I’m too lazy to find it but there was a similar statistic around motorcycle deaths. If you survived the first 6 months the rate went way down.

None of that changes the reality that they did not vote for harm reduction and now more harm will come to the people they purport to protect (and likely themselves, now that evangelical christians are in power). This is textbook shooting off your nose to spite your face. There is no rule saying you need to pass a moral purity test to earn a vote, that’s a dumb construct that is hampering progress. You can vote for harm reduction, it’s ok. The conservatives keep winning and moving further right. The democrats could win and move further left if their cranky coalition would accept not getting everything they want for once.

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.

“Electoral pressure” just means regular people don’t actually care that much, no? That seems like a big part of the problem to me.

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.

How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn’t magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don’t hate you either. I can’t say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn’t you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?

Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.

If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.

True, but those are different products than proper motorcycles although they are creeping up in terms of power/speed. The regulatory structure (US focus here) has a huge gap for such “ebikes”. In the good old days, you could ride a 49.9 cc scooter without a motorcycle license on the road (not paths), but after that there was a pretty big power jump to proper motorcycles. Up to 50cc gets you a top speed around 25 mph and very slow acceleration. Now we have “ebikes” that are significantly faster, in particular acceleration but also top speed, that are effectively completely unregulated. And unlike gas scooters, they use bike/pedestrian infrastructure and not just streets/roads. It’s frankly a mess. We need to allocate road space from cars to bikes/“ebikes” and encourage these vehicles (and licensing/training/safety) but I fear many areas just don’t want to deal with it.

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.

I’m too lazy to look this up, but I believe death rates were higher out of cities vs in cities. Half the reason hospitals were packed in cities is because rural people went where the ventilators were. Everywhere had all the covid waves, they just hit cities first.

Elderly tend to be more R, and D folks were more likely to mask and vaccinate. But elderly vaccinated pretty well across the board and the divide was bigger in the young. Lots of factors, but my money is on D making out slightly better as a broad cohort. Tragic all around though.

Ok I did some searching and excess mortality points to higher rural impact, but official cause of death data is mixed (too lazy to link though).

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-sas-comparing-urban-and-rural-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic

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.

Any chance this is sensitive enough to pick up methane emissions from particularly gassy individuals in their homes? Asking for a friend.