By listing organization emissions instead of per-capita emissions it falsely frames China as by far the worst offender. In reality China's CO2 emissions per person are 50% lower than the US.

Industry should be mandated to reduce their CO2 emissions on an aggressive schedule. If they want to do that partially via "carbon capture" and it can be proven that it is done in a way with nearly zero chance of the gas escaping for eternity (a big if), fine. Government and tax payers should not have to subsidize their reduction strategy. The idea of capturing CO2 and pumping it into the ground originated with lobbying by the oil industry because this is what they already do to stimulate production on old oil wells. Even Democrats have been captured by this lobbyist greenwashing and taxpayer subsidies for oil players. Meanwhile let's be honest about the need for carbon capture. The Paris goals can only be met by not only massive reductions in emissions, but large (and ever increasing) assumptions about future carbon capture of previously emitted CO2. There are no practical known methods to recapture the CO2 at that scale required. Trees play almost zero role in this huge and increasing future problem. Point source high tech approaches that use electricity are a joke - they would require more (and probably something on the order of 10x) energy than was released by fossil fuels in our history to recapture (second law of thermodynamics). Maybe there will be some kind of sun driven chemical or biological process that comes to our rescue since that could theoretically harness the amount of energy needed in the timeframe we have. I'm tired of all the lies

What he said was that *basic* functionality for Level 5 should be complete by year end with lost of remaining work to make it reliable in the real world. If it is ever as good *overall* as a human driver in the myriad of situations of the real world, it will likely be many many years in the future and probably after Starlink provides high speed low latency connectivity to allow distributed fleet training IMHO

I track my emissions carefully. Even though I rarely fly, air travel easily dwarfs all the other emissions from electricity, natural gas, etc during the year. For my long trip from LA to Aspen, CO later this year, my CO2 emissions are 125 lbs from driving my Tesla charged on the current grid vs. 1700 lbs flying. The industry tries to hide this by their standard PR response: "aircraft CO2 emissions are 2% of total worldwide CO2 emissions". See what they did there? Bastards

not true. Companies and consumers often don't do the things in their best interest. Proof in this case is the positive impact from the Obama regulation in cutting energy consumption from lighting when nothing had changed in terms of technology or pricing prior to that regulation. Anarchy isn't going to always produce the best results compared to planning (see "tragedy of the commons" for just one well known class of examples)

This whole thing is another attempt to distract by the Trump mobster traitor and his GOP henchmen

I agree. Of course every person and organization will keep track of interests opposed to them. There's nothing wrong or sneaky about that. Calling it a "burn book" is inflammatory and makes me question the intent of this post. Tech should be more closely regulated in general but they are not the enemy. The Koch brothers and GOP have it in for tech because their employees are powerful forces that tend to oppose their crazy agendas and their employees thus tend to support their opposition. Unfortunately I think some on the left have taken the bait to attack tech, probably because they find that the GOP will support some of their efforts to regulate tech. I hope the Democrats are logical and careful about what they want to regulate. You can't ask Facebook to wade into 1st amendment issues without clear rules which unsurprisingly they refuse to propose. And asking Google to split search from advertising might make my employer (Microsoft) happy but would of course completely undermine their business model. Amazon is a big target of the right wing nutjobs which is why I look very skeptically at headlines with inflammatory wording like this one. It's been open season on the public by the sophisticated propaganda techniques which also were likely implicated in the Arab Spring, even if it was supported with good intentions (my suspicion)

Jobs are vacant when it isn't a priority of the companies to define the requirements correctly and pay enough. It's that simple. If you want to fix the terrible security problems, force the companies to fix them via regulations with teeth. Problem solved. This reminds me of the "problem" that no US citizens are willing to work agricultural jobs. That's a lie. The fact is that the conditions and pay are purposely set such that they don't attract US employees.

Since it has a slow Pentium branded CPU its performance and the more expensive versions aren't as different as many think. It's a great small device and costs a lot less too. It can be used as a real one pound tablet and a real computer too. Great form factor and set of capabilities. Very durable too with great screen

1kW is roughly 5 high efficiency panels which can be super thin and light. Do they really need continuous power, or just power during the day? Probably even if you include the batteries it would be lighter, cheaper and safer to go with solar. The solar approach would last longer too and not generate impossible to handle nuclear waste.

I can't think of any more perfectly matched people. That isn't a compliment

France can tax what they like, tech companies can provide services and charge what they like. Why does our government need to be messing around interfering with these decisions?

Using renewable energy directly is massively cheaper and better. The only reason we see these articles? Because the fossil fuel companies are in a panic to try to convince people they are still relevant in the future. They are not

I'm a huge global warming action advocate but this is just not true. Even if you ignore the fact that trees decompose and release much of that carbon back to the atmosphere, there is no way that we can recapture 2/3 of human released CO2 by planting trees. A simple calculation on the back of a napkin quickly shows this is untrue. Three hundred plus years of emissions, currently 7.5 billion people on the planet. Americans emitting tons of CO2 on a simple airline flight. Just completely untrue. And even if we tried to do it anyway, where is the fresh water and empty fertile land going to come from? I'm surprised someone posted this because it was rejected a long time ago as not a significant contributor to the solution we need. Cite the calculations and prove us wrong - I notice none are cited. I'd love for the solution to be this simple

actually the time for action could have been the late 1800s when we first realized the problem or the 1960s when it was being studied by think tanks and reported to governments and corporations with high accuracy and predictions that have come true