K_Kraz

K_Kraz t1_j6x7cqh wrote

Not necessarily. It is something to consider and address in conjunction with other emission reduction acts. This is also a good time to do it since the push towards EVs will require substantial expansion of the electrical grid. Currently only about 1% of the cars on the road are EV. As that number increases, so will the grid and use of SF6. So why not address that now and avoid having to rework the electrical grid later when it is a much bigger problem? Tackling just one aspect of the greenhouse gas issue is not enough. Per the EPA, vehicle emissions account for only 27% of greenhouse gasses so there are a lot of other areas to improve too.

1

K_Kraz t1_j6gazkq wrote

They didn’t sample white or asian hairdressers and then throw out headlines to play the racial angle to feed on inequality outrage and draw in reader when there isn’t even a basis to quantify that this is impacting any particular race disproportionately.

What the article concludes is that black and hispanic hairdressers show to have more chemicals in their system than people of color working in office jobs. It is about profession and not race. The implication that it disproportionately impacting people of color was an unsupported assumption.

2