The study can be found here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

  • source
  • parent