It was https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/australia/election-climate-change.html …pic.twitter.com/imfghFK4X7
Näytä tämä ketju
Because people agree, global warming is real, and they are willing to pay, but only a little bit ($100-200/yr) (68% of Americans against paying $120/yr http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Documents/Epic_topline_final.pdf …) If you propose solutions costing $1000s, you will eventually lose
-
-
No people don’t agree that it is real. It is weather.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Have you heard of generation 4 nuclear? It uses nuclear waste for fuel and can’t meltdown. The solution whether you believe in climate action or not.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Green energy is expensive and will never scale due to storage costs. Conservatives should push natural gas, CCS and nuclear.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Your assessment of what Americans think about the change they believe is happening is right but I don't think it's that they're only willing to pay a little. They objectively see the hype over it as being part of an emotional probably ineffective solution. We're just practical.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Especially if those do not work.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I've read much of your work, love "The Skeptical Environmentalist" which I still reread occasionally. Are people being ignorant or do most people see the difference between truth and hyperbolic propaganda? Will there be an update to skeptical environmentalist?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.