Ummmm... No, nevermind.
Ummmm... No, nevermind.
Until you take into account that production causes about half the pollution as the entire lifetime of the car.
Better to just drive the car you have for a few more years.
Did you know that gasoline production has its own carbon footprint, on top of the tailpipe emissions when you burn it?
Yeah, betcha didn't.
I tend not to charge at work. It's available, but there are far more electric cars at work than there are chargers.
I charge at home, on 120v/15A. It's slow, but extremely convenient. Once or twice a week, I just plug in and let it charge all night. By morning, it's back to full.
That's some twisted logic you've got there. Congratulations, you must be proud of yourself. But it's utter bullshit.
Utilities will continue to add capacity as it becomes necessary, and that capacity increasingly (not always, but increasingly) comes from renewable sources. Furthermore, the technology curve tends to dictate that even when adding fossil-fuel-powered plants, the newer plants will tend to be cleaner and more efficient from the get-go than their decades-old predecessors.
And if all that wasn't enough: upgrading a single power plant from dirty to clean improves the fleet emission levels of all the electric cars in the vicinity. Try doing that with a gasoline-powered fleet.
Then take the other one. Problem solved!
Gym memberships are near an all-time high. So are gyms.
And we have pretty solid data that supports the notion that when saturated fat (or any fat, since that was the generalized target during the 70s - 90s) is removed from the diet, it gets replaced by carbohydrates. And we know what effect carbohydrates have on blood glucose levels, and in turn we know what effect elevated blood glucose levels have on insulin. And finally, we know *exactly* how insulin levels cause the body to store fat.
But you're going to go with "exercise" as an answer?
Milk isn't nutritious at all if it makes you shit your arse inside-out; it's probably anti-nutritious.
It's fairly nutritious if it doesn't.
Again, that's not a measure of nutrition. That's a measure of whether an individual can tolerate it. The milk doesn't change on the basis of who drinks it -- it's the same substance regardless.
Variation: Once a month, I go visit my parents/grandparents/sweetheart/cat 300 miles away! Between the people who drive 300 miles to work and people like me who travel a long distance once a month, it won't work!
Take the wife's car.
Electric cars suck.
I own one and can confidently state that, for some people, they can be awesome. I wouldn't trade mine for anything (unless that thing was also electric).
True, but I think their point it it wont bee that noisy.
I see what you did there.
There is a difference between "... a study says...." and "... the body of evidence as a whole says...". And it's not for a WSJ author to decide the difference, it's for major medical associations to decide. The article goes into several dozen studies, which is in turn just a tiny fraction of the entire corpus.
Yes. And every one of those institutions based their conclusions on the "science" of Ancel Keys (or his proteges), whose errors and outright falsifications we are still discovering today. And every one of those organizations that currently recommends against saturated fats will, in the next 20 years, either walk back that message or stand unsupported by more recent science. Most of them are already standing on pretty shaky ground, and that will only continue to accelerate.
Yes, because recommending eating "fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fewer calories" is totally a recipe for "almost single-handedly made America obese". Damn those fattening fruits, vegetables, whole grains and reduced-calorie diets.
Then what do you suppose was the trigger that caused the entire population to shift radically toward obesity starting in the 70s?
Unless you belong to the 75% of the population that is lactose intolerant, or if you have a milk/dairy allergy.
Both of which are orthogonal to the question of whether milk is nutritious.
"How, exactly, is milk harmful?"
It's sugary, fatty water, with about the same calories as soda, destined to give a calf a nice pelt.
BTW, I like your hair.
The difference between milk and soda is that the fat in milk will slow down the glycemic reaction, whereas soda is just sugar and water (and a bit of flavor) and so the glycemic reaction is higher. The glycemic index for 250ml of both milk and skim milk is 31. The glycemic index for 250ml of Coca Cola is 63. (Source)
On top of that, milk contains protein, which also slows down the glycemic reaction.
So yes, we can objectively point to well-tested and (importantly) repeatable scientific experiments (glycemic indexes are calculated and published by a number of different organizations around the world) that point to the fact that milk is healthier than sugary soda drinks.
Spaghetti is cheap and filling, and tastier with greasy meat sauce.
Contrary to popular belief, the greasy meat sauce is actually pretty good for you, assuming there's no trans fat in it. It's the other stuff that will kill you.
If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin