Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Thanks, @FrancoisF24, for an interesting debate. Surprisingly, some seemed to resist inconvenient facts, so let me just outline what seemed to be the most controversial ones @rajendrashende, @MohamedNasheed, @hblandeshttps://twitter.com/F24Debate/status/1040269890572230656 …
Which is why we need to focus on dramatically increasing green R&D, which is the only way to make green energy so cheap that it will eventually out-compete fossil fuelshttps://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/29/trump-order-paris-treaty-emissions-bjorn-lomborg-column/99737238/ …
Not my take away. We should generally focus more on energy R&D indepent of green or not because until it's commercialized industrialization nobody knows the exact impact and costs.
Also, why are you as an e-conomist not taking the privat market as a key player to lower prices?
How about the R&D for why each of us needs so much energy to begin with? ‘Reduction’...the most terrifying word in the fossil fuel age...
Why doesn’t anyone talk about thorium reactors
Gen 4&5 nuclear reactors are all you need right now, Literally impossible to melt down. Gov't has prevented improvements in Nuclear tech because of green and oil lobbyists.
Why? Carbon dioxide is a life giving gas. You literally can't have too much it.
What would you suggest we do?
And invest in nuclear and electric transportation.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
