htrayl

There is a very distinct double standard when it comes to the candidates and what the media and citizens focus on. Kamala has to be flawless and Trump gets a “Trump will be Trump” attitude.

Eggs in a basket

This is apples to oranges. Fusion is not the same as fission. We simply don’t know the economics of a viable fusion reactor.

However, we do know fissions cost is heavily driven by safety and regulation. It is very reasonable to assume that fusion’s requirements in this area are distinctly smaller.

• Pretty much any hobby is carbon positive. Gardening is almost certainly on the lower end of carbon positive hobbies.
• In the agriculture domain, growing plants for the sake of direct consumption is not the primary source of emissions - that would be animal based agriculture by far.
• Gardening promotes community resilience and health.

There are definitely financial incentives, they are just underground now. Which is worse in every way.

Being vegan is absolutely not worse for the environment.

The question is whether or not a legal-in-some-circumstances is more effective at reducing social damage than keeping it illegal.

There is a whole Wikipedia page showing changes in name. The function of the first past the post system means these are fundamentally the same constructs with different branding. If a party replaces democrats or republicans, then we will be back in the same place in an election cycle.

That’s not true either, it is simply that democracy is complex and messy. Vote in primaries, campaign for better candidates, and pay money to organizations that support the things that matter most to you.

Very few people love their candidate, even with alternative voting systems. Compromise is indeed part of the deal.

It’s a war.

Two of the larger EV companies are new and I think both have quality control issues. I suspect that is probably the bulk of the gap. Im willing to bet that Hyundai Ioniq 5 has far fewer reliability problems than a Rivian.

China owning the vast majority of raw lithium is not the world you want to live in. The world absolutely benefits from a greater spread of lithium sources.

Li-On batteries have drastically decreased their prices over the last 10+ years.

This is and will always be small potatoes in terms of the suffering we put relatively intelligent animals through every day.

We would need to slaughter probably 100,000 animals yearly for the US organ demand (at ~50,000 transplants per year and a buffer).

We slaughter 125 MILLION pigs in the US for consumption a year.

Not to mention that “medical grade” pigs will probably be given a golden ticket in terms of care until they are slaughtered, compared to the extremely abysmal environment millions live in today.

If animal welfare is important to you, scientific research is a poor use of advocating resources while we still eat hundreds of pounds of meat yearly. If advocates reduce meat consumption by even a percent or two it would generally greatly outweigh banning animal based research entirely.

You made a generalized statement about carbon capture, which is unfortunately absolutely a necessary step we need to take.

• Trees last hundreds of years
• Trees die at differing times
• Trees are replaced by new trees as they die
• Trees support additional plant biomass

Trees are not the solution. The forest is the solution.

… Which is more reason to invest in carbon capture.

Direct carbon capture is a scam. Alternatives like biochar, enhanced basalt weathering, and reforesting are definitely not.