Or just tax the crap out of it.  There would be a few rich people who might still buy enough to get drunk, but most people wouldn’t bother if a single drink was $20.  At least I think they wouldn’t.  It’s worth trying anyway.

If you want people beaten up on the way to their cars, this might be a good way to accomplish that.  I would prefer a solution that doesn’t screw over everyone else on the plane.

The Dickey Amendment exists because the CDC was doing gun control advocacy rather than unbiased research. They have been funded to do actual research for decades but don’t like the results... surveys the CDC actually suppressed for several years.

I’m assuming I fell for a troll at this point.

Perhaps you have not heard of something called “carbon capture and sequestration”?  People are working on exactly that, minus the mountains because it doesn’t really matter where you pull the carbon from.

I think it’s the most likely scenario.  We’re clearly not reducing carbon output quickly enough to avoid disaster.  I am skeptical carbon capture is going to ramp up quickly enough to solve the problem.  I believe we will end up spraying chemicals into the upper atmosphere to cool down the planet, because whatever the…

That’s a correlation, which by itself is insufficient to demonstrate a causal connection.

Uh, the Ads have nothing to do with it.

These are not mutually exclusive concerns.  We can hold people accountable for their personal choices such as reckless driving, and also try to do something about other factors that influence those choices.  People do not make decisions in a vacuum.

States can do that if they choose.  The federal government cannot.  There is no concerted group of people passionately lobbying for stricter driver license standards, and the average voter I’m guessing is somewhere between apathetic and actively opposed to any such.  So I don’t personally see it happening.

notoriously anti gun CDC

Diesel in passenger cars doesn’t really make that much sense IMO but it (or very similar fuels) is going to be around for quite a while on cargo ships. We need to figure out a way to fuel them in a carbon neutral fashion, and I’m confident it will happen.

Not that Margaret Atwood, if anyone else was wondering.

My guess would be strict, but I've never been offered an apartment on a superyacht so just guessing.

Apparently we were not on the same page, because you said “it” but I was not talking about any particular ship.

Well it’s certainly not a normal cruising vessel if that’s what you meant. One will never be able to book a ticket for a cruise on it.

My reply was to BigRed91, referring to “large ships” in general. Almost all of those are cargo ships. We cannot stop using them, I don’t forsee nuclear or battery electric being an option in the short to medium term if ever. We must stop using fossil fuels. So that leaves hydrogen or something like biofuel, unless I’m…

the ones that moved there long after the track was built and THEN decided they don’t like the noise.

Before you go off about a “ridiculous leap,” check to see if you know what the heck you’re talking about first.

So the Gigant-E?