Edit, removed due to bad math, oc explained below why their commute/fuel economy sucks
Atom
joined 2 years ago
You make a really good point. Dems do tend to take the high road.
Also, I was surprised it was available! I only got it on .world, so you might be able to get it in a different instance.
The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. That's why the court loosing it's credibility is kind of a big deal for Roberts.
As racist as this obviously is, it's good to see a red state be the test case for ignoring the court. It might give blue states more energy to ignore the next 40 years of authoritarian and climate denial rulings.
But then where will also those people the New York Post says wish they could go back to the office work?/s
Ah, okay. Absolutely valid point. 'Alliance' is not a good choice of words here. Germany's green anti-nuclear party inadvertently jumping into bed with coal and natural gas was not an alliance, just a circumstance.
Lol, that's a first for me. Uranium is an element likely formed during a supernova event 6 billion years ago. It is absolutely not a fossil fuel
Johnny Harris and Big If True have a great video discussing fear and actual nuclear impacts. The only factor it lacks mentioning is how much land fossil fuels takes up. Each year, fossil fuels infrastructure distroys more land than Chernobyl and fukushima combined.
Basing on the US since that is where my MS studies in environment policy were focused. Conservative republicanans poll highest in believing climate change is fake or not caused by human activity
From the same article, you can see that support for expanding nuclear energy is stronger among liberal republicans and strongest with conservative republicans.
*Pew research is not a scholarly source on its own, but scores center for media bias making it optimal for readers without academic library access
The Bible was a difficult read for me. I pushed through just because I wanted to have at least read it when using it's words to contradict Supply-Side Christians.
I mean, you picked a great source because that spells out why the administration made that agreement. Oil and gas doesn't want the land. It is not profitable for them to use and they already leased more than they'll ever need.
What you're talking about is politics. The headline says "OIL FIRST!" And it gives the conservatives something to take home to their voters. They can go say "yea, so Biden got the IRA with climate spending, but we got oil first pick baby!!!"
Meanwhile, it's nothing of substance and the emission reductions as a whole are far more impsctful. It makes no difference because the land leases aren't going to oil anyway, they don't want it. The article you link has multiple experts saying that....
You're right, I based the math off a week, not a month. My mistake. You're absolutely right though, witout a much stronger focus on public transit, many people are stuck living far away from work due to housing costs. An EV is better than an ICE. But WFH or integrated quality mass transit systems are far superior. I wish more Americans had that luxury.