SkepticalButOpenMinded

Gas stoves are very meaningful. Natural gas is mostly methane, which has 30 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. Activists have been pushing to eliminate natural gas use for years now, but the natural gas lobby has been pushing back hard.

But you're right, this is no silver bullet, because no silver bullet exists. I'm happy with government making a lot of small regulations against corporations. Require smaller packaging, less waste, less single use items, more clean up, etc. They add up.

Was this the output of a chatbot?

yes, typo. Corrected.

I’m sorry but most of what you say doesn’t make any sense. Why would making it easier and faster to drive encourage cycling and walking?

Let me address your points in turn:

1. Yes, slowing car traffic makes car travel worse. That’s the point. Cars are massively prioritized right now.

2. Cars are a cost of living disaster. The US and Canada spend the most on transportation costs in the world. The US actually spends more public tax dollars on transportation because car infrastructure is the least efficient and most expensive to build. Cars themselves are the biggest household expense after housing. Businesses also thrive in car free environments. In Europe, businesses know this and fight to remove car infrastructure. Ever wonder why the most economically vibrant areas are the least car dependent? The US and Canada are brainwashed.

3. The solution to cars driving on cycling routes is to lower the speed limit even more on those routes. Like I said, in Canada many cycling routes are 18 mph. Most drivers go even slower on cycling prioritized routes. It’s mind boggling to think it would be safer if cars could go faster.

4. I’ve lived for many years in both countries. The US drives way faster and is much more dangerous, despite similar looking streets. In most other developed countries, traffic accident rates are falling to record lows. The US is a tragic outlier.. Prioritizing “traffic flow” is the heart of the problem.

I agree with everything you said in the second half. Better non-car infrastructure should be the primary focus!

But I don’t see why traffic calming and slower car speeds would make things miserable for “everyone”, like cyclists or pedestrians. I wouldn’t ride my bike nearly as often if cars could go 45 mph on Canadian streets. Making cars uncomfortable is part of encouraging other modes of transportation.

I agree for the most part. It’s better to design streets so that drivers feel uncomfortable at higher speeds. Street narrowing, bollards, trees, smaller set backs can all slow cars down.

That said, as a counterpoint, despite similar street design, the speed limit in most of Canada is 50kmh (30 mph) and many urban residential streets are down to 30km (18.6 mph). Some people speed, but driving 45 mph (72 km/h!) down most city streets is pretty rare. Pedestrian and cycling accidents involving cars in Canada are close to half the rate of the US. Which is to say, I don’t think the Denver mayor’s proposal is crazy. It works in Canada, but it will take time for the culture to change.

“Why would I put tomato in a salad when it already has lettuce?”

“Veggies” are not a single undifferentiated category.

I’m not a vegan, but that’s not the right way to think about subsidies. It’s not about whether someone is a “meat eater” or a “vegan”. It’s about incentivizing consumption. The person eating meat once or twice a week subsidizes the person eating meat everyday. The more meat you eat, the more money society pays. Many people would cut back on eating meat if they had to pay the true cost.

Banning plastic straws and gas stoves is going after corporations. Corporations are the ones opposed to it.

I would love for that to be true, but where’s the evidence? I skimmed the article but didn’t see any mention of public disapproval.

“If you cancel” implies that the “immediately” refers to the act of canceling. If your interpretation is right, it feels more like downright lying.

Yes this is not necessarily an academic study, and might just be something to guide corporations to maximize exploitative employment practices. These multiple factor experiments are also rife with the possibility for abuse. The research designers can tweak the weights, or operationalize concepts as they see fit.