To follow @Sweet Lou 4 2 post. The Earth is a dynamic system that is always changing whether humans are here or not. Generally the climate doesn’t change very fast but over the course of thousands of years. Certainly sudden events like an asteroid impact or large eruption will Change the Climate suddenly hit what we’re seeing the last 200 years is the climate changing rapidly without some sort of large sudden natural event. What has changed is that humans are pumping tons of not just CO2 but other gasses that can trap heat into the atmosphere. Through deduction reasoning that means the most likely explanation of the recent rise in Earth’s average temperature is the human activity. Why this matters isn’t really about saving the Earth as the Earth and most life on earth wi continue even if the planet warms several degrees. It is that human civilization developed under a very narrow climate range. If that tips just a few degrees could be catastrophic.
This. There's a bunch of polarization from both sides that creates impossible to defend statements. I feel the Left has built climate change to the point where it has to be solved first despite clear and present dangers to solid pollution, plastics/pesticides circulating and decomposing around the world, widespread and ongoing mass extinctions, etc...that global warming indirectly impacts. The Right has built up the Chicken Little sandbag defense where the findings have to become "near prophetic" in order to carry value and even if accuracy is accepted, then precision becomes the next part to scrutinize. What they don't want to concede is that our globalized system is ultra fragile, from supply chains, to the course of resources, or available manpower from every participating country. Famines lead to higher food prices, and sustained food prices leads to riots or even Arab Springs... None of these mean that Texas will become a desert or the California coast will turn into an overflooded mess in the next 20 years. The changes are singular and gradual. Some are recoverable and others people will have to adjust by necessity. Furthermore, a great deal of the QoL changes might very well be correctable now especially with unconstrained chemicals and plastics entering into our food supply. None of it is profitable or easily correctable, so we deal with the bigger enchilada of Climate Change. Seems like a rabbit hole for disaster, but then again it took a river to be set on fire and the Great Lakes to be a fish killing mess before people demanded Congress pass the the Clean Water Act in the 70s.
The faux urgency of the climate crisis is giving us no time or space to build a secure energy future https://judithcurry.com/2022/12/27/...y-future/?mc_cid=81e41dadde&mc_eid=2c28606ca0 excerpt: Attributing extreme weather and climate events to global warming can motivate a country to attempt to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that eliminating emissions would have a noticeable impact on weather and climate extremes in the 21st century. It is very difficult to untangle the roles of natural weather and climate variability and land use from the slow creep of global warming. Looking back into the past, including paleoclimatic data, there has been more extreme weather everywhere on the planet. Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale. . . . There is growing realization that these emissions and temperature targets have become detached from the issues of human well-being and development. Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century. However once we relax the faux urgency for eliminating CO2 emissions and the stringent time tables, we have time and space to envision new energy systems that can meet the diverse, growing needs of the 21st century. more at the link
Ohhh.... so you guys just need more time? Okay then, I'll slow down then so you denialists can get caught up on your own time, and really don't have to worry about it. - Earth
Repeating again. 1. Yes there’s been periods of even greater global warming. Those generally took thousands of years to get there with exceptions of a major catastrophic event like massive eruptions. We’ve not seen warming this fast without a major event. 2. Just because we’ve used a technology that has been beneficial for a long time doesn’t mean we can’t transition. Lead was very beneficial for a very long term yet we’ve gotten rid of lot of it.
Same with asbestos. We don't need to ban fossil fuels. We need to invest in making other energy sources viable.
We’re not going to have a blanket ban on Fossil Fuels anytime soon just like we don’t have a blanket ban on lead, asbestos or refrigerants that harm the ozone layer. What we do have is an evolving series of regulations that have gradually restricted those and that is what we’ve been slowly seeing with fossil fuels. I will say again for those who don’t think changes are possible consider that in the early 70’s lead was everywhere. In fuel, paint and many other products. By the mid 80’s it was out of many of those and now there are few products we deal with daily that have lead. Change can happen
I moved away from indoor gas stove years ago because of the indoor air population it releases. A vent hood doesn’t help resolve the problem. About time Americans become more aware of the harm. Ban shouldn’t happen at this time but consumer should be aware of the air pollution it releases indoor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-...agency-11673303864?mod=hp_opin_pos_5#cxrecs_s Biden Is Coming for Your Gas Stove The Consumer Product Safety Commission enlists in the crusade to ban fossil fuels from the kitchen. By The Editorial Board Jan. 10, 2023 1:15 pm ET Coercion in the cause of banning fossil fuels is no vice for the Biden Administration, which is now coming after cooks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) could soon ban gas stoves. CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. teased in an interview with Bloomberg News this week that the agency plans to propose new regulations for gas stoves, which could include a ban. “This is a hidden hazard,” Mr. Trumka said. “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” Mr. Trumka isn’t worried that gas stoves might cause accidental burns—a hidden hazard for electric range-tops that stay hot long after they’re turned off. Instead, the agency’s purported concern is that gas stoves cause indoor air pollution and asthma, though there’s scant evidence to support such claims. Even the Environmental Protection Agency says “gas stoves (and gas fireplace inserts) do not require EPA certification. Whether designed to burn natural gas or propane, they burn very cleanly, emitting very little pollution.” It adds that “many cooking appliances and the process of cooking itself can increase levels of indoor PM [particulate matter].” As the California Air Resources Board explains, “heating oil, fat and other food ingredients, especially at high temperatures” can generate pollutants, and “studies show that air can be unhealthy to breathe when people cook in kitchens with poor ventilation. The best way to ventilate your kitchen is to use a properly-installed, high efficiency range hood over your stove.” Studies flogged by the climate left don’t account for the effects of ventilation. One even sealed a test kitchen in plastic tarps in an effort to show that gas stoves increase pollution. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, the most comprehensive global study to date, found “no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.” The real hazard isn’t gas stoves but how people use them. Not that this distinction matters to the CPSC, which has a long history of targeting products such as window blinds, IKEA dressers, and Peloton treadmills because of accidents that are the fault of customers. In this case, Mr. Trumka wants to use indoor pollution as a pretext to advance the climate left’s goal of forcing all buildings to use electricity for everything. It’s not enough to force Americans to buy electric cars. We must all cook on electric stoves too.
No, I don't think they are about to ban gas stoves. And if they do, it would be a slow phase-in for new buildings. They would be crazy to force remove gas stoves that exists in probably 50% of home today. This OP is wrong about mechanical ventilation, NO2, and PM2.5. NO2 is primarily caused by gas and CAN'T be mitigated with mechanical ventilation. PM2.5 is caused by several sources, including gas stoves, but it CAN BE mitigated with mechanical ventilation. Ventilation does help since it mitigates PM2.5 and anyone who cooks at home should have one and use it. There is some study that shows no association with asthma but there have also been plenty of studies that show the danger of gas stoves. Some of them are listed in this article. One population study in the Netherlands showed gas cooking was correlated with increased risk of asthma in children. This study used meta-analysis, a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to improve the detection of associations. The authors concluded: "children living in a home with gas cooking have a 42% increased risk of having current asthma, a 24% increased risk of lifetime asthma and an overall 32% increased risk of having current and lifetime asthma." A US study showed gas cookers increase the amount of nitrogen dioxide inside the home and increased the use of night-time inhalers by children with asthma. But paradoxically there was no increase in asthma symptoms. An Australian study in the Latrobe valley of 80 households with children between 7 and 14 years old showed an association between gas stove use and asthma. Children from households with gas stoves were around twice as likely to be diagnosed with asthma as children from households without gas stoves. Another Australian study, from 2018, gives an estimate of how strong the risk is (as opposed to the association). It used modeling to determine the proportion of asthmatic Australian children whose asthma could be attributed to exposure to gas stoves. It used the prevalence of asthma in Australian children, the prevalence of gas cooking in Australia, and the risk from the Netherlands meta-analysis of asthma association with gas stoves described above. The authors estimated 12.3% of the asthma in children who were exposed to gas stoves was due to the stove exposure itself. Recent research shows that ventilation reduces indoor pollution levels except for NO2 (the pollutant released by gas) New research has found that mechanical ventilation systems significantly reduce the levels of particulate matter, carbon dioxide and monoxide, and formaldehyde from indoor air, reducing the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular illness. The study from the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) and Enterprise Community Partners concludes that mechanical ventilation could save thousands of lives and prevent major health impacts of indoor air pollution. However, even in homes with ventilation systems, researchers did not observe significant changes in levels of nitrogen dioxide, which primarily comes from gas stoves, suggesting that increasing ventilation is not enough to address the health impacts of these appliances. Based on these findings, the study recommends that builders and owners install continuous mechanical ventilation systems in all homes, while phasing out gas stoves altogether. ‘Thousands of Americans are dying every year from preventable illnesses exacerbated by poor air quality, and this study shows we have the tools at our disposal to fix this systemic issue. Installing mechanical ventilation and transitioning from gas stoves to electric would have a significant impact on public health, particularly in lower-income communities,’ said Stephany De Scisciolo, Vice President of Impact and Evaluation at Enterprise and a collaborator on the study. ‘We’re grateful to our partners at the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) and The JPB Foundation for making this incredibly important study possible.’ The study found a 20% reduction in particulate matter (PM2.5) when mechanical ventilation was in use. The researchers predicted that if all multifamily housing in the United States had continuous mechanical ventilation, the resulting decrease in indoor PM2.5 alone could lead to: 14,800 fewer deaths 11,800 fewer emergency department visits due to asthma 8,100 fewer hospitalizations due to respiratory or cardiovascular illness ‘Ventilation is much more important than we previously thought,’ said David Jacobs, Chief Scientist at NCHH. ‘This study gives us three clear takeaways: All gas stoves should be replaced, all apartments should have continuous mechanical ventilation, and outdoor air pollution affects indoor air. Ensuring our homes are healthy ones is key to preventing illness and promoting well-being.’ This is related to indoor air pollution which should concern everyone and yet here WSJ EB is choosing to use "climate left" in this OP. It confuses people to think this is related to climate, and it's divisive when again, indoor air pollution should concern everyone.
