If our community did that, it would also cover school bus drivers, highway workers, and others who have no employment relationship with the community, yet have legitimate need to access those locations.
If they want to pursue a lockout, there already ways to do so.
True enough, and a valid consideration that must be accounted for in any actual change to building codes.
Keep in mind that I said "by now" not "starting today". Obviously, having done little to this point, we can't just jump to perfection in one step.
It's worth pointing out that Ford claims that their F-150 Lightning can provide up to 3 days of backup power to a household in some configurations. Given what seems to be a trend of building EVs that are capable of providing backup power to households, that should be factored in as we move forward.
And it doesn't have to be 3 days. Overnight in summer would be a good start, followed by overnight in winter, then moving on from there.
The real issue is that I see $350k houses being built in Saskatchewan with nothing. No solar, no heat pump, no passive heating or cooling, and sketchy insulation. The latter 2 were figured out in the 1980s and nothing has been done since at the building code level.
That same money would build a house 1/2 to 1/3 the size, a still adequate size, with solar, heat pumps, good insulation, and decent passive heating and cooling.
The only real difference is men's lib burdens themselves with a feminist perspective, which does not help, and as this post shows, hurts.
At risk of getting out of context, I (cis male) did not become aware of the systems that were damaging me until I started studying feminism. Whatever a "men's liberation movement" looks like, it is so young and inexperienced that it would be well served to examine and learn from feminist ideologies and perspectives.
Many of the power structures that feminists have identified as being damaging to women in general are also damaging to men in general.
Many of the power structures that favour men in general are damaging to women in general. As we grow and develop, we should be striving to tear down those structures that are harmful to others, rather than further entrench them as if in battle or in a zero sum game.
I'm not aware of any modern feminist ideologies or initiatives that present a danger to men, but if there are any, they should be called out by both feminists and "masculinists" in the same way that both feminists and masculinists should be calling out any masculinist ideologies and initiatives that present a danger to women.
Modern intersectional feminism has grappled with the inclusion of women who have been "othered". We should be trying to learn from that and avoid making the same mistakes.
In the end, we all have to figure out our place in the world, and that cannot be done without considering our relationships to the power structures and each other. At present, that looks like it's necessary to have feminism and masculinism as separate movements, not as enemies, but as collaborators and intersectional movements. Biology, including the fact that sex and gender are spectra with bimodal distributions, may always mean that they remain at least somewhat separate even as shared goals are achieved.
Retired. I should have included that in my comment. I'll go back and do that now.
Thanks.
Who gives a rat's ass what others are doing or not doing, getting or not getting, paying or not paying? Having a spine isn't about whining, it's about doing what is necessary in the face of opposition, even when it goes against personal self-interest.
It's necessary to decarbonise. Among those honest economists not under the thumb of or on the payroll of whiny babies, a carbon tax is one useful lever. Therefore, the ethical thing to do is implement and accept a carbon tax.
If our political and business leaders were ethical and had spines instead whatever whiny organ they use as a substitute, we'd be a lot better off.
Morons is being too nice.
Our annual rebate for a rural household of 2 adults is about $1000. That doesn't sound like much, but that represents 4% of our total pre-tax income from all sources.
Edit: we're retired, BTW.
Or that we use propane heaters on patios to heat the outdoors.
I get so cranky when I see those things. They are just... nonsensical. It's almost like there is something in the human psyche that is drawn to the abjectly useless, especially if it also happens to be wasteful beyond it's mere production and distribution.
Why not both? As a boomer myself (b. 1956), I'm confidently overconfident in saying that, at 91, she's actually too old to be a boomer. Less confidently, she missed being a boomer by about 10 years.
Thanks. When we saw this, my wife and I just guesstimated that it would have to be close to $30 based on our experiences in the mid-late 1970s compared to now.
I was earning about 1.5 times minimum wage and managed to keep a pretty nice 2-bedroom apartment and food on the table while she stayed home with our son. We didn't think we had a lavish lifestyle, but we still managed a decent used car, her motorcycle, weekly date nights, and fairly regular camping trips.
Sadly, that might actually qualify for a fairly lavish lifestyle today.
Does anyone have a good estimate for what minimum wage would be if this had been implemented in 1970?
Oh for heaven's sake. By now, building codes should prohibit new single-family and low-density (< 12 units) multi-family construction with gas hookups, without solar that matches expected electrical demand, and without 3 days of battery backup.
If that means a 900 square foot house instead of a 2500 square foot house and no more low-density multi-family construction so be it.
Likewise, the building codes should require some of that stuff during certain kinds of renovations and repairs. For example, replacing a gas furnace with another gas furnace should be prohibited.
If the grid and manufacturing capacity won't handle it today, then they better damn well get going, because that's what it's going to take.
And one for low vision.