Also, while PA is undoubtedly a vital battleground, I want to mention that ElectoralVote currently has the tipping point state for both presidential campaigns as North Carolina: https://electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Tipping_point/Aug28.html
In other words, if Harris carries PA there's a decent chance she will also take NC by a slightly larger margin, and will already have secured the presidency without PA's electoral votes.
How local do we have to get? Can the opinions of swing voters in like one county in PA hold the rest of the world hostage?
Polls indicate the majority of Pennsylvanians oppose fracking: https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/poll-majority-of-pa-residents-want-fracking-to-end/
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pennsylvania had about 4,900 oil and gas extraction jobs in December of 2019. (For a frame of reference, there are more than 148,000 employed registered nurses in Pennsylvania. In January, there were 6.2 million jobs in Pennsylvania.)" https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pittsburgh-area-republican-candidate-sean-parnell-inflated-fracking-job-figures-by-a-lot-17001969
It's a very dedicated interest group with a lot of money behind it, but fossil fuels simply don't employ that many people, even in PA. It seems like an inadequate excuse for taking positions friendly to the fossil fuel corporations that are destroying our biosphere, both on the local scale and the global scale. Don't blame Pennsylvania for Harris reversing her position on fracking.
Nobody here has mentioned the climate impact of choosing carbon fiber over steel.
Starling Cycles, a rare producer of steel mountain bikes, concluded that a typical carbon frame uses 16 times more energy than a steel frame.
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2023/02/can-we-make-bicycles-sustainable-again/
Of course, any bicycle will be more sustainable than a car. But we're in a climate crisis, and that means taking extreme measures, including considering whether even low-impact tools like bicycles could be even more sustainable. We can't afford to be completely uncritical of any technology.
This is false. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term, and "natural gas" is just methane. When it leaks, it's very bad, and could be worse than coal. https://newrepublic.com/article/176605/natural-gas-way-worse-coal
While this is a good and necessary step, most old growth forests are already gone because they were not protected. Mature trees and forests that are less than 150 years old also need protection if we are to ever reverse the destruction and begin restoration, and expand protected areas. https://www.salon.com/2023/12/20/underwhelming-biden-admin-tosses-token-protection-to-old-growth-forests/
Gene drives are incredibly dangerous.
Just imagine if someone released a gene drive in humans, and somehow we fail to discover it for a few generations. That might be hard to imagine in a setting with lots of genetic testing, but what if it is released first in poor countries where genetic testing is not common, or it's released shortly before or after our civilization collapses?
Be careful what you wish for.
Worth reading this investigation into the historic photos: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2023/08/16/untangling-the-mystery-of-the-worlds-first-rooftop-solar-panel/
Also worth pointing out there is some question as to whether these solar panels ever functioned. Someone should build one to test it out!
"unsafe for both"? What is the bike going to do to the car? Scratch the paint? Get blood on the tires?
That said, I agree that separated bike infrastructure saves lives and encourages biking by making people feel safer.
Could a "frunk" (trunk in front of the driver) help protect the driver's legs? Not big enough to block vision, just big enough to hold some bags.
My question is, how much of the ecosystem around American chestnuts survived? Like, did any creatures that rely on chestnuts go extinct, or did they all manage to survive on the blighted trees long enough for these breeding efforts to save them?