The economy is man made and shall be adapted so that all cost are included: The cost of global warming has to be put on coal, oil, and gas. This is possible with a CO2 tax. To cover the costs, a ton of CO2 has to cost about $600, without exceptions. If other countries do not follow, a climate income tax can solve the matter.

My fridge from AEG has LED bulbs and is a very power efficient device. We see that progress is there and shall not give in to the babbling of the paid chills who do everything to keep us from doing the right thing. Every change has winners and losers. We lose jobs, and we gain jobs. But some business models cannot survive: oil, coal, and nuclear power. The sun alone directs so much energy onto Earth that it is more than enough. No need for risks and pollution.

No, electronics waste does not emit ionizing radiation, but nuclear waste does, for a VERY long time, and unlike natural sources like potassium in a banana it would overwhelm and kill a human body if exposed. Fukushima has not been a soviet design, and still there was an undetected problem with the safety margin. We have seen that the experience from Chernonyl did not help at all avoiding the disaster of Fukushima. Humans make errors, and in case of a nuclear plant this has severe consequences. The soviets really made an effort to clean up Chernobyl, sacrificing soldiers who died of leucemia in their duty. In Fukushima, much less was done, so that the cleanup status still leaves a lot to be desired. The best choice of course is renewable energy. I am happy that some federal states in Germany will demand that on newly built houses solar panels are put. The sun delivers 174 PW from which we only need to use 14.7 TW, a small fraction. I am sure that we all are capable of doing it.

This is nonsense. Renewable energy costs about a third of nuclear energy, it is way cheaper and less risky. The potential of solar energy alone is 174 PW, delivered by an already existing fusion reactor in a safe distance called Sun. The cost situation has changed recently, and there is a gross miscalculation: The insurance sum for a core meltdown in Europe is only about 300 million euro, whereas the real damage is estimated to be 300 billion euro, 1000x more. We cannot accept subsidies anymore for this dangerous technolony: It is obsolete.

Yes indeed. Hinkley Point C in Great Britain is a new nuclear power plant block, and cannot be built without a guaranteed price of three times of renewable energy sources for 35 years, and credit guarantees of 22 billion euros from the British government. Much better to invest directly in renewable energy: you pay only a third per watt. Not only cost is prohibitive, but risk as well: Chernobyl and Fukushima. I thought that Chernobyl is already enough for humankind to learn.

We do not need another nuclear accident, and we want to stop producing nuclear waste which obligates many future generations of humans to take care of it. This is irresponsible behavior. Furthermore, we want to abolish nuclear weapons. But to avoid more climate change we have to produce green energy, lots of it. The sun produces such energy, and 174 PW of it reaches the Earth. We only need 14.7 TW of energy and can happily use the energy for as long as humankind exists. On Earth we have wind as well, another clean energy source ready to be used. I do not see a use case for nuclear energy at all which is beneficial for humankind if you do not neglect the risks.

Religious worship meetings can be paused for a while, they are not essential. We have an infectuous disease, and these meetings will spread the virus if distance is not kept. It is far more clever to use the internet to provide service with perfect protection, and I would expect from religious organizations to care for the health of their followers. Food delivery in a supermarket is a risk as well, but essential, or the army needs to deliver food to the houses. Strange to compare these things.

But I hope so. We already have some epidemics experienced, with Chinese government closing wild animal markets and afterwards opening them again (!!!). In Wuhan, the wild animal markets already have been reopened. I am from Germany and hope that we all hold responsible the Chinese government and people who have allowed contact with wild animals on these markets. This is not acceptable. We can get another virus any day with such a risky behavior. I hope we close down flights from and to China as well. If they do not want to change their lifestyle, then we have to isolate them. We have no other choice. Science has to lead political decisions. We all want to be healthy and live for more time on this planet. We are family. Let us do it!

Good idea. China has brought us Sars-CoV-2 (Corona virus) because they have not banned effectively trade with living wild animals like pangolins used for food purposes and traditional medicine made from the scales. Not only it is a mistreatment of animals, it is totally unnecessary for a healthy diet and effective, scientific medicine. They have to pay for it, and I see no intent of politicians to charge them, for example with a special tax, for now. So I will refuse to buy Chinese products as much as I can. And of course no Chinese phone with a foreign brand, like an iPhone.

The planet was in balance before humankind started polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases coming from fossil fuels. So we have to get back to this stage rapidly, if we want to survive. A carbon tax of $650 per ton CO2 would cover for the costs of the pollution and would be a first step. Whoever polluts has to pay for the damage it does, and not the taxpayer in general. Subsidies have to stop.

USA. Members from state agencies are not arrested for war crimes, but investigative journalists like Assange who have publicized the crimes. Furthermore, torture is tolerated in Guantanamo prison. And war drones are used to kill humans including their surroundings without a trial. Surveillance is complete and enforced with National Security Letters (NSL) where organisations have to lie to the public about their cooperation with state agencies. This is not the USA I knew, and I am glad that I did not go there for work which was my plan in earlier days.

It is a policy problem, the economic model does not include sustainability. Damages like global warming are not paid for. You have to tax CO2 emissions to compensate for the consequences which is about $700 per ton. We are far from a real market price, for example aviation fuel has no tax at all, and because of the additional warming airplanes create, you need to apply a factor of about 2 to 5 (RFI = Radiation Forcing Index) which would make flying even more expensive. I know that there is no other fast intercontinental transportation method, but the cost shall pay the customer and not other people (taxpayers). We need market prices where consequences are already covered, and are galaxies distant of it reviewing actual policy from our representatives.

Relying on mapping data? When the police changes the speed limit by putting a different sign at the place, this speed limit automagically goes into mapping data? I am much more careful nowadays when crossing streets with car traffic.

And how to ensure that every car gets it? I am much more careful when crossing streets nowadays.

It is not because of the effects on atmosphere and climate, which we all share. Where common welfare is concerned, it has priority over individual freedom - if we want to survive.