It doesn't add any cost to include a throttle on the ebike.
Regulate speeds, not mechanisms. Moving people to micromobility is a benefit regardless of the form of that micromobility. Speed is the safety concern, not any of this loophole-inducing nonsense.
Notable that the common european honeybee is an invasive species that tends to preferentially pollinate invasive flora, at least in North America. The likes of bumblebees and carpenter bees are the ones that really matter for conserving and supporting native ecosystems even if they get less love in public media. They're the bees that actually need saving.
It's worth looking up what you can do to support native pollinators -- including native bees -- in your area. Some of the stuff is surprisingly easy -- planting native wildflowers, for example, or setting up an insect hotel.
This very article has already been updated to say the story is not true.
There's lots of industrial uses for CO2 -- this style of DAC plant can be viewed as a green producer. That said, it's really easy to outpace industrial demands and we can expect any facility like this will need to be sequestering most of their "production". It's hard to overstate how much excess CO2 there is in the atmosphere compared to the sum total of all industrial carbon dioxide needs. Since CO2 is thermodynamicly very stable, splitting it up to get pure carbon would be quite inefficient.
It's part of the business model of every single DAC project pretty much without exception. Any way you can make back a bit of money selling that CO2 rather than sequestering it is an opportunity to offset costs. And no matter what you think of market economics, they're very effective at reducing costs.
One of the most interesting uses is with projects like e.g. CarbonCure, where they dope cement production with CO2 which has known effects to strengthen (or at least not weaken) concrete. They don't produce their own CO2 for their plants and so need to align themselves with renewable CO2 production facilities (which they do Heirloom Carbon).
Big issue is they it's hard to compete with fossil-based CO2 production. So the next step once tech like this is proven is to start regulating/banning fossil-based CO2 production.
The worst part is, one of the "downsides" of renewables like wind and solar is curtailment. A "problem" that needs to be fixed is that they sometimes produce excess energy that you end up having to simply discard if demand isn't there. This is often invoked disingenuously by the allies of apocalypse as some major problem with the tech -- that building enough renewables to basically cover regular power requirements would entail having hugely excess production that gets curtailed, which is somehow wasteful.
DAC and green hydrogen are ways to eat up excess supply and reap benefit from it and should be categorized in similar veins to other forms of energy storage. They are both undeniably necessary technologies to achieve overall goals. Can either solve the problem on their own? God no. But who's saying they can?
They are not worse for the environment than ICE vehicles. This is total FUD nonsense that is significantly fueled by right wing and auto astroturf campaigns. Their lifecycle emissions are vastly lower. It's so mundanely bad a talking point that even low-level sources like factcheck.org publish informers on it. Don't spread misinformation.
EVs aren't good for the environment. They're less bad. Auto-dominant culture remains a non-starter for longterm sustainability, both fiscal and environmental, for most communities around the world.
There are some situations where BEVs are maybe worse overall than ICE counterparts. Rail and busses, for example, where the BEV just makes no sense (put up a pantograph or third rail for a huge LCCA discount and massively lower emissions). Cargo trucking may also fall in this camp; trucks simply cannot be that heavy on modern asphalt design. But for regular passenger vehicles there is no question.
I, for one, could not be made to care one iota about what Jack Dorsey has to say. He's a weird little fuck, and only getting weirder.
Time long past to be a lot more honest about these tech billionaires -- pretty much every one of was just immensely, immensely lucky, and until they can talk honestly about how nearly everything to do with their success compared to any other mid-level software developer was just blind luck, we should assume everything coming out of their mouths is pure grandiose delusion.
At least for North America, it's really more a story about the housing crisis and fake-rural suburban sprawl than anything.
Sure, you'll get those doe-eyed types -- usually wealthy folks -- that talk about wanting to quietly live out in the countryside with no one and nothing anywhere near to them. But most people don't want to move somewhere so inconvenient, at least not if they have to actually face the disadvantages of it (like unpaved roads, no municipal sewer/water, unreliable internet/electric, long trips to highway big box stores for even the most basic necessities, etc).
When push comes to shove, most want to live in an actual town. Maybe not a huge metropolis, but a place where you have knowable neighbors, convenient shops, basic city services, restaurants and bars, and all those things. A place where you don't have to fight through a 30 minute highway commute just to get a loaf of bread.
But they can't. We have vanishingly few functional towns. Instead, we mostly have massive cities with tons of amenities but which you can't afford to live in, vast sprawling "suburbs" and "exurbs" of said cities that are completely parasitically dependent on their host city to function and aren't places in their own right, "small towns" which are just weird little growths off of an interstate offramp with no meaningful local industry of their own.
When your choice is an unaffordable metropolis, a "small town" which is nothing but national chains huddled around a place a major road crosses a highway, or the inconvenient but affordable "exurbs"/countryside, the comparison gets bad. It's all just a byproduct of our incredibly bad housing policy -- policies that favor national builders spawning whole subdevelopments out of thin air over local infill, policies that make it nearly impossible to build modest density/mixed used places, policies that care more about the financial products the housing underwrites than actually homes. Policies that rob people of choice and instead push them to all live a weird, unnatural way that violates thousands, tens of thousands of years of human development.
These advantages you see in office commutes... aren't advantages of office commutes. They're advantages of good urban living. And the idea that you wouldn't live in a city if not for a job forcing you has such intense American energy I bet it drives a lifted Ford F150 covered in bad eagle decals.
Propane's a different thing. It's just trading in bottles. Those bottles will keep being available for a long time and are, frankly, not a major emissions source. Still one we should get rid of, but it's not a low-hanging fruit. Propane is also still one of the more climate-friendly refrigerants, so it's definitely sticking around.
As far as people in situations like that relying on fossil gas distribution infrastructure... one way or another they're going to be left holding the bag.
Electrified appliances are almost universally better for consumers both in quality and economics. Electrification and gas-free new construction will keep happening. Keep accelerating.
The infrastructure of gas is already built. It costs a lot to maintain it even as poorly as they do. As fewer ratepayers are using the system, the remaining ratepayers have to pay a larger and larger share of that cost -- making the gas even more expensive and an even worse choice for consumers. Inevitably, the poorest folks who cannot afford to replace their appliances but also cannot afford to keep using gas will be left behind. That's the reality of the privatized system we have.
I feel bad for all the people who are going to get fucked, especially since for many it was bogus that they were saddled with fossil gas in the first place (e.g., bribes to builders/subdevelopment managers).
Even without accidental site leaks, the infrastructure itself leaks terribly. Residential fossil gas systems are constantly venting tiny amounts of methane from throughout the system, with occasional major issues that can go days or weeks without notice until a sniffer van or something like it catches it. This happened at my house just recently -- my gas was fully capped off the week I moved in, but a guy showed up now several years later from the utility and said he was there for a detected leak and he had to remove the meter and re-cap everything. The whole time trying to convince me that gas stoves are better than my undeniably-superior induction one.
For all I know it was venting at a decent clip this whole time. Nothing I could really do about it. It's not like I was checking the meter what with my no service, and as far as the guy could tell the leak was from before the meter anyway.
And it'll get worse as the systems are used less. A smaller subscriber base means these companies will inevitably cut repair and maintenance budgets, leading to more leaks. More methane. The only safe and sensible thing to to have public takeovers on them and then immediately start working to decommission.
Google loves to have entirely ai-driven moderation which makes decisions that are impossible to appeal. They are certain that one AI team lead is more valuable than 20 customer service agents. Meanwhile, YouTube shorts is still a pipeline to Nazidom and death by electrical fire.
Might be the worst customer service in the tech industry, though that's a highly competitive title.
They also don't offer replacement parts (even major parts like the charging case) for their headphones. So I guess they're intended to be a disposable product. Evil shit.
If you've ever had an entirely positive interaction with Google customer service... you'd probably be the first.
Still, the issue isn't the presence of a throttle. It's the specs of the machine.
The idea that the law should be framed around whether or not the vehicle needs to be peddled is backwards. The relevant machine specs are what the legislation should address. Which is still, primarily, top speed. All incident evidence we have suggests that below ~20mph / 30 kph, even full automobiles see precipitous dropoffs in serious injuries, so that's the place to start. We see most places really serious about bike networks going reasonably further past that (25 or 20 kph). That's all reasonable. If you further want to have requirements on acceleration or weight, it's worth investigating that.
Having the legislation require peddling is just a way to create weird loopholes in the law. It's pearl-clutching and moral panic. And worse, it creates accessibility issues and can pressure people off the bikeped infrastructure who would've used it reasonably and safely back into cars.
The law should narrowly address the actual problem, not some tertiary smell the problem has created. The idea that a bike that has pedals is magically safer than an identical bike with an identical frame, motor, and everything which has a throttle is preposterous.
I am totally convinced an ebike with a throttle is safer and easier to use for its rider than one without one at any speed. I don't think they should be required -- because that's just silly -- but I think anyone the claiming opposite, that only peddled, throttle-less vehicles are safe, has fallen off the deep end.