No problem :)

I wish you luck in your quest for a demo…

““Does the impact of pollutants and carbon offset even cover the cost of replacement given the current efficiency?””

Gas stoves emit a variety of harmful air pollutants… The articles linked below indicate that these pollutants create a myriad of health issues that are particularly evident in children… The studies cited in the article indicate that exposure comparable to cooking with gas increased respiratory illness in children by 20%…

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/

Assuming a new stove costs $900, lasts 10 years, and you make $20/hr, missing just 6 days of work in that 10 year span from respiratory illness would cost more than getting a new stove. Considering that the NO2 quantity produced by gas stoves can cause a 20% increase in respiratory illness in children, I’d argue that switching is a no-brainer from a purely cost aspect, especially if you have children… Missing work to deal with a sick kid is a nightmare.

If youre living alone & working from home, its likely that just factoring time lost to illness likely wouldn’t cover the cost of replacement, but that is just 1 factor out of many…

Here is Ny times analysis of it… https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/upshot/road-deaths-pedestrians-cyclists.html

If this is the case, then why hasnt the rest of the world seen a similarly startling increase in pedestrian fatalities?

The rise in smartphones was a global phenomenon. By your logic, the entire world should be seeing similar rises in pedestrian fatalities, but they arent.

On the other hand, the rapid increase in vehicle size/weight has been fairly localized to the US due to regulations that incentivized such…

When i was a kid, a mexican restaurant chain shut down after a bunch of people got sick/died of hepatitis A in my city.

The day they reopened, it was highly publicized on the local news, and my family went there to eat… i asked my dad if he was concerned about getting sick. He stopped, looked me in the eye, and told me with the upmost confidence “i guarantee you that this will be the cleanest restaurant meal you will ever have in your life”…

i feel a similar concept applies to this situation… with all the eyes on the 737 max8, there is no way management is going to sell one if it has outstanding flaws/safety issues.

They’ve been playing ads for at least a decade… though in the early days, some of the gas stations near me played some cringy jimmy kimmel shit instead of ads (somehow, i preferred having my ears violated by the ads)

Yet one more thing that makes me thankful to have gotten rid of my car completely… not being dependent on gas stations is super liberating.

I think it was more regarding the strategic importance of the emerging northwest passage arctic shipping route.

deleted by creator

My city’s DPW recently performed 2 traffic studies as part of their pedestrian plan.

One was driver yield rates at unsignalized crosswalks. The results of this study indicated that of the 825 yielding oppurtunities observed, drivers yielded only 173 times (aka, 79% of drivers failed to yield in violation of state law).

The other was a speed study. Of the 35 observed roads, all 35 had a measured median speed that exceeded the speed limit. 34 of the 35 had measured average speeds that exceeded the speed limit…

Based on these findings, An overwhelming majority of drivers fail to abide by basic traffic laws. I would argue that breaking basic traffic laws makes one a terrible driver, so yes. A large majority (like 79%) are terrible.