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
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I think it's better to go to the source on trying to understand the future prospects. I've been (very!) slowly digging my way into the scientific literature, trying to understand the range, the key unknowns, etc...
I looked at Carbon Engineering's work on DAC before, it seems promising. Although UK research consortium recently announced that CCS in general is not likely to be as helpful as hoped. Policy debate: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2020-0040 … Report link: http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/absolute-zero …pic.twitter.com/1nbDZfSEWS
I see a carbon tax as a way of letting banking solve the barriers to nuclear. If you know you'll have a sustained price advantage forever, you can get billion dollar projects built.
more of a subsidy for solar / wind (in addition to outright solar / wind subsidies)
You have quite the bugbear for environmenalists, to the extent that you can't see the obvious: how do you GOVERN geoengineering? It's all very well telling ppl not to be scared of geochange, but without governance, it's like launching a car without steering or brakes.
+1 geo engineering in the mix. We already do it. Let’s just be clear on intentions.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.