Or creeping into Slaughterbots terrority.

I liked the video because I don’t think I did a decade or so ago when I saw it the first time. I recognized what it was from the title.

“If you’re good at something, never do it for free.”

aim to overhaul federal programs, enact conservative policies, and investigate Trump’s legal adversaries.

“America First” was always an oxymoron. MAGA always means great for certain people. It’s going to be surreal to have to listen to both the gloating of tasting liberal tears while asking why the Democrats aren’t doing anything to help the country.

It’s a predicament. One way results in longer, slower suffering of more people as things decline, the other is suffering of less total people, but far harsher with less time to adjust.

Leopards…leopards everywhere.

Sure, he was looking for solutions and allowed smarter people to steer the research. He also allowed the smarter man to take his place in office.

It could be that simple. He didn’t realize the potential the first time around and so many things got in the way, including a disaster that tried to force a leadership role on him. This time enough was changed and built up to prevent the obstacles, and he not only can avoid justice for his past, but he can, in his own words, “do anything and they’ll let you.”

As an American, I think you’re spot on. I keep thinking how America is portrayed in the series “Years and Years” might happen this time around.

I was told in posts from the last disaster that Spain has floods all the time and this isn’t a big deal. I’m beginning to think they might have been not telling the truth.

Permanent materials that won’t degrade quickly would be far more beneficial for the goal, as it truly captures and removes the carbon from the cycle that feeds warming. Fuels, not so much, as the only good part is it supposedly replaces fossil fuels from the ground (i.e. new carbon), so less of a true impact on carbon in the environment. But will it be at a competitive cost to even make a large difference?

People died that didn’t need to die in Trump’s first term. Guess we’re going to try this again at level 2.

Something about pigs and lipstick…

They aren’t going to abolish NOAA. Just…cut out stuff that goes against what they want to hear. I guess it’s the same thing in the end.

When I first saw one pass by me in reality, my first reaction was “jesus”. And the colors I’ve seen on display (a Tesla store is nearby), wtf? Not that a good color would help a lot, it still looks very wrong.

You’re correct on the marketability. You either sell it to be released later defeating the purpose, or by hopefully sequestering it to help with extraction of fossil fuel, which again…maybe not worth it. To actually remove massive amounts of CO2 and permanently take it out of the cycle is akin to burying money.

I see the main problem not as the cost, but the scalability. Our best efforts so far don’t even amount to a fraction of a percent. There have been recent developments that could help some, so that would be a percentage of our annual emissions. A long way to go when the preferable solution is to remove emission amounts not only being emitted, but past years’ amounts too.

But it is nice sometimes to finally get remembered, even if it’s for blame.

As a Gen-X I will never blame the later generations. Especially Gen Z and younger, if I was in their shoes I’d be livid. You bring me into this mess and then tell me it’s on me to fix it? F U

I assume you mean net zero, which isn’t zero emissions but countering existing and hopefully lower emissions with some tech to remove its output. Actual zero emissions is…well, that’s cessation of human activity. And there would still be emissions from the feedbacks already started with either.

Let’s be clear, human emissions even at our current rate are just a percentage of total emissions, and act as a pushing force to drive things further. Taking that away is better, but it doesn’t stop the direction we’ve set things in motion. If we could somehow pull carbon back down to under 300ppm or even less…that would start to brake things, at least reduce the heat input finally, but so much other damage has been done that I think even that kind of miracle wouldn’t be enough.

I get your stance, we have to do what we can now to minimize the future results, and I agree. I just disagree on where even the best actions from humans (which are very idealistic) would get us.

Think about how everything changed during Covid.

A good example. Some things did change. In good and bad directions. A lot was handwaved around to get back to status quo as much as possible. It’s exactly how resistant we are to change, and climate is no different. It’s actually worse, since it’s so much more subtle and long term than a disease that is hurting people around you, and yet people even denied that as much as possible.