Category: Science & technology

Science Sunday: Super Civilizations

So I’ll kick off what I hope will be a regular feature here: science sunday, where I’ll blog about a recent scientific result I think is interesting. This week, I’ll blog on something a bit close to me.

(It’s a bit late this week since I’ve been chopping down trees, spreading mulch and dealing with a sick kid. But it’s still Sunday somewhere.)

One of the biggest questions in science — indeed in human history — is whether we are alone in the universe. I am convinced that we will soon find evidence of very simple life within our solar system — archaea or some other simple organism in martian fossils or in the seas of Europa, Ganymede or Titan. We have now detected thousands of planets beyond our solar system, including a number in the “goldilocks zone” where liquid water can exist. But detecting intelligent life is way beyond our current capabilities.

Maybe.

It might actually be possible to detect a sufficiently advanced civilization. SETI has looked in the radio for a long time with no results. But radio communication may be a short-lived phase for alien civilizations. What may be more plausible is looking for heat signatures:

One of the largest-ever searches for distant alien empires has scoured 100,000 galaxies for signs of suspicious infrared activity and found… nothing.

The study by Penn State used data from Nasa’s Wise (“Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer”) orbiting observatory to scour far-off galaxies for radiation which, astronomers theorise, would likely be produced if a civilisation were powerful enough to colonise thousands of stars.

The theory that aliens might be visible on a galactic scale is based on the ideas of physicist Freeman Dyson, who suggested in the 1960s that galactic civilisations would almost by definition use most of the starlight in their galaxy for their own ends. This should be detectable using mid-infrared telescopes. That wasn’t possible when Dyson’s theory emerged, but Nasa’s Wise telescope does have the ability to make close measurements for thousands of galaxies, and so allow scientists to study the data for telltale signs of life.

No, they didn’t find it. But scientists have found 50 galaxies with unusual radiation signatures, indicating something strange is happening inside many distant collections of stars — even if it’s nothing to do with aliens at all.

There have been a few other studies looking for the radiation signatures of nearby Dyson Spheres but there haven’t been any hints of anything yet.

An alien species would have had to have been around for millions of years for us to see the effects of their capturing vast amounts of starlight. So this is the extreme end of the hunt for extraterrestrial intelligence. But with millions of galaxies out there, there’s at least a chance we could find one. It’s a million to one shot but if it ever paid off it would be an incredible discovery. And even it doesn’t, we’ll still learn a lot about galaxies.

Greens Silent on Commie Planet-Wrecking … Again

During the Cold War, there was a predictable pattern to Eastern Bloc environmental concerns. The Communists would engage in some awful mind-boggling environment-destroying big project like draining the Aral Sea. Not because it made any economic sense to do so but because it glorified the state. Then the greens would say absolutely nothing about it.

How times haven’t changed:

Nicaragua’s plan to build an Interoceanic Canal that would rival the Panama Canal could be a major environmental disaster if it goes forward. That’s the assessment of Axel Meyer and Jorge Huete-Pérez, two scientists familiar with the project, in a recent article in Nature.

In their article, Meyer and Huete-Pérez explain how the $50-billion project (more than four times Nicaragua’s GDP), would require “The excavation of hundreds of kilometres from coast to coast, traversing Lake Nicaragua, the largest drinking-water reservoir in the region, [and] will destroy around 400,000 hectares of rainforests and wetlands.” So far, the Nicaraguan government has remained mum about the environmental impact of the project. Daniel Ortega, the country’s president, only said last year that “some trees have to be removed.”

Have you a word about this from Greenpeace? Or the Sierra Club? Or any of the organizations that are currently throwing a fit about Keystone XL, a far far less destructive project? That’s to say nothing of the unconstitutional way this project was approved, the fact that all proceeds from it for the next 50 years will go to the Chinese company building the project, the lack of experience for the team building, the extremely dubious economic case for the canal and the farmers being evicted off their land. If even one of those things were happening in the US, we’d be hearing about it on MSNBC every night.

I’m not usually one for the Balloon Juice Fallacy. But the study about the environmental devastation was published a year ago. And there’s a history here, as I noted above. Ortega is a former communist and Chavez-type socialist. The greens have been reluctant to criticize far-left politicians for their environmental destruction. And that’s a polite of saying the completely look the other way. Because environmental damage cause by industry is bad. Environmental damage done for “the people” even when the people are far-left politicians lining their pockets? That’s OK.

GoreSat Finally Orbits

One of my pet peeves is the contention that conservatives and Republicans are “anti-science” while liberals and Democrats are “pro-science”. Having been in the field for twenty years, I’ve observed little difference in how well science is funded under the two parties, with a slight bias in favor of Republicans. And while it’s true that Republicans are more dubious of science on the big topics du jour — global warming and evolution — that doesn’t mean they are more anti-science in general. When it comes to GMOs, vaccines or nuclear power, the Left is way more anti-science.

My dislike of this meme is embodied in the person of Algore, who has a reputation as this great scientific mind but has always crossed me as a poser: someone who pretends to be a friend of science because he wants to look smart (and, in his case, wants to advance a big government agenda). He wrote a well-praised book — Earth in the Balance — that was shredded in P.J. O’Rourke in All The Trouble in the World and proved to be massively wrong on many issues. He touted a plan to move the United States to alternative energy within ten years that was total science fiction. His advocacy on global warming — hypocritical advocacy — touted doomsday scenarios and marginal studies. It was ultimately a disservice to the climate debate.

But if you want Algore in a nutshell, I give you the Triana satellite, a version of which was launched today. Triana started with this crackpot idea of Gore’s to have a satellite launched which would sit in the L1 Lagrange point and take pictures of the Earth. That’s it. It would take pictures of the Earth to “raise awareness” of our climate. NASA devoted $100 million to this boondoggle, without any peer review, and desperately tried to get scientists to find some use for it. The best they could come up with measuring Earth’s albedo and cloud patterns, although Triana was not what you would have designed with that science program in mind. When the SOHO spacecraft was having trouble, they came up with a plan to put instruments on it to measure solar activity, since the L1 point is good for that.

Triana was mothballed after Bush won the White House but was resurrected by Obama. The satellite — now named DSCOVR — has been revamped so that its primary mission is to measure solar storms and provide and early warning of space weather. The Earth picture thing is an afterthought. Notice that’s NASA’s video doesn’t mention Algore’s original Triana mission at all.

If anyone other than Algore had proposed Triana, burned $100 million on it and had NASA scramble to find an actual scientific use for it, they would have been laughingstock. But today the press is filled with stories about how this is Algore’s “dream” even though his original proposal had nothing to do with DSCOVR’s primary mission.

DSCOVR is a good mission and I’m glad it launched today. I’m even gladder that it was launched by SpaceX. Space weather is a serious issue and we desperately need to address the impact that a severe solar storm could have on our planet (think about a world-wide power grid meltdown to get the picture). But let’s not pretend this has anything to do with Algore. This is NASA making some very good lemonade from a $100 million lemon.

Vaccines in the News Again

Thanks to low vaccination rates, we are currently experiencing a large measles outbreak in this country. I’ve discussed vaccines before. My position is that vaccines are one of the greatest inventions in history, that they should be mandatory for public school students (with medical exemptions) and strongly encouraged for everyone else. And I’m glad to see that after spending a number of years waffling, our political establishment, from Hillary Clinton to Congressional and Gubernatorial Republicans are coming down strongly in favor of them.

But … there’s no public health crisis that the Left can’t try to politicize. You may remember last year when they tried to blame the Ebola outbreak on mythical Republican budget cuts. Well, now they are jumping on comments by Rand Paul and Chris Christie that supposedly embrace anti-vax lunacy. This supposedly represents how “anti-science” the GOP is (numerous pro-vaccine statement from every other Republican on the planet not withstanding).

The thing is, neither of them said anything crazy. Rand Paul supports vaccines, although he did apparently garble a statement about vaccines and autism and does think parents should make the decisions. And Christie’s statement was perfectly in line with the conventional wisdom. He vaccinated his kids, he supports vaccines but thinks mandates should be based on the danger represented. Both of these are well within the mainstream debate of whether vaccines should be mandated or not.

So … not really much there. And given the number of Republicans who are issuing strong unequivocal statements supporting vaccination, support programs that help poor people get vaccinated and support vaccination mandates for immigrants, this isn’t really a club to bash Republicans with. For all the supposed “anti-science” positions of the Republicans, this isn’t one. The only place I’m seeing opposition to vaccines is the fringe of both parties.

And I find this attention to Christie and Paul especially odd given that one of the biggest anti-vax nuts out there is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has often gotten slavering attention from the media as some kind of environmental crusader. But you wouldn’t know that from the mainstream media.

Stop trying to make this a partisan issue, guys. It really isn’t.

Gas prices, the ppb of oil, and the future

I filled up my car today and paid $2.11 a gallon here in The People’s Republic of Connecticut. In some other parts of the nation that don’t have ridiculously high government imposed gas taxes – taxes that they claim they will use to fix the crumbling infrastructure and ill maintained infrastructure they have held tenure over, but somehow always end up in the general fund where they then get spent on vote buying social pet projects – this number is now below $2 a gallon. The last time I remember oil under $2 a gallon was a decade ago. But why is this happening? There are a ton of varying opinions about cause and effect out there. Let’s explore.

First off, the obligatory democrats are always talking out of their ass reference. They knew they were full of shit, we knew it, and because despite every and all efforts by the Obama administration failing to hinder the expansion of US oil recovery, we got more drilling, we now have definite proof. Collectivist Keynesian shitbags can pretend that the economic laws of supply and demand don’t matter – like they do with the reality of human nature and a lot of other natural laws – but reality has a way of bitch-slapping stupid people. You fuckers knew you were lying when you were pretending more oil on the market would not reduce prices, and we now have proven it. The opposition to any more drilling and recovery was primarily because these Marxists fucks want to destroy the brown energy industry to favor their friends, and coincidentally another one of their special interest big donor blocks, in the proven failed green industry.

Back to business now that we have gotten that out of the way. This precipitous price drop, even though I believe it will not remain that low forever (more about that later), is bound to jump start our economy and help a lot of us that now will have extra pocket change. And it doesn’t come without the profiteers trying to screw over the tax payers yet again. The leftists, under the guise of getting more money to fix the very infrastructure they have been neglecting for decades, precisely because they were diverting gas tax dollars to social pet projects, are putting pressure on everyone to get more money from people that are finally getting a much needed and deserved break in the though economic times the leftists have given us.

As if this time the bulk of this extra revenue wouldn’t actually also be diverted to vote buying projects they depend on. Yeah, and pigs will fly too. These assholes count on people’s stupidity and envy. Think about how these will impact us all once prices climb again – and they will. Let us also note that this money grab is not limited to the feds. Many state governments, especially the ones run by democrats that do the same as the feds (like mine), are all hoping to follow that example and do the same. Can’t have people keeping more of their money when they need to buy votes in these desperate times that their base consists of so many of the non-productive. It is almost as if these people’s decision making is based on what can do the most economic harm possible. Of course, when you already believe the money doesn’t belong to the people earning it in the first place, you tend to not bother with these stupid details anyway.

Now that we have gotten that nasty business out of the way, let’s discuss why the prices are dropping as precipitously and fast as they are. The general consensus is that the Saudis are doing this, and it is on purpose. The Saudis, OPEC’s biggest producers, have decided not to cut their output to regulate prices, and are counting on their over $800 billion in reserves to ride out this shorting of the market. The move to let the oil prices plummet is basically driven by their calculated belief that if the price goes too low it will force fledgling the US oil industry, especially the fracking industry that the Russians had been directly targeting without much success so far, I add, to collapse.

The Saudis, like most of the other OPEC nations and Russia, all need oil to be at between $90 and $100 a barrel to keep their current economic plans viable. The supply produced by the US has basically made that impossible, because the extra oil was sooner than later going to force a correction that would drop prices and keep them between $65 to $75 per barrel. And while that drop is something that would be an economic boon to most of the world that depends on oil for energy, it would spell a slow economic death for the oil producing nations that need/want the higher prices. Have no doubt that this move is a calculated attack on the US oil industry. The Saudis are counting that if they keep the prices below $50 a barrel for a while that they can drive the US out of the oil producing. Even more important is their belief that the greens will then prevent that oil producing industry from coming back for decades. This gamble that the greens will prevent the oil production from starting right back up again is based on their observation of how things played out in the 70s, and while many believe that this time it will not work, I think that their gamble isn’t all that crazy. The greens, after all, want to destroy the brown energy sector and don’t give two flying fucks how costly and destructive their agenda is, because in the end it is about them lining their pockets above all else. Most of the big actors have become stinking rich fucking us all over.

The fact is that this economic boon they will usher in and the low gas prices themselves can’t last as the demand and supply curve correct themselves eventually. But then again, we can make some economic moves that will preposition us to come out of this attack against our economy and economic interests, as the winners. The fact is that anything that keeps the price of oil lower than the $90 to $100 per barrel that the actors behind this attack want is a good thing. Lower prices would be a huge hit that forces some of the world’s shittiest nations to change their ways, for lack of funds to cause trouble with, to at a minimum do less harmful things. That would be a big bonus for the world in general. Of course I doubt this administration and the collectivists that are in league with the greens have any desire to do so, and they will actually do things that will undermine that possibility. We need to make sure we push back and prevent them from doing that. Cheap energy is exactly what the world needs right now, just like it needs a lot less big intrusive Keynesian nanny-state government.

In the mean time enjoy this gift for as long as it is allowed to last by the people that want to control us serfs.

I Would Do Anything for the Planet, But I Won’t Do That

Reason writer Ronald Bailey hung out with some of the recent climate protesters at the People’s Climate March. I’ve written about their convenient embrace of science when it suits their biases before, but Bailey really gets into the awful thinking that underpins much of the modern environmental movement:

Among the chief capitalist villains: Monsanto. The assembled marchers fervently damned the crop biotechnology company despite the fact that modern high yield biotech crops cut CO2 emissions by 13 million tons in 2012-the equivalent of taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year. By making it possible to grow more calories on less land, biotech crops helped conserve 123 million hectares from 1996 to 2012. Many of the protesters oddly believe that eating locally grown organic crops-which require more labor and land to produce less food- will somehow help stop global warming. Vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, researchers estimate that lab-grown meat could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent relative to farmed meat.

Fracking aggravated a lot of the demonstrators. Artful placards alluded to another f-word as a way of indicating displeasure. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water. Yet just the week before the parade, new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by research teams led by the Ohio State University’s Thomas Darrah and the U.S. Department of Energy found that the controversial technique to produce natural gas does not contaminate groundwater. And never mind that burning natural gas produces about half of the carbon dioxide that burning coal does.

Another low-carbon energy source was also a cause of stress for the demonstrators: nuclear power. Some demanded that the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River be closed down. This particular petition is just perverse, since nuclear power is a big part of why New Yorkers emit a relatively low average of 8 tons of carbon dioxide per person each year, compared with the U.S. average of 16.4 tons per capita.

There is no such thing as perfect energy technology. Even solar and wind involve massive land use, enormous rare earth metal consumption and, at present, fossil fuel backup. Moreover, wind and solar are limited in the absence of a revolution in battery technology. You can’t run airplanes or big cargo ships on alternative energy. You can barely run cars on them.

Until a revolutionary technology is developed, the best way to fight global warming is to delay it as long as possible. GMO crops delay it by decreasing land and fertilizer use. Fracking delays it by cutting carbon emissions in half compared to coal. Nuclear delays it by replacing fossil fuels completely. All of these things have contributed to the US and Europe cutting their carbon emissions without sacrificing economic progress and have bought years, possibly decades, for us to come with a breakthrough technology that can replace fossil fuels.

The problem is that these technologies exist in the real world and the environmentalists want to live in fantasyland, where you can solve complex scientific, technical, social, political and engineering issues with wishcasting and marches; where there are no tradeoffs; where completely revamping our society is something you can do through legislative fiat.

Thankfully, enough people live in the real world that we’re making real progress … without putting capitalism on the funeral pyre.

This guy took over from Carl Sagan?

Seriously, you can’t make up the stupid shit some really educated people believe in. Here is the guy that narrated and ruined the latest and heavily progressively slanted incarnation of what was one of my favorite scientific documentaries making the case that the driving force behind nature – natural selection – somehow must only apply to this planet, and if any species in question somehow develops more intelligence, they will suddenly no longer be subject to that natural law.

I got my degree from a liberal college for sure

Neil degrease Tyson Doesn’t understand Natural Selection

Yeah, sure. You have been watching too much Star Trek TNG, dude. These fucking progressive idiots sometimes really, really make me wonder if they understand science at all. You think civilizations will spend the inordinate amount of resources it will take to travel through the vast distances of space just to explore it and to look down on other lesser developed civilizations and ask the questions idiots like Tyson thinks they will?

I firmly believe that any aliens that puts in the effort to come here will come here to farm the resources, including the 6 or more billion idiots that now are occupying the real estate they want. Fuck, they are far more likely to be motived by something negative (Predator?) than anything positive, because if they are anything like the progressives in their beliefs, the bulk of their wealth would be squandered on slackers that just suck at the government’s teat and they wouldn’t even be able to do simple things like build anything of worth because of insane fringe entities that are anti-progress. People better get that shit straight or they are going to really be fucked when some space fairing race shows up to harvest us all….

When even the science fs up your agenda…

I just recently had several discussions in the last week or so, with different people at different times, about energy and economic impacts of that energy’s availability and cost. I pointed out that people have spent the last 5 decades telling us we would be running out of fossil fuels in the next 3 or 4 decades, only to end up with scientific advances and human ingenuity raising the time we have at a curved use of the stuff from decades to centuries. Of course they all turned up their noses to what they consider to be Satan’s shit and wanted it replaced, but when asked by what, it was all pie-in-the-sky answers. For me, based purely and simply on the numbers and the science, the one viable technology that can produce energy in the amount we would need to replace fossil fuels, is nuclear. Nothing else can, but the people that want to get us green all seem to have bought into Hollywood’s depiction of how dangerous and nasty nuclear energy is. So instead they seem to propose we use the equivalent of unicorn farts as the alternative to oil, gas, and coal.

When we discussed these various alternatives the greens have a boner for and went through the list, one after the other fell off. Solar and wind have been terribly disappointing. We are not about to build giant space based solar arrays and beaming down the energy as microwaves any time soon, because the same green people would have heart attack at the potential use as a weapon. And we could cover the planet with windmills and it would still not produce enough power. So they always go to the renewables, of which far less is known, but far less is pretended can come, to justify the campaign to stop us from using fossil fuels. Of course, renewables have not really shown much other than promise at this time, but the greens have no doubt that this stuff will save their faltering agenda. And then there are the facts:

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

REclosed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

One should note that RE<C didn’t restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, “self-assembling” wind towers and so on and so forth. There’s no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren’t alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn’t even vaguely plausible.

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

The funny thing is that you don’t need a PhD to figure this stuff out. And note they point out this stuff won’t work as marginal energy just to reduce emissions. The logical conclusion is that it hence will also never be a replacement. But the greens seem to be immune to the simple facts and science and far more interested in science fiction and fantasy because they are driven by something other than either. The watermelons pretend to be scientific, but the fact is there is very little of that and a lot of feelings and the overarching collectivist agenda, and very little of the former. So for now we are stuck with oil, gas, and coal. Maybe someone will find a way to make fusion work and that can fill in the gap, but the other stuff the greens pine for simply is not gonna happen. That won’t stop them from taking advantage of the plethora of fools that will allow a few of them to get stinking rich at tax payer’s expense.

The Climate Treaty That Isn’t

The liberal blogosphere is all aflutter because the US and China have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions:

China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases.

The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.

Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015.

A climate deal between China and the United States, the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 carbon polluters, is viewed as essential to concluding a new global accord. Unless Beijing and Washington can resolve their differences, climate experts say, few other countries will agree to mandatory cuts in emissions, and any meaningful worldwide pact will be likely to founder.

Here’s the thing. This agreement means nothing. It’s not a binding treaty (which is why Obama doesn’t have to send it to Congress). Nor does it lock us into any policies. It’s a statement of goals to achieve things that may or may not happen long after both men are out of power. It’s symbolism, plain and simple. And such agreements will always be symbolism because the only way greenhouse gas emissions will ever fall — as they have in the United States — is when the right technology comes along.

Lomborg:

China’s 2030 emissions target is set in terms of a date but says nothing about the level at which emissions will peak.

China’s target for primary energy consumption is expressed in terms of “non-fossil fuels”, which means a big increase in nuclear power as well as wind, solar and hydro.

And of course, US has seen its emissions drop 10% below 2005, but this is mainly because of a recession and fracking. The next reduction will be much harder, and likely not coming, as 2013 showed an *increase*, not further decrease

Normally, I would let this sort of stuff slide. But there was a very illuminating statement from Friends of the Earth that came out after this:

“The cuts pledged by President Obama are nowhere near what the US needs to cut if it was serious about preventing runaway climate change. These US voluntary pledges are not legally binding and are not based on science or equity,” said Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International Climate Justice and Energy coordinator.

“This agreement deliberately ignores the issue of equity. Industrialised nations, and first of all the world’s largest historical polluter, the US, must urgently make the deepest emission cuts and provide the bulk of the money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change,” she added.

“The good news is that China is taking the fight against climate change ever more seriously and intends to peak its emissions in next 15 years. We urge China and all nations to urgently switch from emissions-causing dirty energy to community-based renewable energy.”

You catch that? Friends of the Earth bashes Obama for pledging a 25% cut in CO2 emissions while praising China — which currently emits 50% more CO2 than the United States — for promising, maybe, to start curbing their emissions in 15 years.

I’m convinced that global warming is real. I’m also convinced that the so-called green organizations see this danger as a vehicle for anti-corporatism, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism. How else do you explain a green organization praising the world’s biggest polluter?

Ignore the greens. And ignore this agreement. Concentrate on the technology. That’s the real battle.