If you really need security for some reason, use it to match the person to the badge at the clean room entrance. That will keep someone from using a stolen badge.
I would think saving the planet would be motivation enough.
That only works on the truest of true believers.
But if nothing else, I think the US government should fund and subsidize the shift to a new energy infrastructure, through research grants, tax incentives, etc.
Using money to motivate people. That works.
In a larger scope, it is interesting to me that profit is the only way we can think of to motivate people. It's as if we weren't creative beings at heart. Absent the profit motive, I think people would create and build things out of necessity, creativity, or a desire to make life better for oneself and others. Profit is actually a poor motivator because a well-done job or quality product is only a by product of a desire for profit. If a profit can be made with shoddy work or an inferior product, that's just as well; because the motivation is profit, not doing a good job.
You don't need to motivate people to do what they already want to do. But they're probably already doing that, so how will you get anyone to change?
The US government has shown that it will come up with large amounts of money when properly motivated. We need a Manhattan Project
In WW2, the US was attacked. This is an obvious motivating factor. Climate change is something with ambiguous consequences in the distant future. "Something bad might happen someday" isn't really similar to "we're under attack".
If you give up on using money, you can only motivate change by telling a convincing story or threatening people. That's why people focus on money.
But they don't say anything like this:
The problem isn't cheap energy but man made global warming and climate change; the CO2 levels are now so massive that inventing a zero emission ultra cheap energy source, that globally replaced all other polluting energy sources in an instant, no longer is enough stop the global warming process going on for hundreds of years.
They didn't address the "what if everything changed in an instant" case in their article.
What's the alternative motivation besides profit? How do you get some people to do what you want without paying them?
Fear won't work. People can just decide not to be afraid. And, since doomsday predictions have always been wrong, they would be wise not to fear the end you're warning them about. Altruism won't work either.
People focus on profit/money because its a clear way to motivate others. Everything else is just salesmanship, putting a gun to someone's head, or asking "pretty please".
That's not what the original article says.
the Pentagon takes it seriously, can you get realer than that?
Real-world limits tend to preclude taking "every" opportunity. A more realistic approach would be to do things that might help a lot and not do things that take time and effort and won't help much.
Get all the experts into the same room and lock the door..
That's not how free, democratic societies make policy.
Is there evidence to conclude that enough people in democratic countries and enough leaders in undemocratic countries would support sufficient political action for long enough to solve the problem (according to the climate models)?
The opposite conclusion seems to be true so far.
A common argument is that climate change can be avoided if everyone makes a number of small changes in their lives. These guys have determined that marginal, easily affordable changes in people's lives are insufficient according to some climate models. (Unless there's are large, unforeseeable technological advances.)
In other words, a specific approach or category of approaches won't work if you believe the forecasts of some severe climate models. The obvious response would be to stop advocating the unworkable approaches and/or re-examine the climate models to see if they might be overestimating the challenge.
Perhaps the article communicates this poorly. It's still useful info though.
Which one of those is "a software shop"? None of them.
If he were going to start the next Google, he would be talking to his venture capital friends and his other advisors, not to AskSlashdot.
Business is about sales and customers. Everything else you do is completely irrelevant if you don't have sales and customers. If you don't have a good plan to sell your wares, you don't need to spend 5 minutes thinking about how you will produce them.
Spend a few days reading nothing but technology news. Then spend a few days reading nothing but political news. For the first few days you’ll see an exciting world of innovation and creativity where everything is getting better all the time. In the second period you’ll see a miserable world of cynicism and treachery where everything is falling apart. Please explain the difference.
Do you believe in microaggressions? Why or why not? Is a belief in microaggressions helpful or harmful? To whom is it helpful? Who should worry about microaggressions? Who shouldn't? How can someone be certain they are innocent of committing microaggressions? If someone is accused of something like committing microaggressions, are there two sides that must be considered, or only one?