Congress has the power of the purse... but it takes a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to override a presidential veto, and it's nearly impossible the Democrats will win that. Congress might be able to stop things from getting worse, but, no, they won't have the power to fix things.

Best case, or possibly worst depending on your viewpoint, is a stalemate and government shutdown

I trust NREL numbers. They put median ifecycle emissions of nuclear power at about 13 grams CO2 per kW hour., of which 2 grams per kW-hr are construction cost. They put coal plants at 1000 grams per kW-hr. https://greencalculus.com/guid...

Other sources put it slightly higher (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/role-nuclear-power-energy-mix-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ ) but not an order of magnitude higher,

If you think those numbers are comparable, yes, you are innumerate.

If we build it, then it will frictionlessly tell us what to build.

lol- are you trying to mansplain what I've already told you to me?

You truly are hilarious.
The Nile Delta, also, is not a desert.
Because the amount of groundwater there prevents it from being arid. The amount that falls from the sky is utterly irrelevant.
Tulare basin is the same. Little water may fall from the sky, but it has an absolute abundance of ground water.
Lush marshlands are not deserts.
You are fixated on this idea that a desert is defined by a certain amount of rain that falls from the sky, and that's quite simply wrong.

Your point, was that they are "trying to grow pistachios in the friggin desert", as if the water to do so were being pumped in from some faraway place.
As if the Tulare Basin didn't have abundant water.

As I said, they don't grow them in the fucking Mojave.
You said a thing that was wrong, and you're trying to defend it to the death, and it makes you look ridiculous.

There's a lot of work being done ( https://www.nature.com/article... ) including designing of genetically engineered bacteriophages ( https://news.stanford.edu/stor... ).

So, stay tuned.

Yeah; unless they can win the presidency, the best they can do it try to stop things from getting worse.

And even if they do win the presidency, the problems are things that won't be fixed fast. In fact, you should distrust any politician (on either side) who promises to fix things instantly.

Accurate. DT has been reducing the budget and firing workers at the FDA and the CDC, which is to say, the medical professionals charged with stopping disease,.

Unlikely. Even if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, DT is still the president and hence the chief executive. The Democrats don't have the power to fix anything, the best they might be able to do is to stop things from getting worse quite as quickly.

Possibly they could get rid of RFK Jr, who seems to be actively trying to destroy medical science in the US, but DT would just find another incompetent to replace him, and if the Senate won't ratify, he has no problem just keeping an "acting" head forever.

Not sure how you can have "infinity" immigrants, but, yes, we could bring in doctors, nurses, and medical researchers from abroad.

Yes... and no.

The USA restricts antibiotics for humans by requiring prescriptions.

Farm animals get fed antibiotics by the truckload, and don't need prescriptions.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insig...
https://extension.okstate.edu/...
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ant...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

The carbon dioxide produced by making cement for a nuclear reactor is absolutely insignificant compared to that produced by burning billions of tons of fossil fuels... and keeping on burning that much every year, forever.

This is an effect known as "innumeracy"-- not being clear about the distinction between thousands of tons, millions of tons, and billions of tons,

Would be great, but so far we don't know how to do it; all the proposals to do it are very expensive, and even if we could do it, we have only notional ideas of how to convert fusion energy (primarily hot neutrons) into electricity.

This is an important point that I think slashdot commentators miss. Solar has an advantage that is scales well to small applications. You can start small and work up. But, a hundred megawatt solar field is (nearly) a hundred times as expensive as a one megawatt solar field; there's no economy of scale at large sizes.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is the opposite. It scales well at large sizes. It's not twice as expensive to make a nuclear plant that puts out twice as much power, and hence big units are much cheaper (per watt) than small.

Does this sentence have any meaning at all, or did the AI just insert economics-related buzz words into a grammar template?

Addressing only the last four words of this, the answer is that the economies of scale of mass production means "individual and localized production" is much more expensive than factories, and hence individual and localized production may work in a society that is small and poor, but not in one that is large and rich.

Right. We get this headline every year, because since the carbon dioxide level is rising, and therefore every year sets a new record.
https://www.climate.gov/ghg/cu...

"Rising line is higher than it was previously! " is a headline, but not really "news".

Paleoclimate researchers measure ancient methane primarily by analyzing air bubbles trapped in glacial ice cores retrieved by drilling into ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.

If you're curious, the hydrological history can be read about here