> I want to build a large working farm where we can teach basic farming, butchering, culinary school.

If it's about teaching young people, make sure the crops/products are what will actually be farmed on a hotter Earth.

I'm having some serious conversations with my farming tenants regarding how much longer they really want to grow wheat and maybe they should make the switch to kernza sooner rather than later.

> Life is too fucking short to waste time and spend it miserable.

Not OP, but suffering comes from within. The folks in Minneapolis seem to have no issues biking during the winter. Damn cheerful people.

I think there are other ways to help the climate besides biking in the snow, but the objection here is even more trivial than the initial suggestion was.

Oh, I specified because 52 mpg is just really good compared to most cars, and if someone has never looked at a regular hybrid before, they may see that number and assume there is some kind of plug in nature to it. I just want to convince people they can get a gas-only powered car AND get outstanding mileage if they just look at a hybrid.

Less wear and tear on the vehicle too, those hybrids tend to last longer than their gas counterparts because the engine/brakes are not always used when driving, as the battery and regenerative brakes pick up some of the slack. Cool stuff if you aren't ready for a fully electric car.

> I got 25mpg in my old Town Car.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think of this, but a non-plugin gas-only camry hybrid gets 52 mpg. Again, you only fill it with gas.

> California for example is horribly overpopulated and has terrible environmental and social policies and I say there would be an internal exodus away from it with or without climate change.

Hey aunt Erma, I didn't know you had a Reddit account! Love you!!

In that case you are predicting a huge jump in the stock when Amazon buys them to make desperately needed EV delivery vans. Or is that not how it works?

> Yeah, still a major problem, don't know why the morons are downvoting you.

I'm going to repost my comment to OP here for you as well. I genuinely do not see the issue here and do not understand how we are all not on the same page.

Heat-pumps are about 400% efficient now and work down to -20 for the latest models.

Remember, heat-pumps generate NO heat whatsoever, they simply move heat from one location (often the atmosphere) to another (like your home or hot water tank). It is energetically much cheaper to move heat than to create it. Thinking of it like that, the sun is what is doing about 80% of the work when you use a heat-pump.

Burning gas or anything else on site will be 4-6 times less efficient, even if you are getting all your electricity from fossil fuels (you most likely are not, because it is 2023, not 2003).

> generating heat with electricity is expensive

God damn it, it is not ok to be this uninformed this far into the climate crisis. Heat-pumps are about 400% efficient now and work down to -20 for the latest models.

Remember, heat-pumps generate NO heat whatsoever, they simply move heat from one location (often the atmosphere) to another (like your home or hot water tank). It is energetically much cheaper to move heat than to create it. Thinking of it like that, the sun is what is doing about 80% of the work when you use a heat-pump.

Burning gas or anything else on site will be 4-6 times less efficient, even if you are getting all your electricity from coal (you most likely are not).

I don't take your meaning here. That doesn't cancel out that 80% of conservatives are what is driving any interest remaining in fossil fuels. There is a big problem, and a small problem. Point to the small problem as you see fit, but get real about the big problem.

Ironically we may be too far into the climate crisis for this statement to be true. We are now counting on enough free hands to work to repair the damage done. Too few hands, and we venture much further into the altered climate's future.

> This all sounds like a fund raising mission to me.

Fund raising for what? Unless you are alleging fraud, it sounds like the scientists believe in the mission, in which case it's not appropriate to criticize the fund raising, but the goal.

Scientists have no difficulty generating a paycheck. If they are bothering to fund raise, it's because of what they want to work on.

> At risk of extinction” implies their number is dropping and soon to hit zero.

That's already extinct because it's too late to do anything about it at that point. We can accurately predict how long their habitat can hold out, and we barely have time left to do anything about it. We are steering an ocean-liner here, not a jet-ski.

> you need to compare a set up that could directly replace these plants, and continue performing their same function.

Yeah, that would be battery storage, which has always been priced in to building renewables starting like 4 years ago. In fact, currently around the world the batteries are usually finished being set up before the solar/wind farm itself. Hawaii is a great example right now.

Mmm...this is the kind of headline that's a real sign of the times. I wish it had come sooner, but I honestly thought it might never happen.