The study can be found here

  • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    The US are major exporters of LNG. It is cheap and effective in the US. When Europe was importing the majority of its gas, it makes sense they’d transition away when there’s other options available.

    Everything is cost related. The cost of transitioning in the US doesn’t make sense. I have gas appliances, and it’d be silly to transition to electric.

    • Rusticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Burning fossil fuels kills more than 250,000 people a year in the US. We know gas stoves contribute to that number by releasing measurable benzene (a known carcinogen). Please, tell us the cost of a human life. So that you can justify your comment that “it’d be silly to transition to electric.”

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I appreciate what you’re saying. I see oil and gas deaths closer to 91,000, which is obviously too many, and it comes down to proper ventilation. Shit, I know I cook with windows open, and I know that was the norm when I was growing up, but mainly because it got hot af. And so, unfortunately, when you factor in the safety measures, the cost of transitioning 47 million homes to electric stoves becomes a burden.

        And I don’t know what the cost of a human life is. I hear this “If you save one life” thing, and I’m not sure it means anything. I’ve heard people spout it at hearings for cell phone towers. In an ideal world we’ll achieve this perfection where nothing we do has any risk to anyone, but it’s not realistic. We will always find some way to kill ourselves.

        • Rusticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          That’s a lot of deflection and minimization of the issue. It’s WAY more than 91,000. Give the value of a human life. I dare you. Only then can you make an argument as to what is cost effective and what is not. BTW, throwing in the complete BS about cell phone towers makes you look like a complete buffoon.

          Edit: Since you did no research other than asking AI how many people are killed/year by fossil fuels (and immediately went for the lowest estimate lol), I went ahead and did the work for you. AI gives the statistical value of a human life in the US between $13.1 million-$13.7 million. Multiple that by a few hundred thousand lives PER YEAR, and it makes your argument that “it would cost too much” pretty childish. Most Americans have been convinced by their corporate overlords (which includes the fossil fuel industry) that they don’t deserve any rights, and you are a perfect example. Be better.