It gets very complicated. The reason many wealthy people get low taxes, is because they know how to move the money they are not using at the moment away from being taxable. So on paper they may be earning 50k a year. While their net worth may be billions of dollars.
However you also have people with a high net worth, but do not really make a lot of money. For example farmers, They have millions of dollars in Land and equipment, However their quality of life is rather middle class. We really need to find a way to sort out The Wealthy people who look poor on paper, and poor who look wealthy on paper.

When that Model-T was released as the affordable automobile, it was considered an environmental improvement... And it was.
So pick one. Global Warming, or Plague?

I think the tipping point for electric vehicle range would be 1000 miles on one charge. Yes that is 2 to 4 times as much as most cars, however, the charging time for an electric car is much longer than gasoline, So in order for you to have a car good for all purposes ( Not an electric car for your commute, and a gas car for long trips ) 1000 range, means you can drive for 16 hours then take 8 hours (when you are sleeping ) to charge up.

I think this 1000 mile per charge should be a goal for Electric auto makers. That or they need to need to match the charge time to a refueling time, and have at least 250 miles per charge.

In general Americans have problems with moderation.
If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
If the person smoke then they smoke at least a pack a day. While in other countries it may be 1 or 2 cigarette a day.

Culturally nudity is equated with sex. So if facebook allowed nudity that is past the FCC standard, then it would go downhill fast. As desperate young adults showing the goods that they got, or the would be models giving a full preview.

Now if you want to change this, then you need to change the culture. Right now facebook (a non-government, corporation) needs to balance its ideals with free speech, and maintaining the optimal number of users.
The first amendment states that the Government cannot stop free speech (Where I still question the constitutionality of the FCC rules), however that doesn't mean non-government groups need to allow free speech, they can choose what they want or not want to show or say.
   

If they are paied employees, then having them write code that is barely ever accepted, is a waste of money.
Open source projects you have unpaied sources, so rejecting code isn't any cost.
Trying something like paying only for accepted code may work... However you will need to pay them more to account for the higher risk working for you.

Let's take politics out of the issue, because there will always be people who will fight the science on both sides of the Spectrum. Liberals have a good history of not believing science that points out that something is actually save, because their nature is to try to change things. Conservatives have a history of no believing in science that points out that something is dangerous, because it is their nature to keep things the same.

But to the point when we think scientist we think of a person who is master at all science diciplines. This was far more common back in the 18th and 19th century. Today's science is far more specialized, because if you try to be just a scientist, then you are spread too thin, perhaps the equlivlant of multable AS degrees.

The story didn't say no rules, but no fixed ruled.
I just can't say "gurety nop phlanipifpa" and expect people to know what I am saying. Also there are important stuctured such as the object is described before the qualifier. "The dog is hot" vs "The hot is dog"
However we come up with new words and replace old ones. Some words we make to have a double meaning based on the context.

19th century system to a 21st century world.
Science today is far more complex then it was a hundred years ago. Back then it was easy to get a superstar scientist. Experiment with a few hundred dollars of equipment you can find a new principal. Publish it and you are big news.
Most of the easy stuff had been found we get some rare finds such as the discovery of graphine, but most of today's work is with expensive equipment needing a larger teams of scientist. That publish or parish methodology is antiquated. The better approach would be open and accessable sharing of data and results in real time where more can work on you work of progress, and less trying to be Mr. Know it all scientist, who will get the Nobel prize for stumbling on the best answer.

You loose credits. So there will be less contrabution to your product, distribution companies will not use your product and your name may be a stain, so your contributions may not be welcomed in other projects.

There is too much value in listening to the users.
I am not saying the users comments are useless, but if you try to follow your users direction too much you end up compromising your design, and there is a point where they will just have to do it a new way.

When people say I want the start button back. I want to know what problem they are trying to solve with it. Is there an alternative that is better.
My issue isn't the lack of the start button but how it full screen takes my eye off of my work space and gives me something else to look at. And it's design prevents catorigazation so I can drill down. The start bar does this. So does OS X finder.

For most people I know, they do their digital tv viewing via game consoles.
Xbox, play station or wii. Apple TV, chrome cast, etc... Are nearly all just tv. So it isn't so popular.

Yea I guess there has be no advancements in treating cancer over the years. Oh wait they have!
The neat thing about having a population of over 6 billion people is that we can focus on multiple issues at once.

Guess what not everyone is suited to study cancer, they me be better at climate research, or perhaps they have the ability to do something else.

Science is suppose to get things wrong. It is part of the process. The problem is the media keeps on touting the current hypothesis as the newest theory. So the average slob thinks this is some new breakthrew while it is just an idea to test out.
Because of this poor media coverage it makes the impression that the process is so flawed.

Now the problem is in how science is funded, means the scientist need to market their idea to people with money. Now these guys want to the science not marketing. So they do the best they can do, and often oversell it, as in the short term it is better then underselling it.

You are looking for a perfect solution. Sorry everything you choose has a tradeoff.
The issue is to get the right balance. Right now our current energy is dirty. So... Migratory birds flying threw smoke isn't that good for them. The effects of global climate change means the seeds and dust flying patterns are altered.

So Wind isn't perfect, however the tradeoffs compared to what we have now, seems much more manageable.

Wind is popular, because it can be implemented using fairly small plot of land, which makes it ideal for municipal power generation. Solar requires more surface area, and means the individuals will need to agree to putting the devices on their property.

So in a democratic settings. 50+% of the voters vote for a wind turbine for their community, means 100% of the population get Wind energy.

While for solar where the individuals choose, that 50+% May have solar while the 50-% will not, so that is less overall green power usage.