It does a little. funding isn’t unlimited. If the goal is to get off fossil fuels ASAP, to me it makes more sense to invest in building technologies that we know work.

Once we stop the house from burning down we can look into upgrading the sprinkler system.

car manufacturers are the ones who made people want SUVs/crossovers in the first place.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/suv-small-car-affordable-1.7239768

yup. i love my EV but my dream would be a hatchback EV. fucking US car manufacturers have brainwashed everyone to think they need an EV of some sort. yay rugged individualism.

yeah i would not recommend EVs to anyone who can’t charge at home. we are just not there yet with infrastructure.

yes, extra battery capacity does not require extra maintenance or fossil fuel like an ICE engine does.

the problem with PHEVs is the battery is very small, which is a longevity concern. Batteries lose charge capacity based on how many charging cycles they go through. So if you are discharging most of the battery on a daily commute you’re going to kill that battery’s capacity within a few years (like a cell phone).

You need to look at the total cost of ownership. EVs often cost less than comparable ICE vehicles because of savings in fuel, maintenance, and repairs.

Toyota hybrids are reliable compared to other ICE vehicles. But EVs are even more reliable. Also you still have to do ICE maintenance on hybrids like oil changes.

I agree hybrids still have their place, but i think many more people can switch to full EVs instead of going hybrid. they are just wary of change.

don’t wait, upgrade the kids already.

still better than AI powered from natural gas.

i assume the point is we could have been building clean nuclear energy without waiting for fusion.

there’s more to it than that.

True but there’s very liitle context here. It could have made more sense in the conversation if it was meant like “I pay you to fight for our position, not roll over to threats.”

So if “only” 50% of doctors report that their patients are falling like flies because of a drug…

Well, how essential is the drug? People need to eat, and killing weeds is part of making that happen. If we stop using one of our most effective and safe herbicides, there will be an impact to humans with increasing food prices, even more toxic herbicides, tilled farming (which releases CO2), or all three.

Do you want to tell poor/food insecure people they need to be even poorer and more food insecure because maybe some frogs have reproductive issues? This isn’t a black and white issue, it’s complicated with drawbacks on both sides. We need to make decisions based on solid evidence.

because that requires more money. why bother when you can just polish an old game and resell for the same price?

jesus. chill the fuck out.

We are talking about peer-reviewed papers from multiple countries, and an additional layer of scrutiny from this meta-analysis (the entire point of which was to identify bias in industry funded studies). It was funded directly by the government, and all authors were researchers employed by various universities. The likelihood a significant number of them have had faked funding that no one noticed is very low.

But no, your conspiracy theory with no evidence at all trumps any logic.

some yes, not all.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26694022/

39 studies tested environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine (11 industry sponsored, 24 non-industry sponsored, 4 with no funding disclosures). Non-industry sponsored studies (12/24, 50.0%) were more likely to conclude that atrazine was harmful compared to industry sponsored studies (2/11, 18.1%) (p value=0.07).

So even in the confirmed non-industry funded studies, only 50% found atrazine was harmful.

It seems there are issues with others replicating those results. US, Japanese, and Australian researchers.

This isn’t a “Trump” thing, just business as usual. The US, Canada, and Australia all use atrazine and have been saying its benefits outweigh drawbacks for decades.

depends on the state/locality in the US. Since we pay for road maintenance with tax on gas (which EVs don’t pay obviously), some places add an EV tax to make up for it. Problem is it’s usually a flat tax that is higher than most people would pay via gas taxes.