If nobody _else_ knows better, no reason to trust it to a 20-year old who doesn't know better.

If somebody else does, then why are you neglecting their experience?
If you had a choice, you'd build a team with a mix of youth and experience.

The report specified that a *particular* *technology* will not scale in the future, not that no technology will be found.

Kids these days.
Its "Film at 11".
Back in the day when film was this stuff that needed processing, they would take a film camera, film the event, bring it back and show it. But it wouldn't make the 6 O'clock news; it would typically be ready by 11pm. Hence "film at 11".

Sheesh. Its called Irony.

By ""fundamental human right" it means that nobody should be allowed deny you this.

For example the debate over whether Internet access should be a right. Nobody is suggesting that I should get Internet for free,
or that the government should pay my broadband bill, but rather that it should be unconstitutional for there to be a law
denying me access to the internet (e.g. the HADOPI law in France, three strikes laws, etc.), because today its effectively
necessary to participate in democracy: (e.g. this discussion is not happening in a Town Hall. Its happening on the 'net.
Its where people talk and become educated as to whats going on, and formulate their opinions, etc).
Similarly, many other public services are becoming primarily provided over the net only. To be net-deprived is becoming a major
handicap in western society.

Another example would be food: I have a right to food, that would mean denying me that right is a major infringement,
but doesn't necessarily mean you have to feed me ...

The GSM standards as originally developed were deliberately chosen to work on bands (900 MHz , IIRC) that in the US were assigned to the military. That is, to be initially incompatible and unusable in the US, so as to split the world into "US" and "rest", and give non-US developers a head start. It worked ...

This is part of the paradox of a two-party political system designed towards gridlock / consensus.

The Democrats will always get the support of the Republicans going to war, but not vice versa.
The Republicans will get the support of the democrats in ending wars.

So, its Democrats who are in power when wars start, Republicans when they end ... (mostly)

Everywhere else, people are moving towards electricity for a cleaner future.

There are plenty of ways of generating clean electricity: nuclear, wind, tidal, biomass, hydro, solar ... even, if they get the budgets right,
"clean" coal with carbon capture (from what i've seen, I think the tech. works, but not the finances).

Secondly, even with mainline coal-powered generation, greater generation efficiency can mean that coal-powered electrical vehicles
create less co2/km than gasoline.

How about: does it suffer?
Does creating a "human" inside a device where it can presumably sense, but have no limbs or autonomy consitute torture? Can you turn it off?

Why is "being natural" a defining answer to these questions?

Expand the petroleum infrastructure: In the US (and Europe) car ownership per capita peaked in 2004. Absolute car numbers have been in decline since 2008 in the US. Not only can you move away from the car, its already happening.

Plan for it. Zone so that town and city centers are dense enough to undo the need for most car journeys. This has been happening in (parts of ) Europe for decades now.

Do public investment for the trains. Train systems pay off over decades, which is far too long for private investment, but not a problem for public investment. Countries become rich over centuries of infrastructure buildup.