Not really. It's an expensive resource, but not at all limited in the sense fossil fuels are.

Desalination and filtration/distillation allow us to make unlimited clean water at the cost of energy.

Yes, but throwing away things that are still usable and used regularly isn't a good behavior. If OP still enjoys it, they still enjoy what flavor is left.

New will obviously be better for spices, but use what one has first as long as it's acceptable. Acceptability is in the taste of the user.

BIFL is cheap. Quality goods tend to have prices that reflect the time to design the product and source quality ingredients.

As such, the individual items may be expensive, but you're buying for a much longer time. My darn tough socks are expensive, but they have already lasted a long time and they still have a warranty.

Agreed. They're much less likely to catch fire, but when they do they're difficult to put out.

As another commentator posted, fire brigades that deal with a lot of EVs are investigating using water tanks/pools and just lifting the burning vehicles into the water to drown the fire.

Nothing, posting to correct bad information like everyone should be doing, versus propagating fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Because in the case of Rabies, a vaccine can be given after exposure and still be highly effective.

There's little point in pre-inoculating and taking that risk when it can just be given on an as-needed basis. It may make sense in higher risk individuals and in places where post-exposure treatment may not be available.

Yeah, this is a good approach that I hope both works and catches on.

Because the incidence of fires is very low compared to combustion vehicles.. That said, putting them out is more difficult. The problem is that socially, people over inflate the danger of EV fires and make people shy away from them when they're the best short to intermediate term solution we have for climate change.

It's not covering up the problem, at all, it's stopping the fear, uncertainty and doubt train spread by people who don't like change and/or profit from oil and gas extraction/combustion. It's acknowledging all the facts, good and bad, over short and long term.

In other news, it was 10 feet of salt water. The fire means nothing. The charging stations were likewise destroyed by salt water if not fire.

EVs have a much lower risk of fire than internal combustion vehicles.

No, it's not true. It fundamentally misunderstands lithium ion battery technology and the very basics of chemistry.

Except that lithium ion batteries contain only traces of lithium metal. Water is entirely appropriate and is the recommended method of handling lithium ion battery fires.

The lithium in lithium ion batteries is in a salt. The same way that sodium and chlorine are both extremely toxic in elemental form yet quite tasty as table salt.

Yes, though jet fuel has a sustainable, carbon neutral alternative. If/when they can get the cost down, air travel is one of the few places that burning fossil fuels makes sense. The energy density of jet fuel is just too good. Batteries are too heavy, hydrogen is basically impossible to store.

Carbon capture can handle some CO2, but the wanton waste that characterized the 20th century is unsustainable.

Right, but there are consequences for not taking risks and advancing the state of the art as well. There are consequences for every action and inaction. If you want to be upset about the environment, take a look at that we're still using and aerosolizing lead in aviation engines. Look at the impacts associated with burning, rapidly, every fossil fuel we can find and allowing corporations to capture the government to continue, today, to subsidize fossil fuel resource extraction. After we know what fossil fuels are actually doing.

To some degree. Speed is inversely proportional to energy consumption due to air resistance. Slower is much more efficient.