Is inequality actually the problem when it comes to carbon? Just as a thought exercise, if everyone on earth, or even within each county, received an equal share of GDP, I suspect emissions may increase. You’d replace the private jets with more of everything else. Inequality is a major issue for a host of other reasons though, absolutely.
Depends on whether it vents outside or just blows the fumes back in your face. But generally it will be slightly to much worse than a dedicated range hood. What/how you cook matters a lot - don’t sear ribeyes inside on cast iron without a vent hood.
Right. And once it gets rolling, the disconnect (electrification) rate will undoubtedly increase. The sooner folks understand this, the sooner we can all get along to managing the wind down of the gas infrastructure in an intelligent way.
Yawn. Humans have been cooking long before natural gas became popular and will keep cooking long after we finally stop burning fossil fuels. We have electric ovens, induction cooktops/griddles, we can make hot water, steam, etc with electricity just fine. Even electric pizza ovens seem to be better.
Goodbye, Gas. The Future of New York City’s Pizza Is Electric. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/dining/new-york-pizza-electric-ovens.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
What does this even mean? What TV shows are you even talking about? Indiana is a US state.
Show us where the Cheneys registered as Democratics and abandoned the Republican party. Voting for someone from another party doesn’t make you a member.
They outlined their reasoning, you continue to ignore it and make up a weird story about the democrats fully aligning all of their policy stances to those of the Cheneys. In reality, they just hate Trump and recognize the unique danger he poses. It’s not complicated.
Once again you’re willfully ignoring all context.
You’re right of course, but the nuance is that research takes time. We need to start working on it now so we will be ready to scale the technology when we have surplus renewable energy. It’s a tricky balance.
It’s like you’re willfully ignoring all context, wild.
“I helped put W and Cheney into power, now even those ghouls think Harris is better than Trump, so I guess I’ll help out Trump in power” --> you.
When I think of a “do nothing party”, the Greens are at the top of the list. They quite literally do nothing and have no power, except to spoil tight races in the direction of conservatism/fascism. I guess if that’s you’re goal, you’re happy.
The Cheney cohort supports Harris not because she is a conservative warmonger, they support her because she’ll broadly maintain US legal and political structures, which as they’ve stated, they feel are more important than specific policy. I.e., she will preserve the state of the Republic and not do the fascism thing. They’re endorsement says a lot more about Trump than it does about Harris, which you probably know but are being purposely disingenuous about.
Good luck with your third parties in a system that mathematically will never support a third party though, real big brain stuff. You’re literally playing a different game than everyone else.
To be clear, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, this is for anyone else that may happen upon this thread that might be smart enough to connect the dots about an alternate reality where Gore won the election with respect to climate change.
Nader, the spoiler candidate that gave us GW Bush instead of Al Gore, the climate guy? If you’re in FL you should be profoundly embarrassed, and if you’re in a different state just regular embarrassed.
Notice they barely mention refrigerants because they are planning to use HFOs to meet low GWP targets rather than only actually sustainable choice - natural refrigerants. HFOs are PFAS and we are already seeing environmental accumulation of PFAS (primarily TFA) directly linked to HFO use around the world. We need to shift to natural refrigerants now.
Not sure who’s downvoting you, you’re absolutely correct. Infrastructure for rural, and even suburban areas isn’t even close to being paid for by the people living there. I thought this was common knowledge. It should be obvious that 5 families living in a single large building require significantly fewer resources than 5 individual homes 5 miles apart.
I’m not sure what your comparing here, but there are constant budget shortfalls for rural paving in my state. It’s not cheap. There’s also the cost to build the roads (and run electric, phone, internet, etc). There’s a reason we needed a bunch of subsidies to add services to rural (and even suburban) places. I think we owe it to everyone in our society to provide basic services, but we don’t have to pretend it isn’t expensive to do so.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money
Don’t forget about the massive insurance scheme designed to deal with the aftermath of millions of largely preventable collisions and tens of thousands of deaths each year, the regulatory complex, the adverse health impacts and burden on the healthcare industry, and perhaps biggest of all - the infrastructure (and space) needed for all of this unnecessary driving, all of which come at the expense of all other forms of transportation. The scale of the auto industry is mind boggling, especially considering how useless most of it is.
Aren’t your just describing the current credit? There’s a mechanism for the dealer to provide the incentive at the time of purchase vs during tax filing the following year. There’s also an income limit for eligibility.
That being said, the whole point is to move battery supply chains to the US, not to actually make cheap cars for folks.
Unless the plan is something more like Terminator. If you “unshackle” AI and give them a mandate to get CO2 back to 250 ppm things are going to get real.
I’m not looking to put real names out here for someone at NYT customer service just doing their job, but you can reach a real person through “contact us” in the app settings. NYT is a legit company with real customer service, but it probably only works if you’re a paid subscriber. I find it cathartic to complain to companies about stuff.
That’s a fair point. It still seems like focusing on the supply side would just result in higher prices (I’m thinking just oil imports), while enriching other countries that still pump. So money is sent abroad, Americans pay more and are pissed off and are back to being dependent on global markets. Whereas a tax would lower demand in an “artificial” way that keeps the money in the borders to be used on stuff that benefits people, like enabling the transition itself. Taxes are simple and they work. I imagine we’d have to be basically off oil already before moratoriums would be feasible politically. Gas is a bit different than oil because it’s not really a global market, but I’m no expert on this stuff. I just want to the fossil fuels to stay in the ground one way or another.
They certainly have. I’ve complained to NYT several times over their full page BP greenwashing ads, citing misinformation. I don’t suppose it helps, but it’s nice to at least push. I even emailed back and forth with a real person over it, so I got that going for me which is nice.
Lawyers hate this one weird trick! That wouldn’t work because you’re not actually being more “strict”, you’re still in opposition to the federal law. Being more “strict” means you’re still in compliance with federal law, you just do extra stuff on top. Semantics can’t change that.