This is a fascinating comment in the Economist. It seems obviously wrong, and (they claim) an opinion held by an entire profession. A carbon tax seems like a very good way of partially solving the problem...pic.twitter.com/41WyHKuIjZ
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Curious on two questions: (1) Why do you think nuclear has stagnated so much since the early 80s (when capacity pretty much maxed out)? What can be done to shift that? [I'd love a good answer! I've spent a lot of time searching for one.]pic.twitter.com/pomMuNCnvl
(2) How to do governance for geoengineering? It seems super-hard, e.g., issues around the south asian monsoon, ocean acidification, etc. Not asking for a comprehensive answer - I don't think one is known! But if you have heard of good ideas, I'd love to know!
100% agree. This is a trend in this space. Think tanks & economists, when it needs geo engineering science & agriscience
yeah on this issue economists are just rent seekers.
Because at the end of the day the primary objective isn't scientific. It's economic. Those who seek to control a bigger slice of the $ pie will use any lever they can sell to the public.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.