That's not what the study says. That's not even what the scientist said. From your link:

i.e. he described a lower bound, not an upper bound. Further, even this was only a single scientist's opinion, and the study itself makes no such claim.

It's amusing how climate deniers love to jump on mangled second- or third-hand reporting, hoping that this somehow discredits the science itself. Meanwhile, the decades of hard evidence keep piling up.

You have a... truly unique definition of "liar" and "fraud", if you think the people being lied to and defrauded are themselves the liars and fraudsters, simply because they were naive enough to believe the industry that assured them they were helping.

They absolutely did.

If you're not going to offer sources to bolster your claims then repeating them won't help. They're directly contradicted by TFA, which you apparently aren't interested in reading. The above link has dozens of examples dating back decades of industry groups promoting a wide gamut of plastic recycling "solutions" - whilst internally describing these same recycling initiatives as "ineffective" but helpful for market and profit expansion nonetheless.

The whole point of this report is not that anyone's surprised that plastics are hard to recycle, it's that oil & plastics producers verifiably knew this from the beginning, yet knowingly marketed recycling as a solution to the huge plastics waste problem they were creating and profiting from, despite its ineffectiveness.

We long suspected that this push for recycling was a cynical attempt to deflect the issue onto consumers, so that they could continue to sell cheap but hard-to-recycle plastics with no regulation - and now we have proof. It's little different to burning fossil fuels; the industry has been actively and provably subverting any suggestion that the external costs of dealing with the waste should be included in the cost of their products. They just want to collect all the profits and let the public deal with the costs of cleaning it all up afterwards.

This study suggests otherwise:

Most wind farms are on farmland, and the income of tens of thousands of dollars annually for farmers (and even some for their neighbours) can be a huge help in difficult years. Even this study on opposition to wind farms finds that just 17% of proposals face any opposition, so at least 83% of farmers are accepting or welcoming them.

This study does not definitively prove causation, but the line just beforehand demonstrates a very clear link:

(Emphasis mine) A correlation that strong is something that should be taken very seriously, at least until we can find firm evidence that microplastics are not to blame. While it's not panic-stations yet, it's absolutely premature to declare that they "apparently do nothing". Further research is most certainly required, and caution is strongly indicated.

"Preferable" is subjective, yes? Evidence suggests EVs are already "preferable enough" to 8% of US buyers, and up to 90% in some other countries. These numbers are going up.

That's because film cameras were not literally poisoning the air we breathe, and costing us billions every day.

Hate to break it to you, but there already is.

Please point to the place on this doll of the Norwegian government where it hurt you.

Oh, you pointed to this list of substantial EV incentives? That contains no penalties anywhere for not buying an EV? I'm so sorry.

Did you miss the various parts of my replies where I stated repeatedly how fine I was with you not buying one?

Restatement of "Maybe EVs aren't for you".

I never claimed any of the above points to be "overwhelming", I said they were advantages, which they are. If you read carefully, you'll note I did not say they were advantages for everyone, or for you. You are not required to care about any of them, and that's still fine. I'm delighted you liked everything about digital cameras, but not everybody felt that way; same with EVs. For a growing number of people, the advantages of EVs for them outweigh the disadvantages for them.

While I'm clarifying, "the only constraint is the battery cost" referred to EVs getting cheaper, specifically. And for many people the recharge time concern is entirely moot, because their EV is always fully charged in their garage and ready to go each morning, thus saving them the weekly gas station visit, which I put to you, is in fact better. For them. All clear now?

NACS uses the same communication protocols as CCS, i.e. DIN 70121 and ISO 15118. It does not use the proprietary Tesla CAN protocol.

The NACS plug is physically different to CCS, but electrically they're similar enough that a dumb adapter can be used.

* Fantastic acceleration
* Much quieter
* Much more efficient
* Lower total cost of ownership
* Few moving parts
* Simpler servicing
* Inherently more reliable
* Brakes last much longer
* Can charge at home, or from any wall plug
* No need to stop at a gas station every week or so
* Little to zero emissions
Should I continue?

Maybe today's EVs aren't for you, and that's fine. They won't cover 100% of everyone's use cases, any more than digital cameras or streaming music did. But it's impossible to deny their many advantages nonetheless.

They are still expensive, but that won't last - prices have dropped around 20% just in the last year or two, as batteries continue to get cheaper and manufacturers amortise their big capital investments. And as EVs are mechanically so much simpler, they can potentially get much cheaper than ICE vehicles - the only constraint is the battery cost, which is a long way from hitting any sort of inherent floor.

Yes, and not just "for some people", but not fast enough to avoid the consequences in terms of financial and human costs that we are already beginning to see, and which will get worse for decades yet, thanks to the emissions we've already locked in. Improving standards of living *now* has to be balanced against the expected impacts to that same standard of living from climate change.

We'd all prefer not to pay a little extra today for an EV or green power or whatever, but if the research is clearly showing that the alternative is decades or centuries of more extreme weather, more flooding of coastal cities, more food insecurity, more climate refugees - then it's only sensible to pay a little more today to avoid much bigger costs in the future.

The primary barrier to using nuclear reactors in shipping is cost. It's always been an option for non-military use, e.g. nuclear-powered icebreakers, but there are good reasons why shipping companies haven't jumped on it.

Nonetheless, this is being reconsidered. Cost is still a big issue - same as with commercial nuclear power plants - but the growing awareness of the high external costs of fossil fuel alternatives are making it look more attractive.

Of course, there's no incentive for shipping companies to consider external costs, so they don't. Policy is needed to convince them to look again - and political will, since conservatives often hate any suggestion of imposing any costs upon companies, apparently preferring to let the public pay for them instead.

Sure, let's blame the consumers who were given no practical alternatives, and not the billionaire petro-CEOs who spent decades and hundreds of millions pushing lies to keep it that way. They fully understood that this would cause massive future costs and suffering, but who the fuck cares so long as shareholders are pacified and they get that bonus for their new yacht.

Good lord.

Yes, your link states that even relatively-expensive rooftop-installed solar still pays off its energy cost many times, so we can take that as confirmation of the GP's point.

But you're now trying to shift the goalposts to payback time instead. Sadly your numbers completely ignore the many years of construction time for nuclear plants. By the time a nuke plant starts producing its very first watt, solar has already paid itself off, multiple times over.

You're nitpicking. There are many decades of research on the causes of recent climate change, and it's overwhelmingly us.

Natural forcings do exist, and have been carefully measured, and aren't even close to enough to produce the effects we're seeing now. But human emissions absolutely are.