That's ok. Most of the cross-state activism in California right now is people going to AZ and NV to knock on doors for the Harris and Democratic senate candidates.
There has been a ton of modeling on how declining numbers of ratepayers cause methane gas prices to skyrocket. If you actually get rid of almost all the people buying it, the last few are left paying a fortune for what was once common infrastructure shared by many people.
The problem is that informed opinion thinks that Trump has something around a 50% chance of winning there. That's a kind of risk that regular people can't put serious money into.
Those commercial and residential emissions - those are largely about the fuels burned in buildings. 14% of the total is enough to matter — and when we're running out of time to get emissions to zero, we need to cut it all to zero, not pick and choose.
Two options right now:
Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.
No, it's relevant for the cost of distributing the gas. It's not cost-effective to run a gas distribution system just to commercial kitchens without the much larger distribution going to heating.
Three reasons:
Heat is actually the big one here; it's a big chunk of emissions.
Getting rid of gas heat makes the gas stoves uneconomic.
It means running new higher-amperage electrical connections to them.
I'm willing to put up with slightly higher prices if it means people live longer as a result.
It's a problem the whole news industry has. Craigslist took all the classified ads. Facebook took almost all the business ads. So what's left is subscriptions — and if you don't charge, the paper goes bust.
Something like 80% of local newspapers in the US have gone under already.
Security clearances are nominally the domain of the FBI, rather than the CIA. They tend to see themselves as a right-wing organization though.