LilNaib

That’s too specific for me to turn one up; most of it is in the form of people saying “i’m doing regenerative ag, pay me” and doing no measurement and making all sorts of wild claims.

Big negative claims apparently backed by nothing.

There are some serious limits to its scale as well.

Gabe Brown's regenerative ag farm is 5000 acres. That's a specific claim. You can even visit his farm in person.

Without accounting and auditing to track what’s going on, you often don’t get great results.

You can say the exact same thing about the things you propose... so again, where are we? Please consider this line of reasoning and ask yourself why you're so quick to use it.

Regenerative agriculture is ill-defined, and there’s a lot of fraud in that space when it comes to carbon sequestration claims.

Can you show me a lot of fraud in regenerative agriculture in the context of USDA NRCS SOM tests? I'd like to see it.

What you describe (using fossil fuels) is a worst case scenario and not a requirement. I could turn the argument around and say don't use the heat pumps you recommend because after all, they require electricity, which requires fossil fuels. And then where are we?

You say that CDR is expensive, but it's not. As proof I'll give two examples:

• companies that make and sell biochar
• regenerative agriculture that sequesters many tons of carbon in soil while being more profitable than conventional agriculture

You can make biochar at home and it's not expensive. The finished product is a valuable commodity.

You can get to personal net zero but not with offsets.

See Carbon Dioxide Removal.

You make an important point: constitutionally-protected speech is the strongest link in their defense.

These people almost always have social media accounts, personal website hosting, and other business arrangements. None of this business is constitutionally protected and all of these business partners can be identified and many can be persuaded to cut ties. For years people have been using vague untargeted appeals to decency and it has gotten no results at all. We need to target their business partners with boycots and consumer education in the same way that wish.com became a synonym for low quality.

Drawdown is an incredible resource.

PVA, which like all conventional plastics comes from fossil fuels, is closer to a plastic bottle than a banana. To break down effectively, it needs precise conditions in wastewater facilities. Those conditions don’t currently exist

The plastic industry is pretty demented, they're even putting plastic in tea bags now.

Want to go in the opposite direction while saving an enormous amount of water? Look into laundry to landscape greywater systems. It can be as simple as having an outdoor washing machine that dumps the greywater straight into the yard, provided you're using a greywater detergent like Oasis. There are some other options in the Greywater Action FAQ. Please note that most detergents aren't greywater appropriate regardless of marketing (using the color green, including nature pics or words, claims of being natural or biodegradable), however, the ones that are greywater-friendly are easy to find.

I certainly support that.

Not saying it can't be done, just that it isn't.

We should work toward proven solutions instead.

The article says:

The Golden State’s poorest residents — those already enrolled in discounted rate programs — would pay small fixed charges.

and

Millionaires and billionaires would be slapped with the same fixed charges as middle-class families struggling to get by

Maybe I'm misreading, or maybe the article is poorly written, but it sounds like everyone would be paying fixed fees.

Setting a fee based on income sounds super error prone and vulnerable to gaming in the same way that the rich can avoid taxation. Imagine a CEO making $1 in salary with the rest in stocks, how would that be charged? Or imagine $1 in salary, but the rest in free housing, food, transportation, etc. What's the overhead for properly monitoring all this? It must be huge to do a credible job. We're already not doing it and repeating the same obvious error can only be assumed to be intentional.

Just remove base fees and charge people for their usage. Poor people already use much less electricity than rich people so they would save money under my proposal, while the people who use more would have to pay more.

in the form of flat fees on their monthly electric bills

Base fees are regressive and financially disincentivize progress.

If you want people to use less electricity, remove base fees and increase usage fees.

Another way of looking at it: imagine you had to pay a big fee to enter the grocery store, but once inside, everything was similarly priced. A potato would cost almost the same as a ribeye steak. You'd see lots of people walking out with steak, and as a result we'd have a major increase in agriculutural climate emissions.

Electricity is the same way. When everyone's paying base fees to artificially lower usage rates, poor people are subsidizing the extravagant usage of the rich.

Remove regressive base fees and charge people for the damage they do.