You are paying the price of committing to writing daily. You have not learned Tyler Cowen's lesson: he has said nothing for a long time. If I were interested in new sources of energy, I'd go to people who have shown they know what they are talking about. If I were interested in how the pandemic became extremely politicized well before the vaccine, I'd pay attention to those familiar with politics and government in the past 50 years. If I were interested in the ongoing collapse of the U.S. bureaucracy --all of it, from Congress to school boards-- I'd pay attention to those that studied it and warned America. But more importantly, if I were sincerely interested in America's future, I'd focus on how a new political coalition has taken over first the D-Party and then the federal government and now is ready to destroy America.
No OECD country that is not adding more nuclear power is really serious about reducing carbon. Nuclear kills fewer people over the building - operation/ maintenance - decommission lifecycle than solar (including installation accidents, for instance).
If CO2 being added to the air is not enough of a crisis to justify nukes, it's not much of a crisis. Most Greens don't really think it's such a big crisis.
Re: Zvi Yes and no. We want to achieve a level of vaccination high enough that the chances of infecting other people x the expected severity of infection (augmented by pharmaceutical therapies) reduces the level of effort and costs of of preventing spread.
But of course it dose not make sense to delay vaccination because a highly effective treatment is in prospect: a) unvaccinated people will become infected and infect while waiting and b) it will not prevent infecting others. What's wrong with Fauci's statement. It's desirable to prevent as many infections with vaccine as possible and treat the illness when it develops as effectively as possible.
Of course carbon capture is "realistic;" the question is it among the set of least cost technologies? I suspect it is as a) it's the only thing that could actually reduce CO2 concentration and b) it is likely to be cheaper than continuing to combust carbon atoms is some niche uses
You are paying the price of committing to writing daily. You have not learned Tyler Cowen's lesson: he has said nothing for a long time. If I were interested in new sources of energy, I'd go to people who have shown they know what they are talking about. If I were interested in how the pandemic became extremely politicized well before the vaccine, I'd pay attention to those familiar with politics and government in the past 50 years. If I were interested in the ongoing collapse of the U.S. bureaucracy --all of it, from Congress to school boards-- I'd pay attention to those that studied it and warned America. But more importantly, if I were sincerely interested in America's future, I'd focus on how a new political coalition has taken over first the D-Party and then the federal government and now is ready to destroy America.
No OECD country that is not adding more nuclear power is really serious about reducing carbon. Nuclear kills fewer people over the building - operation/ maintenance - decommission lifecycle than solar (including installation accidents, for instance).
If CO2 being added to the air is not enough of a crisis to justify nukes, it's not much of a crisis. Most Greens don't really think it's such a big crisis.
Re: Zvi Yes and no. We want to achieve a level of vaccination high enough that the chances of infecting other people x the expected severity of infection (augmented by pharmaceutical therapies) reduces the level of effort and costs of of preventing spread.
But of course it dose not make sense to delay vaccination because a highly effective treatment is in prospect: a) unvaccinated people will become infected and infect while waiting and b) it will not prevent infecting others. What's wrong with Fauci's statement. It's desirable to prevent as many infections with vaccine as possible and treat the illness when it develops as effectively as possible.
Of course carbon capture is "realistic;" the question is it among the set of least cost technologies? I suspect it is as a) it's the only thing that could actually reduce CO2 concentration and b) it is likely to be cheaper than continuing to combust carbon atoms is some niche uses