"Generally, home mortgage interest is any interest you pay on a loan secured by your home (main home or a second home). The loan may be a mortgage to buy your home, or a second mortgage." IRS
That doesn’t remote imply he sees it as a panacea. If one understands what panacea means.
Well if it doesn’t solve climate change then why push for an all EV transportation? Just because it might help? Give me break. Just let the public decide what they want to drive.
You keep talking about copying works and patent law. That's an entirely different discussion that has nothing to do with gov't picking winners and losers with policy decisions and subsidies. I'm not arguing against patent law/etc. It's a non sequitur.
Markets don't work for pollution. So, yes, the government pushing for things that will help is necessary.
Well if you’re talking air pollution, the air we breath is cleaner now than it’s been in over 50 years. We didn’t need EVs for that to change.
Sure it does. It picked content producers as winners. It picked inventors as winners. It did so because, like with EV subsidies, markets would otherwise pick the cheapest available option, even at the expense of the midterm and long term penalties to be paid.
The FDA didn't fight cannabis, congress did. For generations.
Obviously, the specific pollution in question in this case is CO2. And the air is not cleaner than it has been in 50 years from that perspective. But, yes, the government mandating constant improvements in engine technology has resulted in a massive reduction in other kinds of pollution.
Blood collecting organizations, such as the American Red Cross, have policies in accordance with FDA guidelines that prohibit accepting blood donations from any "male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once". The inclusion of homo- and bisexual men on the prohibited list has created some controversy,[63] but the FDA and Red Cross cite the need to protect blood recipients from HIV as justification for the continued ban.[64] Even with PCR-based testing of blood products, a "window period" may still exist in which an HIV-positive unit of blood would test negative. All potential donors from HIV high-risk groups are deferred for this reason, including men who have sex with men. The issue has been periodically revisited by the Blood Products Advisory Committee within the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and was last reconfirmed on May 24, 2007. Documentation from these meetings is available to the public.[65]
The problem is that government is not populated by engineers and scientists. As such, they often select the wrong solution, or at best an incomplete solution.
energyathaas.wordpress.com
Ah, testing as distinct from partner history. I gotcha. Ok, that's a fair point.
I think we're still on different pages. I agree that the FDA hasn't blessed anything, but I don't think that's because they are wrong. It's because there was a near perfect vacuum of studies done for a really long time because of congress and the war on drugs. In any case, at best all this would do is put the error on congress instead of the FDA and since your point/claim is that the government is imperfect I'm not sure it really matters which branch the finger is pointed at. And, to be clear, I don't even disagree with that. My point is that markets don't work for pollution and that governments are necessary because markets alone were never going to fix the problem. I'm not arguing that markets should be done away with because they are imperfect. I'm not arguing that governments are perfect. I'm also not arguing that government should be done away with because it's imperfect.
Not from a renters perspective.
Visit the FDA, EPA or DoE sometime and tell me they aren't filthy with engineers and scientists.
Yes, but government SHOULD NOT be in the business of selecting the solution to a problem. Half the time, they don't even select the correct problem, much less do a reasonable job of evaluating the possible solutions.
And that CO2 is going to stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years. You’d have to stop all CO2 (not gonna happen) today and even then the effects on climate are irreversable for a thousand years. Going all EV won’t make a dent in climate change.
Without exposing who I am and what I do, I will assure you that I am very familiar with this. Yes, there are plenty of scientists employed by the government. They do not define nor enact policy, however. They work on what they are told to work on, and generate reports that gives the results they are instructed to generate.
It doesn't have to. Reforestation returns CO2 to plant life and into the soil.
No, we don't. We just have to change the source from fossil fuels to recycled carbon compounds.
Well sure for the lower levels the majority of CO2 is scrubbed by the oceans and vegetation. But what NOAA has stated is that there are levels of CO2 in the upper troposphere that’ll be there for hundreds if not thousands of years. Those levels of CO2 are rising and are creating irreversible effects of climate change. Just hit the 1.5 degree C threshold recently and it ain’t gonna be long before we pass the “can’t go back now” 2 degree C threshold.
I think Elon would agree with that.
Eventually? Absolutely.
He would certainly say he does. Then he would collect hundreds of millions in subsidies, well timed contracts and other incentives.
If the grid is up, that is. California's is notoriously fragile. I recall too well the great Northeast blackout, which took 55 million people off the grid in 2003. I was on a train from Boston to Newark when it stopped, and it took me 4 DAYS to get home. More recently, Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy cut power to my neighborhood for 10 and 11 days, respectively. So I view electric as a valuable tool in the toolbox, but it is NOT the be-all, end-all solution.
It's not as bad is it was 20 years ago, nor even 10 years ago. Automated restoration systems have become far more widely deployed into the grid, and the feeder and lateral protection systems in most well-populated areas will now route around the problem areas and restore the majority of a service area within minutes.
Well Elon can be wishy washy in his statements but he has stated in the past he wants all future vehicles to be EVs. No real choice for the consumer there. He has also stated recently that we need more oil and gas production because civilization would end without it. Also a fan of nuclear which I’m big on as well.
www.hertzcarsales.com
@eman1200 good news, nocturnal emissions are eco-friendly.
I think that's a bit easier said than done. While it is easy to tell an EV car's software to "not charge until midnight", that assumes that everyone is operating on the same schedule of travel needs and that they'll act accordingly to limit their charging to only when it best suits the local power capacity. If people are driving EVs that don't have home access to L2 chargers, then they are plugging-in immediately when they get home because they don't have the luxury of charging rates that can be delayed multiple hours each night. It's not a small task.
Power systems with peak capacity issues all ready have time-of-day metering. Make it cheaper to charge during non-peak times and most people will charge during non-peak times.
Yet we've added about 2.5 Million EVs to the American roads and electricity usage is flat.
It will never be cost effective, if you're already supplied with grid infrastructure. That's not how economies of scale works.
It certainly is.
I'm off grid. Hate it. Would never do it by choice. Fingers crossed that this will be the year that utility power comes to my neighborhood.
Good point. We should stop all federal subsidies for oil and gas production, as well as on gasoline, and watch the price soar to over $10/gallon.
Why is the quarter panel black on all of them again?