My point isn't to defend the guy, it's to put some context around the fact that half the Senate is even worse, so this is a disproportionate amount of villification. Let's say he had an R next to his name, we then have a R majority leader and the whole Senate grinds to a halt. Then will you magically give him a pass because now being an asswipe is fully expected of him? That's the kid gloves treatment you're giving to the other 50 GOP senators that are the actual problem.
spidermanchild
joined 4 months ago
He's not the Senate Majority Leader and doesn't control what comes to a vote. I just don't see the point of vilifying a centrist when there are 50 other lunatics that vote against progress 100% of the time. Manchin voted for all the judges, infra, chips, IRA, all the budget stuff, etc. Lets focus on the real problem - way too many GOP senators.
Manchin is a moderate that voted with Biden 88% of the time. You'll be happy he's not running for reelection and will be replaced with a worse R, so yay I guess? He's the best you'll get from WV anytime soon.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/
Might need to use an oil with a lower smoke point than olive.
Another example of the legal system serving the wrong parties. Somehow NIMBYs keep blocking housing, transit, wind/solar, but when it comes to fossil extraction then they suddenly have no power.
The problem is the roads are already there. Like sure we could redevelop the entire area over decades but we could also add some speed bumps like next week while we get around to the hard work.
It's a fascinating topic. It's top of my mind too - we have had very reliable power historically (Colorado) but in the last year had a major preemptive wildfire shutdown and a few other shutdowns (whereas literally less than 5 minutes of outage the last decade). I also got rid of my gas service last year and fully electrified. I have solar, but was waiting until battery prices dropped before going that route. Figured I'd yolo in the meantime, but that assumption has me increasingly on edge. From a climate perspective, I do hate to see a renewed interest in gas but I get why. We need cheaper batteries and standardized V2H/V2G asap.
My knowledge is probably even lower, but I do recall hearing that most of the US law is just copied from UK law as of the 1700's, with some divergence since then.
Right, but remember only like 60% of homes have gas anyway, so that's not necessarily the baseline from a resiliency perspective. And a huge chunk of those aren't actually prepared to operate without electricity either. So while I agree that resiliency is worth focusing on, we should also look holistically about what gas can/cannot do and the associated costs relative to electrification/solar/storage. A modern gas home will still need a backup generator to run condensing hot water/furnace and there's a significant cost to whole home generators, so it's not all fun and games just having gas appliances.
That's where local battery storage/EVs come in. Also passivhaus in and of itself is a form of resiliency - if the power goes out during a cold snap, the house will stay warm for quite some time, and the dozen kWh in a battery or the several dozen in an EV go alot further. Efficiency has a multiplying effect.
Are you looking at the same article as me? On both the NYT app and the website using this link, I see a heading that exactly matches the data displayed. It's a dynamic page that adjusts the figure as you scroll and the heading clearly matches the data. It says "abnormally hot nights" in every bar chart, and temperature for all of the line graphs. NYT has some really nice visualizations, with the notable exception of the potato graphic the other week with your states electric production sources - that was hot dog shit. There's a different baseline temp for the hot night graphs depending on the city - this clearly responds to a low level baseline pre-warming.
I showed this to my partner who isn't an engineer and she thought it made perfect sense too. Not that my anecdotes are special, but I truly don't understand the confusion.
view more: next ›
Agreed. The unfortunate conclusion here is they think that many people (particularly voters they feel are critical to this election) don't actually care about the climate. They're probably right too. So while the DNC platform is clear on their stance, they don't see it as a winning issue from a campaign perspective. Frankly that's not the worst outcome, I care more about action than campaign slogans. They need to win in order to do anything.