State of Washington. Near the top for health and longevity in USA.

I've seen some statistics that Washington State has the second highest rate of longevity in USA; second only to Hawaii. Long life implies good health.

In spite of various criticisms, we must be doing some good things here in Washington State; both the people as well as our local and state governments.

What's the best ways to ease off fossil fuel?

Harris is backing away from earlier comments related to a ban on fracking. Media "gotcha" sound bytes, but it does make sense.

I've always thought that it's better to try and reduce consumption of fossil fuels, rather than reducing production. Trying to reduce our fossil fuel addiction by cutting off supply seems to just cause political instability even threatening democracy itself as angry consumers react to high prices for the things they still depend on.

If we are in a "climate emergency" we could try bans on excessive driving, but making it harder for people to get to work could upend our economy and our democracy. We could declare another state of emergency, like we did for the corona virus. Jobs ended, people went on unemployment, folks stayed home and in some cases did find they could still work from home. Money was printed. Inflation sped up.

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but we could try and revolutionize society by slamming on the breaks again. During corona virus, it did save some lives and may have taught us that the constant rat race of our economy and the lust for money isn't necessarily the only values we have in life. Doing this is definitely a political minefield.

I still hope we can incrementally transition to a green economy while keeping civil society intact. Just outlawing something doesn't usually work. Some people think that outlawing something can push industry and technology in a new direction. There may be some truth to that, in certain cases, but there is also the political minefield if new directions aren't easy.

These topics are nuanced and complex so any "I'll just fix it if I get elected" statement, like Trump often makes, is something to be wary of.

A possible way out of the dilemma between inflation and recession.

It's hard for the Federal Reserve to determine what the best interest rate is between spurring inflation or spurring recession. It's a "one size fits all" problem.

One problem is that asset values, such as real estate and stocks, are too high so the rest of the economy struggles to maintain these values; for instance high rents.

Maybe they should have two interest rates. One set higher to cool inflationary speculation on existing assets and the other set lower for creating new assets; such as new housing construction.

The law of unintended consequences may force Republicans to cut Social Security benefits.

On the campaign trail, very few Republicans will say they wish to cut Social Security benefits, but they tend to oppose raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. Without increased revenue, the benefits will, most likely, need to be cut due diminishing funds in the trust fund and demographic changes in the population. Cuts would have to happen anyway due to the law of unintended consequences.

When they walk back some bans on fossil fuels

Some conservatives are now trying to trap Kamila Harris by a comment she made a few years ago supporting the idea of a ban on fracking. Now they say, if she backs off from that idea, she, supposedly, lied.

I say, a statement of opinion isn't a lie and opinions can evolve over time.

Much of the energy, in USA, does come from fracking for oil and natural gas. Cutting back domestic energy production causes political headaces when gas prices soar. It's back to problems such as automobile addiction. The consumer, to a large extent, is the problem.

Bans may not be that good of an idea due to the political pushback they cause. Usually the goals of a ban aren't as easy to meet as first thought.

Climate change is a problem, however. Incentivising green technology needs to be done. The best way to get to this goal is a good question.
,br /> The threat of a ban might spur innovation and new technology, but it does have it's drawbacks. Consumerism is something caused by the economy, culture and people. More needs to be said about that from the bully pulpit, but that is difficult for politicians to do as they struggle to get votes and money from the vary people who are the consumers.

I heard, on CBC Radio, that Vancouver, BC recently lifted a ban on future construction using natural gas in heating. Vancouver, a liberal city concerned about climate change, is also an extremely expensive city. It's struggle to provide affordable housing has lead to a narrow vote, by city council, to back away from the natural gas ban; at least for now.

Again, car addiction, consumerism, sky high property values, housing costs and so forth create a toxic mix. Vancouver does have pretty good public transit and bike routes through the city. They have the Skytrain. That city has some great things for a more climate friendly future, including density in neighborhoods near parks. At the same time, well planned cities, that become popular, suffer from sky high property values leading to high housing costs. It may be difficult to make a ban on natural gas stick if heatpump technology increases construction costs, even if it lowers long term heating bills.