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.

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

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.

Welp, I guess we'll all have to suffer the consequences so that Lordkitsuna can game in the middle of nowhere. Truly first world problems.

https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-reentry-ozone-depletion-atmosphere

"New generation of engineers" is a bit cringe. The old generation knew thermodynamics pretty damn well. All that's changed is they're using R290 refrigerants and variable speed compressors now, but those don't change anything from a physics perspective. COP is fun but it's not even the right metric to use from a policy perspective, just like MPG. And despite being unitless, COP suffers from the same exagerative effect as MPG numbers. What matters is the carbon associated with delivering BTUs to a home, so here you can have the ridiculous case of delivering more BTUs at a higher carbon cost achieving a higher SCOP than the same exact heat pump delivering fewer BTUs at a lower total carbon cost achieving a lower SCOP for a better insulated home, and the person with the higher SCOP bragging about it like a clown. At least when the government tests COP it's a standardized test so you can actually compared equipment (somewhat).

Regardless, nerds gonna nerd and no harm done (and I also track real time energy use of my heat pump, so I consider myself a nerd).

It may be true that Starlink is a great service, but that's entirely irrelevant to the point of the article and any ozone destruction that the satellites cause.

Are you just doing the thing where you cast doubt on journal articles because they feel wrong? You don't think humans can affect the natural environment in such a way? This sounds oddly familiar and a bit ironic for this community....

Meteors aren't made out of aluminum like satellites are btw. There will be more reasearch done and we will learn more. But for now, there's a potential issue.

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-satellite-megaconstellations-jeopardize-recovery-ozone.amp

This isn't a "different political opinion". Climate change isn't an opinion, period. A different political opinion is supposed to mean a different policy solution to a specific problem, not wholesale ignoring reality.

Yes. Use stainless steel, cast iron, and carbon steel. You can cook everything with these just as easily once you learn some basic cooking skills.

Shiping represents about 10% of the 25% of global carbon emissions from transportation, so 2.5%, similar to aviation. Yes, it's a problem but it's not the boogeyman you seem to think it is.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport