Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, Federal Tax credit means you are still upfronting the money... what happens to most of us who are just getting by and have to replace an appliance because it broke.... where are we getting the thousands to upgrade the electric panel plus the appliance....
Think!
What? Are you saying you've never 1) had enough money upfront to pay or an appliance or 2) never had credit good enough to finance something? I'm trying really hard to think why this seems so impossible for you, and I guess you can be in this position, but then how did you end up being a homeowner in the first place if you can't manage either of the two options?
Anyhow, best of luck! I was mentioning the tax credit in case anyone find themselves in a position where that's useful so hopefully it helps someone out and ends up saving them a bit of money.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-13-2023 at 11:32 PM..
I was disappointed seeing this: you lose your moral highground by responding like that.
Back to climate change: I showed you a source which stated that China is, by far and away, the largest contributor to greenhouse gasses. And it makes sense, since they're a manufacturing powerhouse.
The other thing is that dense development would bring about the destruction of trees, and tax our aquifers.
My point is that going to one extreme or the other isn't necessarily beneficial.
I think you guys might be cross-talking and should probably first establish if there's an understanding of what per capita means and how that plays into this conversation.
Dense development would generally mean far more population can be accommodated in a smaller area and therefore that same population would not need to take up as much land which ostensibly be used for other purposes potentially as natural preserve or parkland. If you're talking about a thousand people spread over a thousand square miles versus a thousand people over one square mile, it does not generally take more water or tax the aquifer more. Related to what I said about per capita, I think we may need to start at a basis where we're sure we understand what that means and the difference between something like a ratio versus a total amount.
What? Are you saying you've never 1) had enough money upfront to pay or an appliance or 2) never had credit good enough to finance something? I'm trying really hard to think why this seems so impossible for you, and I guess you can be in this position, but then how did you end up being a homeowner in the first place if you can't manage either of the two options?
Anyhow, best of luck! I was mentioning the tax credit in case anyone find themselves in a position where that's useful so hopefully it helps someone out and ends up saving them a bit of money.
The big difference here is in this theoretical world of banned gas appliances many could be forced (yes forced) by the government to pay thousands of dollars to upgrade their electrical service and wiring because the government is forcing them over climate nonsense. This isn’t a case of “oh my appliance broke so I will just go to Home Depot and get another oneâ€. It’s “my appliance broke and now I can’t buy a simple replacement, I don’t have 200 amp service nor wiring so I have spend 1000s to buy and hook up replacement I could have gotten for a fraction of if gas stoves were legalâ€. That’s a huge difference from an appliance breaking down and straight up replacing it.
Also lol 64% yes 64% of homeowners in the US live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings. That’s reality. A forced expense like that could be devastating to countless people.
.......Back to climate change: I showed you a source which stated that China is, by far and away, the largest contributor to greenhouse gasses. And it makes sense, since they're a manufacturing powerhouse.
I don't disagree with you, but consider how China got themselves into that position. The mis-guided "green weenies" in America, went on a rampage, back in the late 60s-early-70s, and used the EPA to outlaw a tremendous amount of manufacturing, under the guise of it creating excess pollution. This included water, ground, and air pollution. The situation COULD have been addressed, but it was determined that in order to properly deal with the situation, a LOT of money would be required.
Problem was, there were a number of foreign countries that were in poor financial shape, needing money to keep going, Furthermore, since these countries weren't highly industrialized, they were unfamiliar with the pollution that was generated by manufacturing, so in an effort to generate income, they overlooked the potential pollution, and willingly took on the manufacturing that was being outlawed in the US.
In the case of China, not only were they willing to turn a blind eye to the pollution issues, they also considered the strong political and financial position that manufacturing dominance would create, and they went into it, full force.
The big difference here is in this theoretical world of banned gas appliances many could be forced (yes forced) by the government to pay thousands of dollars to upgrade their electrical service and wiring because the government is forcing them over climate nonsense. This isn’t a case of “oh my appliance broke so I will just go to Home Depot and get another oneâ€. It’s “my appliance broke and now I can’t buy a simple replacement, I don’t have 200 amp service nor wiring so I have spend 1000s to buy and hook up replacement I could have gotten for a fraction of if gas stoves were legalâ€. That’s a huge difference from an appliance breaking down and straight up replacing it.
Also lol 64% yes 64% of homeowners in the US live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings. That’s reality. A forced expense like that could be devastating to countless people.
Excellent point!
And at the risk of annoying a few other frequent posters on this site, the same comparison could be made with the EV vs. ICE debate....
This is true. Roslyn Road has been in construction for YEARS installing new gas pipes. Lack of coordination.
But no one said the transition to cleaner energy would be painless. Still, less painful than letting climate change go free and wild.
We either pay a little now, or way more later.
Too bad we didn't do anything years ago.
Stop. Aren't you looking to add a man cave and changed your mind due to cost and red tape? IF you are so worried about climate control going" free and wild" you would down size and not increase your own carbon footprint.
I am not going to worry about this gas nonsense. Just like your airplane noise issue, it will just be pigeonholed in countless hand wringing "what are are going to do meetings", with endless meetings and lawsuits.
P.S. Not that it matters, but I am still trying to find an LED bulb that I can come close to liking for several rooms in my home. Every time a new one comes out I try it and nope, crappy light cast.
Stop. Aren't you looking to add a man cave and changed your mind due to cost and red tape? IF you are so worried about climate control going" free and wild" you would down size and not increase your own carbon footprint. .
Actually you're right. I didn't see it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts2uiam
I am not going to worry about this gas nonsense. Just like your airplane noise issue, it will just be pigeonholed in countless hand wringing "what are are going to do meetings", with endless meetings and lawsuits.
NIMBY case, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts2uiam
P.S. Not that it matters, but I am still trying to find an LED bulb that I can come close to liking for several rooms in my home. Every time a new one comes out I try it and nope, crappy light cast.
You sound very winny here.
Same as all of those who have a temper tantrum when someone tells them the party is over.
What? Are you saying you've never 1) had enough money upfront to pay or an appliance or 2) never had credit good enough to finance something? I'm trying really hard to think why this seems so impossible for you, and I guess you can be in this position, but then how did you end up being a homeowner in the first place if you can't manage either of the two options?
Anyhow, best of luck! I was mentioning the tax credit in case anyone find themselves in a position where that's useful so hopefully it helps someone out and ends up saving them a bit of money.
Some people are maxed out on credit, therefore upgrades to the electrical system are a major burden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think you guys might be cross-talking and should probably first establish if there's an understanding of what per capita means and how that plays into this conversation.
Dense development would generally mean far more population can be accommodated in a smaller area and therefore that same population would not need to take up as much land which ostensibly be used for other purposes potentially as natural preserve or parkland. If you're talking about a thousand people spread over a thousand square miles versus a thousand people over one square mile, it does not generally take more water or tax the aquifer more. Related to what I said about per capita, I think we may need to start at a basis where we're sure we understand what that means and the difference between something like a ratio versus a total amount.
No cross talking here, although I am glad that you inserted yourself into our dialogue .
What's being proposed is greater density in a particular area: the proposal suggests not that the land be reconfigured, to accommodate both higher density along with the addition of a nature preserve. Your supposition suggests that the population number is maintained, but simply reconfigured, thus causing no harm to the ecosystem. The suggestion that NYS is proposing is to increase density in certain key areas, while maintaining the layout of the remaining area. This will increase population, destroy trees, and put more demands on the aquifer - which is counterproductive.
Moreover, unlike the locality that defines my current residence, I have no faith in NYS, or it's local localities, to adequately repurpose the land in such a way that's helpful.
As for the population in other parts of the world, my point was that while many residents live in an urban environment, scores of others live in abject poverty: I don't mean to be cruel by saying it, but if someone is living in a hovel, their contribution to greenhouse gasses is nil. On paper, such an arrangement balances the numbers out.
My current locality - that being the Charlotte metropolitan area - is repurposing areas to accommodate greater density *with the addition of* sufficient and meaningful nature preserves. I do not have faith in NYS' local localities to execute this faithfully.
IF the state is able to complete the alternative energy pipelines by the target date and make electricity affordable, then the free market will be able to generate the push towards electric without any bans or other punishments.
Maybe Hochul should have allowed the infrastructure to be in place before threatening folks?
If CFCs were banned in the 80's and worked by letting the Ozone layer replenish, why banning natural gas is so controversial?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
