OK, over at Treehugger on this older post, I got more than a little pointed. I’m tired of the virtue-signaling of these Eco-Socialists and their nonchalant /passive-aggresive manner of telling people what they are supposed to be doing in prostrating themselves before GAIA in earning their way into No-Carbon Nirvana. No matter how much it costs those of us on the wrong end – mandatory indulgences. Another hobby horse, other than hating on pickup trucks, for Lloyd (head honcho) is the decarbonization of EVERYTHING and electrifying everything (“Why the Age of Fire Is Over—We Know How to Live Without It“). Of course, no nukes, no natural gas, and certainly not coal. Even hydro is suspect. Instead, wind and solar – those are your only choices and you WILL be happy with them!
Humans relied on fire for the past two million years but that is coming to an end. Or at least, that’s the case author Martin Edic makes in his provocatively-titled article, “The Era of Burning Things Is Over,” where he says there is no need to burn anything, from wood to gasoline, anymore. We know how to do without it.
“Burning things seems so hopelessly archaic, like those images of humans huddled around campfires in the darkness,” writes Edic. “Burning got us this far but it is no longer the best way. We can harvest endless energy with technology. Once that transition takes place everything changes.” I thought it was a fascinating article because we spend so much time talking about the specifics of cars and homes that we lose sight of the basic principle: We really shouldn’t be burning anything if we have alternatives, and it seems every day we have more of them.
So finally, Lloyd took part in the Comment section. And SO did I as he’s been going Leftward in his outlooks/writings AND in how he’d achieve his Societal goal of not exceeding UN IPCC temperature rise. He started out with:
Hey it’s Earth Day. And as I said, I am discussing a provocative article.
So I got to the main point right away (Steve is now scratching his head as I rarely do such) that Lloyd
So Lloyd, let’s go to brass tacks right away. While I live in a passive solar home, I do use a wood stove for the majority of heating especially during the winters here in NH (just barely south of you). I harvest that wood from my own land – so it’s relatively cheap.
On the other side of the equation, the cost of electricity is soaring – I used less this winter but costs went up $75/month. The backup to my wood stove back up to solar is a propane heater – I’m sure you know that price has skyrocketed as well and both will continue up. With all of your talk of no longer burning wood and fossil fuels, here’s the bottom line:
Are YOU willing to pay my larger marginal costs that you wish to foist upon me?
And while this is just “a provocative article”, it is one in a long series in this vein. I ask because I grow weary (and angry) at people who are quite liberal in forcing other people to spend their money simply to make you feel better about yourself. Should YOUR end game always trump my financial means? If so, why shouldn’t I then force you to pay the costs you forcing me to pay?
In short: why aren’t you willing to put your money where your mouth is? So here, a provocative story followed by a provocative question.
I await your response.
There were a couple of other intervening posts but Lloyd decided to pop back in but with a “you guys are taking this FAR too seriously” type of answer.
I would say this post was about being inspired but everyone took me far too literally.
I was not having none of that, seeing that a lot of folks were also taking him to task:
When you made such an assertion, you really think people wouldn’t take it seriously? BTW, let me ask my question again:
Are YOU willing to pay my larger marginal costs that you wish to foist upon me?
Which would be paying a higher electricity cost over burning my own wood in my woodstove for heat. You wish to force electrification onto everyone – but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is (or keyboard, as the case may be?)?
Like Patti: http://disq.us/p/2oinnqq
He had but one response:
should I pay your marginal cost for more expensive unleaded gas that isn’t poisoning everyone?
Bad move. First to set him straight on gas type – and on the deflection as the discussion was about “Electrify All” versus “you can take my hot wood stove out of my burnt withered hands”:
Old fashioned leaded gas is not available at almost every gas station here in the States so that’s an irrelevant question. Besides, your premise is wrong.
I can choose to drive an ICE or an EV – MY choice. You wish, however, take that choice away from me and force me to spend money I otherwise wouldn’t. You are avoiding the intent of my question. You are demanding that your idea that EVERYONE must “electrify everything” regardless if they can financially afford it or not.
I had an electrically heated house – the cost was enormous. I cut it down by adding insulation and solar space heating – but MY choice. You would take my wood stove that costs me next to nothing and return me to sky high electric bills again without my consent. Therefore, why shouldn’t I demand that those that put me into that situation put their financial skin into the game?
Too often, I see politicians (and the special interest groups supporting them) create policies that do harm to others. Why shouldn’t they – they do not suffer the harm themselves and just proclaim “it’s for the common good!” as if that was an overarching panacea and excuse.
And now, you’re doing the same thing (if you’d be intellectually honest about your post without the deflection of “aspirational”).
————————————————————————-
You did respond, Lloyd, with this – and then deleted it. That’s fine, I saved it off:
He did respond – but as I was responding in kind, he deleted his. Silly person – I had already saved it off:
lots of things cost more when you don’t want to poison your neighbor. should I be paying your marginal cost because unleaded gas costs more to make? And I burn wood in my cabin, this is aspirational, we shouldn’t be doing it and we know it.
Heh!
I already answered the question about unleaded gas.
So, here you are, Lloyd, taking away my woodstove but having no problem with you using one because….why? Again, your claim of “aspirational” here isn’t holding water given the totality of your posts over time. Sorry, it’s a sad attempt to scurry away from what you have been saying for a long time. At least, sir, own up to those words.
Look, if you want to live the 1.5-degree lifestyle, more power to you. As I have said many times before, there are more than a few THers that are living what they preach and putting their money where their mouths are. But isn’t forcing others under no small number of penalties just because YOU believe your lifestyle is correct, a moral wrong?
So in the end, am I understanding you correctly, in returning to one of the main assertions of your post, that you’d be perfectly happy to have govt agents remove my stove and then expect that I spend money I don’t have to put in electric heat that I can’t afford every month?
And that’s morally correct? So we’re back to that old saw, commonly attributed to Lenin, that you can’t have an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Brass tacks – how many people are you willing to see freeze to have your dream, Lloyd, because they are poor? Or go bankrupt? Or both?
And you are not willing to shoulder the burden you have placed upon them because it pleases you to change their lifestyles? Personal aspirations can often have bad real-world consequences for others – and you have just set the stage.
The ball’s in your court Lloyd – and “aspirational” is both a dodge and a weak argument in trying to get out from underneath what you’ve written.
And yes, I look forward to continuing this discussion.
He wasn’t, however. So, being who I am, I did. And this is The Summary of what is so bad with Leftist / Socialist politics and policies:
You know what is hypocritical, Lloyd?
People who advocate for policies THEY want but will never share in the negative consequences of that policy on others.
I really don’t think I’ve asked hard questions, Lloyd – if you ignore the issue of what is your morality in answering them. You put up a provocative post for us all (and trying to hide behind “provocative” and “aspirational”). So, have you dug deep (like the Kwisatz Haderach) into your political soul and really examine what your words are, not just to you, but to the rest of us?Hard questions require hard thought before giving what may well be a hard answer.
And yours is?
We’ll never know – when asked hard questions, Lloyd went limp. The problem is that he is a techy wonk when it comes to “sustainability” and as a Professor of such, he’s comfortable in that space. The problem is that in always focusing on carbon, he’s like Governor Groomer Chris Sununu during COVID, or Dr. Fauci with lockdowns and Jabs…
…nothing else matters. Fauci even said that NONE of the CDC did during the pandemic should EVER have been adjudicate by the Judiciary – a prime example of the Administrative State Expert who should always be believed. Ditto Sununu – never to be questions or argued with – just obeyed.
All three are single dimensional people while the rest of us are having to deal with multiple paths at the same time. Those three expect the rest of us to ONLY listen to them and their issue – and obey in orienting our lives completely to their “expertise”.
Ditto Lloyd. But throw something outside of their expertise (and in this case, the idea of morality towards others in causing harm) and they retreat.
