I was wondering whether it was an Americanism. The Oxford Dictionary does include it, though.

Wordle 1,606 5/6

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Those lines always choke me up.

On the same day we learn of Trump’s corrupt pardons.

Well done! You tied the Bot.

Wordle 1,605 5/6

⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟩🟨⬜⬜
🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

What the instructions seem to point to is that an `okina is rendered not by a vertical mark, but the equivalent of single apostrophe that has been rotated 180°. On my iPhone, my choice is only a vertical mark (') or a slanting one (`). Not clear to me which one is best.

On externalities related to driving, some are specific to ICE vehicles, such as exhaust emissions (CO2, NOx, and particulate matter). But many others are not. EVs, for example, contribute just as much to congestion and accidents, as well as microplastics from tire wear.

I give today’s a D-

Wordle 1,604 4/6

⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Technical question. Is the 'okina mark (') vertical, in contrast with the slanting single apostrophe mark (‘)?

I’ve been using the vertical mark ('). It’s available when typing on an iPhone by holding down the letter for the single apostrophe mark on its QWERTY keyboard.

… for that pollution, too.

Nobody, so far, has produced a comprehensive estimate of the externalized costs associated with the production and use of plastics. But the health costs already have been estimated to be in the 100s of billions of U.S. dollars a year — likely an underestimate. There’s a lot of blame to go around …

The IMF’s estimates of the externalized costs of CO2 emissions are based on others’ estimates of the marginal damage caused by tonne of CO2 equivalent. Much of that damage is incurred by other countries, future generations, and private citizens (only partially by governments and thus taxpayers).

What is “this” in your question, and who are “we”? Is the climate crisis caused only by the FF industry? What about companies like GM who make most of their money selling huge SUVs? And what about the people who buy and drive them?

Please see my 📌ed skeet. Only the IMF claims that number, using a non-standard definition of a “subsidy”.

Most scientists use the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker’s numbers.

If you include Canada’s commitment as a member of G20, that one goes back to the G20 Leaders’ summit in Pittsburgh (September 2009), some 16 years ago.

See my 📌ed skeet for more on the problematic IMF numbers.

The best estimate of fossil fuel subsidies benefitting “the fossil fuel industry” is @oilchange.bsky.social’s latest estimate of $34.8 billion in 2025.

Moreover, of that number, $324 bln are what the IMF calls “vehicle externalities” — namely, the social costs of congestion (time wasted sitting in traffic) & traffic accidents. The IMF attributes these to gasoline & motor diesel use, yet they would be just as large if all 🚗s on U.S. roads were EVs.

The rest, $754 billion, are how much more, in the IMF’s view, U.S. consumers of fossil fuels should have paid in carbon and other taxes on that energy, in order to internalize externalities related to consumption.

It doesn’t. That >$750 ($757) billion number (for 2022) comes from an IMF study and is both 99.6% about the consumption side and an estimate of externalities, not subsidies. Of that $757 billion, the IMF includes only $3 billion (an undercount) of producer subsidies.