Little late here but it matters if they're ascribing it to the technology vs its application to people - squeezing more out of people for relatively little gain hence modern burnout. I believe they were describing the latter.
I used both and I notice the water flosser removes small pieces my floss didn't (sometimes it's too thin to pick up everything, even if you get the expanding kind). The worst is popcorn / chili flakes. At one point, I had some 5mm pockets and was recommended for surgery - with the water flosser and molecular iodine rinse I was able to avoid it altogether.
Aren't we looking at more like ~2036 for 2C? El Nino ratches by .2 degrees and then current warming rate is .3C per decade so roughly a decade away. This doesn't even take into account feedback loops.
They're talking about raising kids already born, not conditions for having one in the first place. We should separate discussion of the environment from the cost which is the really the main factor for why parents decamp for the suburbs. Causality goes the other way - it's not the compact nature that reduced fertility but the fact that dense neighborhoods are rare and pricey in the US.
I don't think so - children are drivers of consumption and they also reduce the agency of workers by eliminating their financial slack (less ability to jump jobs / take it easy due to higher spending floor e.g. daycare expenses, larger apartment, etc).
GW make it much more likely but they go into the why and it is localized / specific - land abandonment (rural > urban migration, i.e. lack of pruning / plant diversity), wet / dry whiplash (leading to plant growth that is fuel for fires in droughts), reforestation (mostly monocrop). GW isn't specific to Europe but EU is warming 2x as fast. I get what you're saying but your critique - I don't think the piece was written to warrant it.
I get where you're coming from - our vantage point has a lot to do with that though. The average member of the public never had to sacrifice or even know about ozone, and there's so much complexity to climate science. People have a surface deep impression of what stands to be lost and they're working against a powerful propaganda machine. Virtually all extractive industry makes the problem worse, whether cattle farming, timber, energy, etc.
The cost of not addressing it is more distributed: at some point you can't go outside anymore since the UV index is so high, sunscreen can't block high-intensity UV-B and UV-C, plants get damaged to the point of catastrophic crop failures... you can live in denial about climate change in developed countries (for a limited time anyway) but ozone affects everyone.