I'll give you a hyperlocal example from my neck of the woods west of Boston.

The Concord Rotary along MA Route 2 in Concord, MA. Massive traffic bottleneck. The state has slowly been upgrading the part of Rte 2 between 495 and 95 to a limited access expressway. But when they got to this particular place, all the people whose house values would drop by openning up an easier commute to Boston upstream of the traffic bottleneck (thereby increasing the pool of desirable housing and thus lowering values of currently desirable housing downstream of the bottleneck) sued to stop the project on environmental grounds. In this case, taking away rights would entail taking away the right to use the courts to buffer your home values from natural market forces happening away from your property lines. All for it.

We got our "peak oil" anxiety dose yesterday, and now we gotten the expected end-of-antibiotics scare. All that's left is to dust off the doomsday clock people: there still a few hours left to complete the trifecta!

Can't imagine it'd be all that difficult: Trump is somehow president again, so there's every reason to crank the 'ol doomsday clock forward a bit and make a headline.

Have you actually seen the kind of verbiage that makes it into real, on-the-books legislation?

If you had, you'd probably want to put some sarc tags around your sarc tags.

Bullshit hypotheticals have standing in court precisely because of vaguely worded legislation that delegates a lot of authority to determine what counts as negative impact onto regulatory agencies or the court system.

Clear and concise language to dilineate what does and does not count as harm and what level of evidence and confidence is required to show attribution is *precisely* what is lacking and what enables lawyers to spin bullshit stories to shopped-for juries or judges.

Clearly neither have you. AI code generation beyond simple programs is garbage.

"Risk and concern" is a euphemism for too many busybodies with too much time on their hands having standing in court to challenge permits.

You can fix this in legislation by taking away people's standing to sue when they are not directly affected and explicitly define "directly affected" to exclude bullshit hypotheticals.

Of course this would solve the problem and thus take away opportunities for rentseeking and grandstanding. So we can't have that.

Again: if the market is inelastic and prices are rising, that's an incentive for new entrants into the market.

What is preventing new entrants from building power plants and connecting them to the grid?

If prices are rising, the return on investment to build out more generating capacity also rises.

Now let's ask: what added costs are discouraging that investment?

What prevents things like new power plants from being built?

Hint: it's closely related to the reason many power plants are actively being shut down.

Well played ;)

It was a play on words with the typo in the title ... oh, never mind, lol!

The "cold war" phrase has been hitting the think tank and media circuits. here is another example

I'm ok with it as long as I don't have to bail it out if it fails.

Mohammad Ali has been gone for quite some time; how much could he possibly demand?

It's like the hover tank in Sargent Bilko. Not about being practical, just about if you can get the contract. Human nature is the same everywhere.

People were not born voluntarily, once alive we mostly don't die voluntarily. We won't stop voluntarily because it would be akin to dying voluntarily. We have to accept the fact that we are not in fact the Borg, we don't have one hive mind.

I don't think you read the article at all as none of this is due to loans from China. It's people acting in their own economic interest because these products replace more expensive alternatives. Part of it is funding through carbon credits which is a separate sort of idiocy, but the companies involved have built a viable business model around supplying something people want in a way that they can afford. The only involvement China has is that they manufacture much of the hardware and it's not some government directed effort on their part. To them Africa is just a customer buying what they're selling and both sides are engaging in commerce out of their own benefit from it.

Unless you have some direct evidence to refute the claims in the article, you're just talking out of your ass.