Energy imbalance of earth is not a new catch phrase. Carl Sagan was using this back in the 80s because "greenhouse effect" is not an accurate metaphor for how CO2 warms the planet.

The people who want to control how you run your life are running your life right now. They convinced you that "woke" and "anti-growth environmentalism" are something you should pay attention to and rally against. And here you are, doing their bidding on slashdot like a good little lap dog. Unfortunately, there is no milk bone in your future for this loyal act of service.

paywalled didn't read

Those "critical components" are not required for my analysis. The rarity of old Hondas and Subarus is what makes them notable. You see "shitloads" of them, but its not over half of all cars on the road, as would be the case if they were actually still around, and built to last. Its like maybe what, 5%? Do that for cars from the 80s and its under 1%. In 10 years your "shitloads" will be a reduced to a handful of wrxes at car shows and in barns, meticulously cared for by people nostalgic for their glory days. Where I live, road salt has already consumed any car over 25 years old that was made of metal. I haven't seen a 90s civic for a long time.

Like I said, survivorship bias. If cars from the 90s lasted 25 years the roads would be full of them. Total new vehicle registrations in the us for that decade is 180 million. That would be over half of all cars currently registered.

Old dependable cars is a textbook example of survivorship bias. Peak auto lifetime is an illusion. Cars have never been built to last.

Because tax increment financing is still legal just about everywhere in America.

Why do I even use windows? According to MSFT its not even secure or even good.

Indeed, much much better to send somebody elses death machine to the urban area and pick it up for you.

Yea, gas powered cars are the best way to access urban amenities without actually living near a city. And I totally agree with you. Who would want to live in a place that has two ton death machines all over the place. Much better to live far away from that and drive your two ton death machine there to get what you need, when you need it.

The idea is that synthetic fuels have better energy density than batteries. So much so that you are better off using synthetic fuels purely because of the cost of transporting the fuel in your own gas tank takes so much less energy than transporting batteries.

They totally suck for driving from bumfuck nowhere to the nearest Costco, for example.

Because their donors own all the dino juice and they want to sell as much of it as they can before China achieves energy independence and the rest of the world rides their coat tails.

Who is going to decide what is non-essential? You?

So what? Its not a personal responsibility problem. If it was a personal responsibility problem, I wouldn't have to subsidize my neighbor's driving habit. I'm glad you agree that banning air travel is not acceptable. Its a straw man that almost nobody is talking about. Commercial air travel is surprisingly efficient already, even compared to electric cars. Flying coach is like 15 cents per mile. You'd have to put 230,000 miles on a Tesla model 3 to beat that. And that's not even including the cost of electricity, maintenance, and insurance.