In "some cases"? 40% of the US still don't see any problem with dumping fossil fuel pollution into the environment, killing 50,000+ Americans every year, and destroying the environment, possibly permanently.

Agreed. Between Climate Change Denying comments getting modded +5 and Slashdot posting this FUD about a company that is significantly helping humanity, I'm gone.

Even though Slashdot doesn't write these articles, it needs to have the journalistic integrity not to post BS. Otherwise, it drives away the objective, knowledgeable users that will mod down false comments. Destructive feedback at its best.

Parent does a good job of explaining the situation without using any abusive language. GP doesn't understand that the science is settled. How is it GP is moderated higher?

And why is it I never have mod points when I actually want and have time to use them? E.g., some time when I'm not about to head out on a road trip... I've spent the last 15 minutes trying to figure out how to do some metamoderating, in case that would reward me with some mod points. M2 seems to be invitation only at this point, and I haven't been invited to M2 in a long time...

Yep, that does look pretty bad. The next things I'd want to know are: Did Hunter actually get paid $3M, or was the prosecutor fired because he made up that number? What was Hunter's contract, e.g. was $3M standard pay for anyone on the board doing similar work?

Thanks: I'll check it out this evening. And No, I don't consider Biden a great with respect to Climate Change. He's my least favorite of the leading candidates precisely for that reason. However, I suspect he might have a better chance of winning against Trump simply because he's not as left as Warren, Sanders, et al. I just don't know on that score. If he somehow does end up winning in 2020, I hope he changes his environmental tune quickly. Otherwise, it's not going to matter if it's Trump or Biden: humanity's fate will be sealed, and it won't be pretty.

If this really is an honest investigation of a crime committed by the Bidens, where are the indications that a crime may have been committed? Before opening a homicide investigation, the cops usually need to know that a) someone has died, and b) it wasn't by natural causes. I haven't seen any of that from Trump, et al., just a "Biden's son was on the board of _company_." Did the Ukraine or that company get any special treatment during Obama's presidency? I haven't seen mention of any on the news. That doesn't mean there wasn't any, but Trump needs that before beginning an investigation. Friends and relatives of a new [Vice] President still need to be employed so they can put food on the table. In general, the friends and relatives aren't just going to quite because someone was elected. I could imagine a case where there is a conflict of interest, but it would be something like New President's Sibling happens to be high in the Chinese government or military.

Further, when the cops do their investigation, they keep detailed notes and have chains of custody on evidence, allowing the defendant's defense team to question the cops and verify their work. Said notes and evidence are also needed if Internal Affairs opens an investigation to verify the cops are doing their jobs correctly. Trump is preventing the "cops" from talking to the "IA investigators", that being Congress.

Citation needed. Would it have killed you to add a link to said Biden video? Not like Trump's "grab them" audio recording changed any minds, though... And no matter how bad Hillary was, (Yes, I agree strongly she was bad,) Trump was clearly planning on driving the last nails in humanity's carbon coffin. That should be a no brainer.

When a president attacks both science (the whole basis of nerd-dom) and truth.

Natural CO2 emissions may have been neutral in 1900, but we've cut enough down enough trees and increased the forest fire rate enough that it'd be out of balance even without considering fossil fuel combustion or volcanoes.

EVs do make a difference. Being 90% efficient, compared to the 30% efficiency of an ICE, is a huge energy savings. Even if it's charged by electricity from a fossil fuel plant, the fossil fuel plant can scrub pollutants out of the emissions, unlike the particulates and NOx that come out of a tailpipe. Increasing electrical demand also shows that new energy sources need to be built, and local governments can be smart about building renewables as opposed to more coal plants. Further, there are large portions of the US in which charging from the electrical grid cuts emissions 50%-75% for driving the same distance. Even getting a good PHEV that lets you do 80%-90% of your driving in full-electric is a huge benefit. Both EVs and PHEVs can take advantage of greening up the electrical supply, if we can ever get control of our government again.

You may be right on that idea of burying yard waste and healthy trees. I've been wondering if it'd be useful to throw the trees in the coal mines, but it might be too CO2 intensive shipping the trees to the mines. (It would give coal miners some new work that's more environmentally friendly.) Or start building new housing for folks that will be displaced by more-frequent weather events, like the more unfortunate residents of Houston, Texas that look like they're going to get flooded out every 3-5 years. Being wise about which trees to cut can reduce forest fire rates. I suspect we still need forest fires, but we just can't let them get out of hand like in Paradise, CA and South Australia.

That'd be fine, if the forest grew back overnight, recapturing all that CO2. Instead, it takes a decade or two for the new growth to recapture all that smoke. Not to mention, it'd be even better if we found some place for that new growth without burning down the original forest in the first place...

Major refugee crisis. 11 million Syrians needed to find new homes: half of those left the country. Imagine 400 million needing to find new homes, just from sea level rise. Add in refugees from the places that will get too hot to be habitable: 10s or 100s of millions from India and neighboring countries. Add in the food and water shortages due to drought. Do you want a fair allocation of that many homeless and malnourished people in your country? Do you want your government taxing the heck out of your paycheck to buy out the homes of the people that are getting flooded repeatedly? Ounce of prevention and all that. Oh, and sea level rise doesn't stop automatically at year 2100: it'll continue, so you'll have more millions of homeless and malnourished people each year.

This would be like responding, "That's ok. My body is changing all the time."

The US is averaging 10 $1B climate disasters a year. In the 1980s, the average was 3/year. Yes, the $1B metric has been corrected for inflation. Do you want to start doing something when there's 20 $1B events? 50 $1B events?

The fossil fuel industry gets more in subsidies than the Pentagon spends. Do you want to wait until the FF industry is getting $1T in subsidies? $10T in subsidies? $100T?

Two towns are relocating due to rising waters. A town in the Florida Keys is seeing near continuous flooding. Do you want to wait until Miami is underwater? New York City? Boston?

We lock all that in if we continue on our current path for the next 30 years.

Not a gun nut either, but rule number two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. (I think I heard that in an illusion by Penn & Teller.) So yes, if someone is pointing a gun at me, I'll assume the person is ready to kill me, even if only in their own self-defense.

We already have working solar and wind generation. We're working on storage. We don't have the ability to construct enough nuclear reactors to cut our emissions 50% by 2030. Japan built many new reactors before 2011, with each reactor taking 6 years to construct. The US alone would need to build 400 or so 1GW reactors by 2030. Do you see that happening? So yes, I'm for solar, wind, storage, and nuclear.