Sorry Paul, you are contradicting yourself here. You say we need to act immediately, you rushed this motion without any bylaws on paper out because action needed to be taken now by your own words. Yet you are talking about small steps here and do not want to ban all fossil fuel use. You will allow propane and wood fires which are mostly for esthetics than heat. If you do not wish to ban all then how much of a crisis do you really think this is?
This is becoming a trend in town. It seems residents construct poorly written and conceived motions thinking that since a majority in town feel the same way you can get away with doing so. On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 5:29 PM Paul Shorb <[email protected]> wrote: > Dennis - > 1. You misunderstand the proposal if you think its main motivation or > justification is to benefit the builders or residents in future new > buildings. It should be clear from the slides we shared in our two webinars > and at Town Meeting that the main motivation is to take one small, initial > step out of many that we need to take to slow down climate change. It just > happens, so it was worth mentioning, that this small initial step has some > cost advantages for builders and owners albeit. But as I > mentioned elsewhere today on LT, I don't trust all builders to respond > immediately to the modest cost delta, so a mandate is warranted. It's ECON > 101 that the free market fails to produce the best result, and government > controls layered on top of free market mechanisms produce a better result, > in the case of major "negative externalities" associated with > self-interested decisions - right? > > 2. Do you read my posts that respond to yours? I feel like I responded to > this point earlier. > It's uncontested that fossil fuels have powered great economic growth > which has lifted many out of poverty. However, if you think that trend line > can continue so happily, you are ignoring the evidence about climate > change. The good news is that human ingenuity has already come up with most > of what we need to stop relying on fossil fuels (wind, solar, heat pumps, > etc.) with more on the way (better energy storage, "green" hydrogen, new > forms of nuclear, etc.) The problem is how fast we need to make the switch > - that's going to require concerted social and political action. > > - Paul > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:20 PM Dennis Liu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> With all due respect: >> >> >> >> 1. If it is true, as has been asserted, that building your new home >> to be all-electric “will not make the more expensive to build or operate”, >> then *we would not need a law to force people to do so*. One cannot >> have it both ways! If X is actually better for folks, then one would not >> need a law to force folks to do X! Even a casual reader of history will >> read about those in government who cry, “*the foolish people are just >> ignorant, and don’t see what’s good for them; we are just doing this on >> their behalf, forcing them to undertake what will be more beneficial for >> them! Don’t you get it? We know better than you do!*” >> >> Similarly, let us not forget that it’s not just about the money. >> Choosing X instead of Y can be driven not just be money, but by other >> benefits. Some folks might prefer certain attributes of Y, even if Y >> might >> cost less. As one example – if you live in a 3,000 sq foot house, you >> would almost certainly save money if you lived in a 2,000 sq ft house – so >> why would you want to live in the bigger house? You might save money by >> driving a Prius or a Tesla, so why shouldn’t we force people to only buy >> those vehicles? >> >> Is it so hard to see that individuals can make the best decisions for >> themselves, to decide what’s in their best interests? >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. *“Climate justice is racial justice?” *Again, with all due >> respect, this is just . . . man, I lack the words. So we are clear – >> thanks to the growth of free-market (ish) economics in developing nations >> over the last three decades, primarily in China and India but also other >> developing countries, *OVER A BILLION PEOPLE HAVE CLIMBED OUT OF >> EXTREME POVERTY*. It’s an amazing feat! And one of the biggest >> drivers of that climb out of poverty – *THE AVAILABILITY OF >> AFFORDABLE ENERGY, POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS*. >> >> Yes, read that again. Improved agriculture, the growth of >> manufacturing, expanding free trade, migration from rural to urban areas >> have helped billions of people climb out of horrible, subsistence-level >> (or >> below!!!) living. The middle-class is explosively growing. What drives >> all of that? Affordable, available energy. Countless families have >> transitioned out of subsistence farming, with heating and cooking using >> wood or dung and resulting in terrible casualties from lung illnesses, >> thanks to the availability of gas-powered machinery and available electric >> grids. >> >> The sheer . . . well, I won’t label it, but I will say that it >> astonishes me what folks living in the 1% in affluent American suburbs >> (and >> make no mistakes, if you’re a working adult in Lincoln, you’re almost >> certainly in the global 1%; you just need $34k in annual income) will make >> arguments on behalf of the ”oppressed”, and make claims of “racial >> justice”, *WHILE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THAT WHICH HELPED PROPEL MORE >> THAN A BILLION PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY*: affordable energy powered by, >> yes, fossil fuels. >> >> The primary reason why making these little symbolic, virtue-signaling >> gestures in rich American suburbs will have zero measurable impact on >> climate gas emissions is because America got rich by burning lots of coal >> and oil; now China and India are doing the same thing, lifting billions of >> poverty, thanks to burning lots of coal and oil. Who the heck are we to >> tell China and India, “hey, you guys missed the boat, you need to stop >> producing that critically needed energy, and immiserate your people!” >> >> Want **real** justice for the poor and oppressed around the globe? >> Stand by and let them climb out of poverty in the same way America did, >> starting a century ago, and focus instead on transitioning **mass** >> energy production to natural gas and nuclear, keep working on renewable >> energy, and **let human ingenuity research ways of mitigating the >> effects of climate change and even turning it back through terraforming >> measures.** >> >> https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty >> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/world/global-poverty-united-nations.html#:~:text=By%202015%2C%20the%20share%20of,extreme%20poverty%2C%20surpassing%20the%20goal >> . >> >> >> >> I’m just . . . at a loss for more words. >> >> >> >> --Dennis >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Lincoln <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Paul >> Shorb >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:50 PM >> *To:* <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Town meeting Article 40/31 >> >> >> >> I would like to respond to some recent posts here that seem to critique a >> move towards fossil-fuel-free homes as an expensive luxury for high-minded >> hypocrites who blissfully ignore adverse cost impacts on those economically >> less well-off. Here are some relevant facts that may be of interest to LT >> readers. >> >> >> >> Requiring new homes to be all-electric will not make them more expensive >> to build or operate. In fact, due to the almost miraculous energy >> efficiency of modern heat pumps, they tend to be LESS expensive to operate, >> thereby benefiting not only high-end homeowners but also less-affluent >> renters. (Not to mention the health benefits of cleaner indoor air.) A >> recent state study show the cost benefits are even better for multi-family >> housing than for single family homes. >> >> >> >> All-electric homes are not required to have an emergency generator. >> Whether someone wants to have an emergency generator is a personal choice; >> many homes powered by fossil fuels choose to have one. >> We mention emergency generators to underscore that we expect they would >> still be allowed as an option, when and if Lincoln adopts a bylaw. Even if >> you assume a generator to be an additional cost associated with an >> all-electric house, that likely will be offset by reduced operating costs. >> >> >> >> With regard to DIE, it's hard to come up with something with more >> disparate impact on people of color than our current fossil-fuel economy >> and the climate change it is causing. >> >> In America it typically is lower-income people - often people of color - >> who live closest to fossil fuel extraction areas, fuel refineries, power >> plants, and areas thickest with vehicle exhaust fumes, and who thereby >> suffer the most from the local pollution effects. >> >> Around the world, it is regions populated mainly by black and brown >> people that are getting hit the hardest by the many impacts of climate >> change. Those are the people who are most at risk of being pushed back into >> poverty and worse by extreme weather events, droughts, food shortages, and >> desperate migration attempts and ensuing political strife - even though >> they have done much less than the more developed, majority-white nations >> have done to cause the current climate crisis. >> >> That's why it is rightly said that "climate justice is racial justice". >> >> >> >> - Paul Shorb >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:16 PM Stephanie Smoot < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> I found irony that they were adding all these programs but a waiting list >> for senior tax work off spaces! >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:09 PM Richard Panetta <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> So did anyone else find any irony in a report given about inclusion >> diversity equity and anti racism then the very next article the presenting >> sponsor when questioned about losing electricity stated well you can JUST >> get a propane generator for those needs. Never mind a good generator can >> cost $5000 plus along with the yearly costs of the tank and propane. Just >> in case your non fossil fuel home loses power. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> *Stephanie Smoot* >> >> >> >> 857 368-9175 work >> >> 781 941-6842 personal cell >> >> *617 595-5217 *work cell >> >> 126 Chestnut Circle >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> Lincoln, MA 01773 >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
