User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4656
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:45 pm

WetEV wrote:
LTLFTcomposite wrote:
WetEV wrote:Consider the alternative. PT replay.

What's that, the yellow vest thing? I agree that can't be good for business.


The Great Dying. ELE. Result of a large geologic release of CO2.

I'd rather face yellow vests.

Meh, 8 billion people headed to 11 on this rock orbiting a star the only thing certain is that it can't and won't continue. Something's going to get us, who knows if the CO2 will be first.
Meanwhile go ahead try telling people to turn off their air conditioners and let me know how that works out.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

WetEV
Posts: 2780
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:58 pm

LTLFTcomposite wrote:If the economics aren't there all you're going to do is move the problem around.


And we end at the PT.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

golfcart
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:47 am

WetEV wrote:You are taking a partisan stance even if you don't realize it. Or perhaps you are taking a stance and don't realize the partisan spin on it.

Sure, there was disagreement about this measure in Democratic organizations, as the side effects of the I-732 were very Republican. Net increasing taxes on the middle class. Tax cuts for business and wealthy. Total net cut in taxes, making problems with school funding worse.


Actually, I am not. You are just so fixated on making the point that the bill failed for partisan reasons that you can't acknowledge the point I actually made. The point I actually made was not about the bill passing or failing but instead about specific "justice" groups, that strongly supported the goal of reducing carbon emissions, not supporting a bill that would work to reduce carbon emissions because they didn't like the way it used the revenue. My personal suspicion is that you see it is a partisan attack because it is critical of groups on the Democrat side of the aisle when you feel like the other side of the aisle was far worse. But my comment was about the difficulty of building consensus across groups that generally agree, it had nothing to do with the passing or failing of the bill.

I fully acknowledged, even though my point does not require me to, that Republican opposition to the bill was much higher than Democrat opposition. I also acknowledged, in subsequent posts, that concerns about the actual "revenue neutral" status of the bill were widespread and played a role in some groups opposing it. None of that negates my point however.

Here is my direct original quote.

golfcart wrote:Lothsahn is right in so far as polling (for what it's worth) confirms broad support a "revenue neutral" carbon tax ... but things have a way of getting testy when it comes time to split up the pot of money generated. That is one of the main roadblocks to new taxes in general, taxpayers often feel like the taxes never end up getting used to directly address the problems that justify the tax in the first place. We've seen the bait and switch used too many times.

IIRC it was the various "Justice" groups that refused to get behind the carbon tax in Washington State a few years back because it was revenue neutral, "business friendly", and didn't "redistribute" the money where they thought it should.


I have since provided evidence to support that assertion on multiple occasions by linking to the Yale poll and statements from groups like the Sierra Club and other groups citing social/racial/environmental "justice" concerns about the bill. You have consistently cherry picked portions of multiple articles to make different points, claiming that they disagree with me, while ignoring the portions of the same articles that support the point I made. I demonstrate that again... the following quote comes directly from the Vox (an article that you said disagrees with me).

Vox Article wrote:The alliance argument against revenue neutrality is simply that a price on carbon alone won’t guarantee that clean energy flourishes, that at-risk communities are protected from the effects of climate change, or that workers are sheltered from the economic upheaval of a clean-energy transition.

As Johnson puts it, "just because a transition is going to happen, it doesn't mean justice will follow." To secure justice, you need investment.

The first priority for investment would be "worker, impacted community, and vulnerable industry support." In practice, that means funding the working families tax rebate, worker transition programs, and assistance to energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) industries.

The revenue remaining would be divided between clean energy (70 percent), clean water (20 percent), and healthy forests (10 percent). Within that pool, 25 percent of investments must benefit impacted communities and 10 percent must go directly into those communities. (This is very similar to current California policy.)

Equity, to the alliance, means acknowledging that low-income communities don’t just need tax relief; they need resilient infrastructure, access to jobs, and training in the clean energy economy. Union workers don’t just need tax relief; they need transition assistance, retraining, and protection for the industries in which many of their members work.

If it is to have any sustained political power, "the climate movement is going to be an environmental justice movement," Kelley says. "It just is. Other folks can buy their way out of it long enough."


It seems pretty cut and dry that I have supported my original assertion in multiple posts. You may not like me focusing on that particular point and prefer that I focus on the "revenue neutrality" concerns or the lack of Republican support... but you cannot say that my point is unsupported or outside of the realm of reasonable positions. If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.
2015 S with Charge Package

SageBrush
Posts: 3835
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:49 am

golfcart wrote:If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.

I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

WetEV
Posts: 2780
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:05 am

golfcart wrote:
WetEV wrote:You are taking a partisan stance even if you don't realize it. Or perhaps you are taking a stance and don't realize the partisan spin on it.

Sure, there was disagreement about this measure in Democratic organizations, as the side effects of the I-732 were very Republican. Net increasing taxes on the middle class. Tax cuts for business and wealthy. Total net cut in taxes, making problems with school funding worse.


Actually, I am not. You are just so fixated on making the point that the bill failed for partisan reasons that you can't acknowledge the point I actually made.


No, I want you to not spin this.

The most important reason why this I-732 failed was the near total Republican opposition. And this bill was aimed at Republican goals, other than climate change. Why are you fixated on why some Democratic organizations not supporting it and also not opposing it?

The second most important reason why I-732 failed was the lack of revenue neutrality. With this and near total Republican opposition, I-732 was doomed.

I get annoyed at the other Washington's fixation on spin. Making your point is repeating spin, especially as you didn't mention larger factors.


golfcart wrote:Here is my direct original quote.

Lothsahn is right in so far as polling (for what it's worth) confirms broad support a "revenue neutral" carbon tax ... but things have a way of getting testy when it comes time to split up the pot of money generated. That is one of the main roadblocks to new taxes in general, taxpayers often feel like the taxes never end up getting used to directly address the problems that justify the tax in the first place. We've seen the bait and switch used too many times.

IIRC it was the various "Justice" groups that refused to get behind the carbon tax in Washington State a few years back because it was revenue neutral, "business friendly", and didn't "redistribute" the money where they thought it should.


Notice again what you emphasized, and what you didn't mention, and what you misnamed.

Missed the Elephant of near zero Republican support. Totally missed it.

I-732 was NOT revenue neutral. It was NOT revenue neutral. You are factually incorrect. Exactly backwards.

A tax cut to the wealthy might be "business friendly", but shouldn't we call it a tax cut for the wealthy? Wouldn't that be more honest?

Not supporting isn't the same as opposing.

In spite of all of this, a large majority of progressive voters voted for I-732. Many holding their noses, I'm sure. In spite of all of this, many progressive organizations did not oppose it. If it had been revenue neutral, it might have passed, but if it looked likely the oil companies would have unleashed a torrent of money, as they did for I-1631. If even a third of Republican voters had supported it, it might of passed.


golfcart wrote:You have consistently cherry picked portions of multiple articles to make different points, claiming that they disagree with me, while ignoring the portions of the same articles that support the point I made.


It isn't "cherry picking" to point out that you are factually wrong. I-732 was not revenue neutral.

It isn't "cherry picking" to point out that you totally missed the largest point, the near total Republican rejection of a bill aimed at Republican goals, such as tax cuts for the wealthy and defunding the government, other than the military and police.


golfcart wrote:If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.


I-1631 was designed to meet progressive goals and was revenue positive by design. I-1631 got support from all of the progressive organizations, and got 3% better at the ballot box. How to divide that 3% increase between progressive goals and lack of fiscal disaster isn't clear, but yes, you do have a valid point. Tiny, and out of context, but valid.

Your point would be larger in France, with a carbon tax to fund a tax cut for the wealthy started the "yellow vest movement". But France has rather different politics.

As long as you don't ignore the elephant, I don't disagree. With near zero Republican support, any carbon tax in the USA is doomed. Not just in Washington, but the rest of the country. Republicans generally don't seem to care about the details. Democrats might, to some extent.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

golfcart
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:18 am

SageBrush wrote:
golfcart wrote:If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.

I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"


That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.
2015 S with Charge Package

SageBrush
Posts: 3835
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:20 am

golfcart wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"


That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.

I know, you were only talking about the ant. WetEV and I are reminding you of the elephant.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

golfcart
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:23 am

WetEV wrote:but yes, you do have a valid point. Tiny, and out of context, but valid.


Fair enough, your opinion is noted... :D
2015 S with Charge Package

golfcart
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:27 am

SageBrush wrote:
golfcart wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"


That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.

I know, you were only talking about the ant. WetEV and I are reminding you of the elephant.


I think the elephant has been well acknowledged by all parties but thanks for the reminder. I will stick to the approved list of talking points in the future... :roll:
2015 S with Charge Package

SageBrush
Posts: 3835
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:44 am

golfcart wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
golfcart wrote:
That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.

I know, you were only talking about the ant. WetEV and I are reminding you of the elephant.


I think the elephant has been well acknowledged by all parties but thanks for the reminder. I will stick to the approved list of talking points in the future... :roll:


If by 'approved' you mean pertinent and relevant to the context then YES. E.g., I could mention out of the blue that the progressive vote was fragmented but that would be useless spin. The pertinent information would be the ~ 90% majority.

Likewise, I could say that it is false to call the Repuke electorate AGW denialists. That is correct since ~ 15% of that group realize that climate change is anthropogenic. However, the tone, politicians and laws reflect the denialism of the supermajority 85% of that group so my original statement is just spin.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

Return to “Solar”