circadian rhythm. we are not nocturnal. your pattern has negative health consequences for many people.

the cost of infrastructure required to do so is inefficient.

that is what leaders do; they loudly attract support usually in incredibly primitive [yet effective] ways. being a leader has nothing to do with being intelligent; we aren't going to follow the meekly supported brilliant plan of a introverted super nerd unless advanced by his belligerent screaming champion. And there isn't anything wrong with that. It takes all types.

I think if he paid taxes on the gift it is perfectly legal in the US. I question your cousin's business acumen. As an investor signed off on the conversion of his equity stake in the company into a useless depreciating asset.

the real point here is that your brain is so hard-wired by age that you cannot embrace the change or dynamism that drive human progress. it is time to wander off into the woods. alternatively accept that your opinions and thinking are outmoded and allow yourself to be reduced to some menial skill set until such time you can wander off into the woods.

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)

On a related note, one is an energy pig if they can't offset their electrical with a solar array the size of their living footprint. For comparison, my home is small ~60 m^2, but with that area I would produce 300-400% net excess or 1.5 - 2 US avg household.

"they" ? distinguishing strongly overlapping normal distributions by the difference in a rudimentary statistical variable is a very convenient framework to support your opinion, no? I wouldn't assign any political labels to myself, but others might call me a socialist and I don't understand anything about what you label as the basis of my ideology.

One of the things I do to reduce energy consumption relative to U.S. per capita consumption is to use a 7 day programmable thermostat, basically for night time/unoccupied reset. Setting aside the fact that it was free from the utility because they have an economic incentive to reduce peak demand, it had an economic payback of approximately 35 days. That gave an effective ROI of ~500%. Attic insulation about ROI ~60% is another example. I only plan to be in my home for 8 years, but consequently, I will reduce emissions from coal and natural gas, and have $4500 extra in a non taxed retirement account. Add this to other energy related choices with financial incentive (e.g. most) and you recover $100k's of savings by retirement. How am I a ‘dupe’ and what does it have to do with a socialist outlook?

I think you'll get off to a better start if you think of people as individuals. I doubt you enjoy being assigned to some monolithic dehumanized collective.

Power grab, by who, from who? That sounds very conspiratorial. Can you enlighten me?

Save money? Insulate your quality of life from changes in the global energy landscape? Minimize waste? Self Improvement? Let us set aside "saving the world," thus all the criticism of that goal and focus on a lot of other compelling reasons to use your resources wisely. Are there really any compelling arguments against it?

I'm in favor of conservation and I don't believe that. I don't understand the point of your dichotomy when there exists many options between your two extremes.

One alternative is to realize that a reduction of one's energy footprint on the order of 20-40% can be made simply from awareness and intelligent choices requiring no compromise. I would argue that many of the easy big drivers of conservation improve quality of life and increase happiness. Beyond that change may be required. “Change” may be undesirable, reduce quality of life, or simply ill-informed perception.

A compelling driving force is the economic incentive, which is particularly attractive with a good scheme, e.g. pipe energy savings directly into non-taxable retirement accounts. Additional strategies enable insulation from future energy costs, or even directly hedging changes in future energy costs.

“Saving” becomes a fundamental exercise in efficiency, which should appeal to many types. It is a fundamental exercise in character, which should appeal to other types. It can be competitive, rewarding, challenging, and fun, which should appeal to even more types. It exercises the mind, satisfies curiosity, engages critical faculties, and requires learning and understanding about our connection and place in the world.

I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument against applied wisdom or trying one's best. But I’m always open to it.

that is a needlessly salacious description of someone who probably typified those in power at the time, of any race and religion.

30% savings by waiting 2 years? dunno. It hardly would have mattered in the grand scheme of the life of the vehicle except for the minor detail you would also now have approximately the purchase price of that car sitting in an index fund investment account.

A douche? I'm pointing out economic realities. Douchebags ignore economic realities and spend money frivolously.

Surely depreciation matters if you can buy the same car cheaper with a little patience.