5 ms·

> This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. It doesn't help when c

> This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. It doesn't help when critics exaggerate what's being suggested. They're an issue advocacy group pushing for regulatory changes that will of course involve a long, slow transition window when actually enacted by the legislature or EPA. They're not asking for agents in jackboots to start seizing gas furnaces tomorrow. They're playing a necessary role in getting a slow-moving regulator to start moving forward on a plan that will take a decade to gradually roll out and that will incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever.

dudebrooo 4y ago
Its just wild that in the last decades of such abundance very little resources are put towards the practical aspects of getting people off fossil fuels - they really just preach from their podium and nothing more - and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium (god help us if anyone or any government takes the rhetoric seriously)
- hwillis 4y ago
  > and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium You're referring to natural gas shortages? If you used the natural gas in europe to generate electricity instead of heat, it would go 3.6x farther with heat pumps. So your rhetoric really seems to ring hollow.
  - yetanotherloser 4y ago
    3.6x, given 50% efficient generation and transmission, would require a heat pump COP about 7.2. Unfortunately real heat pump COPs are 3 or less, meaning the gas goes 1.5x further or less. This is still great (since it saves gas and there are other sources of electric) but unfortunately it's really high monetary cost (since the electric costs about 3x the gas, so even if the heat pump were free, it costs twice as much to run; electric prices follow gas prices closely so they don't get cheaper when gas runs short). So it's a hard sell. I think they're clever devices, I like them, I will probably buy one. But they're no panacea.
- yetanotherloser 4y ago
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    Do you keep your home at 12 degrees(53.6F) in the winter? Or are you just another boiled idiot?
    - yetanotherloser 4y ago
      It gets down to about four or five in bedrooms, six in the room I work in, 8 to 10 in rooms closer to the kitchen. Been doing this for years, no ill effects.
      - nightski 4y ago
        I love the cold and winter. I'll run outside when it is -30F with the proper clothing. But damn, we keep our house at 60F in the winter and I often wear a winter hat inside. 39F in the house is nuts. Not to mention you have to be careful not to freeze your pipes.
      - snapplebobapple 4y ago
        I would rather just burn the gas and keep the house at 17 so I can walk around wearing my preferred house garb of just an old housecoat with no belt. My extremities excluding my hands and feet get too cold below 17.
        yetanotherloser 4y ago
        If your garb is JUST an unbelted housecoat there is indeed a risk of cold extremities and not just hands and feet. Now pardon me while I clean the "mental images" screen. I should probably have caveated my remarks with "if appropriately dressed"!
        snapplebobapple 4y ago
tablespoon 4y ago
>> This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. > They're not asking for agents in jackboots to start seizing gas furnaces tomorrow. They're playing a necessary role in getting a slow-moving regulator to start moving forward on a plan that will take a decade to gradually roll out and that will incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever. That's an unhelpful strawman, and it seems like the regulation would be a lot more aggressive than you describe, according to the article: > The petition’s reading would force the EPA to set NOx standards that would effectively ban the use of natural gas in all new construction within a year after the regulation is implemented. IMHO, current-day politics mean that any regulation like this will likely be rammed through quickly when one party has control, because a slow rollout will invite repeal by the other party. > a plan that will ... incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever. Don't be fooled. If the past is any guide, the "innovation in alternative solutions" will still likely still be worse than what we have now (e.g. efficiency guidelines mean my dishwasher now either leaves my dishes either wet or dry-ish and soapy-tasting, because the dryer was crippled, forcing the use of a "rinse agent."
koheripbal 4y ago
They are advocating for immediate change, not a long slow transition. Read their release.

dudebrooo 4y ago

Its just wild that in the last decades of such abundance very little resources are put towards the practical aspects of getting people off fossil fuels - they really just preach from their podium and nothing more - and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium (god help us if anyone or any government takes the rhetoric seriously)

hwillis 4y ago
> and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium You're referring to natural gas shortages? If you used the natural gas in europe to generate electricity instead of heat, it would go 3.6x farther with heat pumps. So your rhetoric really seems to ring hollow.
- yetanotherloser 4y ago
  3.6x, given 50% efficient generation and transmission, would require a heat pump COP about 7.2. Unfortunately real heat pump COPs are 3 or less, meaning the gas goes 1.5x further or less. This is still great (since it saves gas and there are other sources of electric) but unfortunately it's really high monetary cost (since the electric costs about 3x the gas, so even if the heat pump were free, it costs twice as much to run; electric prices follow gas prices closely so they don't get cheaper when gas runs short). So it's a hard sell. I think they're clever devices, I like them, I will probably buy one. But they're no panacea.
yetanotherloser 4y ago
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Do you keep your home at 12 degrees(53.6F) in the winter? Or are you just another boiled idiot?
  - yetanotherloser 4y ago
    It gets down to about four or five in bedrooms, six in the room I work in, 8 to 10 in rooms closer to the kitchen. Been doing this for years, no ill effects.
    - nightski 4y ago
      I love the cold and winter. I'll run outside when it is -30F with the proper clothing. But damn, we keep our house at 60F in the winter and I often wear a winter hat inside. 39F in the house is nuts. Not to mention you have to be careful not to freeze your pipes.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      I would rather just burn the gas and keep the house at 17 so I can walk around wearing my preferred house garb of just an old housecoat with no belt. My extremities excluding my hands and feet get too cold below 17.
      - yetanotherloser 4y ago
        If your garb is JUST an unbelted housecoat there is indeed a risk of cold extremities and not just hands and feet. Now pardon me while I clean the "mental images" screen. I should probably have caveated my remarks with "if appropriately dressed"!
        snapplebobapple 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

>> This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. > They're not asking for agents in jackboots to start seizing gas furnaces tomorrow. They're playing a necessary role in getting a slow-moving regulator to start moving forward on a plan that will take a decade to gradually roll out and that will incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever. That's an unhelpful strawman, and it seems like the regulation would be a lot more aggressive than you describe, according to the article: > The petition’s reading would force the EPA to set NOx standards that would effectively ban the use of natural gas in all new construction within a year after the regulation is implemented. IMHO, current-day politics mean that any regulation like this will likely be rammed through quickly when one party has control, because a slow rollout will invite repeal by the other party. > a plan that will ... incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever. Don't be fooled. If the past is any guide, the "innovation in alternative solutions" will still likely still be worse than what we have now (e.g. efficiency guidelines mean my dishwasher now either leaves my dishes either wet or dry-ish and soapy-tasting, because the dryer was crippled, forcing the use of a "rinse agent."

koheripbal 4y ago

They are advocating for immediate change, not a long slow transition. Read their release.