate heat pump for just a few grand more than my neighbor who bought a furnace/AC with similar operating costs. You can get a cheaper ASHP and furnace for something in between cost wise. My state has tripled cold climate heat pump incentives and they are now very competitive with gas systems. I work in the industry and live this every day, it’s not some boondoggle, the grid updates necessary aren’t as dramatic as headlines imply and are already well underway to support vehicle electrification and load growth/resiliency. The PNW is quite mild and people are willing to pay for AC anyway due to heat waves (and wildfire smoke), so going straight to heat pumps is a very cost effective solution. Folks are cancelling gas service left and right and the remaining users will be left with rising fixed costs. Plus as I led with, gas is terrible for your family and the climate (and locally where the wells are).

It’s always the right time to switch to heat pumps and induction stoves. Gas is terrible.

Seems like that would make things easier by skipping a few steps. If the egg already has the bird flu virus, then you just inactivate it and you’re done. Insert egg anally and you’re protected, easy peasy.

Cars checks all the boxes to them - helps with segregation, creates demand for oil, multiple vectors for environmental destruction, weird nostalgia and culture war fodder, another subsidy for rural/suburban voters, and it’s the embodiment of not giving a shit about anyone else’s and being a big boy. But yeah each of the individual factors boils down to spite.

Maybe I’m too stupid, but how was the baseline actually set? The article implies the 2024 consumption sets the baseline, but we probably don’t know that value yet and they just talk about how the baseline is higher than 2023 (and “current”) usage. Obviously Kigali timelines are slower than we all want, but at the same time having global agreement (mostly, US will probably reneg) and achievable targets may be better than everyone failing (cough Paris). Remember the Montreal protocol is an incredible success story in international cooperation, even if in hindsight it seems like the most basic bare minimum to us today. The problem is the chemical industry is pushing HFOs as HFC replacements, but these are also dogshit because they break down into PFAS.

We need to go straight to natural refrigeratonts. There are many passionate individuals, companies, and policies driving us towarda this and we’ll get there. For anyone buying refrigerant containing things, look for R290, R744, R600a if you have a choice when you buy refrigerators, heat pump dryers, heat pumps, cars, etc. This is a big deal!

These are some really great points. This to me is a reflection of our (in particular US) view that energy is something unlimited and cheap. The idea that we might simply do less or optimize to anything other than profit is laughable to most folks, so efficiency barely enters the conversation except as a means to profit further in some niche cases after the fact. The organizational changes required to correct the issues you identified seem truly insurmountable, unfortunately, but you’re absolutely right.

It’s both. Electrified transport and electrified heat are displacing fossil use directly. Global ICE sales peaked in 2017 and appear to be in permanent decline.

What matters is total carbon, and unfortunately 2024 appears to have been another record year. Hopefully 2024 was peak and 2025 is the start of declining carbon. Every other metric is just an interesting part of the overall story.

That’s fair, I was more referring to the casual internet use so many folks enjoy (YouTube, maps, search for literally everything, all the apps and updates, etc). Denying them revenue through ad blockers and avoiding their direct services gets you pretty close though.

How many times did you ping Google servers today? AI bullshit aside, this is still on us for using all of their services. Yes they need to find a way to deliver their services sustainably but it’s our job to regulate them and force the issue and not just hope corpos do the right thing (they won’t).

Plus there’s always the backup plan, which is using a sharpie to draw a new hurricane trajectory on a poster.

Gas is not a simple global market like oil is and there isn’t a single methane price everyone pays. That would require significantly more LNG terminals around the world and policy changes. This is precisely why gas companies want to build more LNG terminals - this would increase volume while raising domestic prices (and likely lowering foreign prices). It’s not a simple econ 101 global free market though.

Let’s pack it up then, if there’s a cooling tower in a picture we can’t use it, even if it’s actually a picture of a sprawling petrochemical plant with a massive smokestack emitting CO2 that also happens to include the cooling towers that are part of the facility.

The article literally cites “relentless overplowing” as a primary cause. Of course that means removing the existing plants (i.e. native grasses) in the context of converting the prairies to farmland. Not really sure what additional context you are providing, or expecting the article to convey here. Cool pic though.