RohanWillAnswer

Excellent description.

You can technically get from the US to Canada via the Atlantic, so the logic checks out.

I recently visited Killarney and I thought it was a great system. As a tourist, the €2 was no big deal to have a cup for the whole week. Then I just returned it before I left and got the money back. They do this all over Germany and have branded cups for each town. It would be cool to see it more widely done elsewhere too.

I agree. But we are not there yet. And there is already a lot of carbon in the air.

Yes, I did completely miss your point. However, I think these are two different issues. One is that oil companies are benefiting from our tax system and using carbon capture for good PR. The other is that we are trying a variety of things to help reduce the effects of climate change and one of those things is carbon capture. Oil companies using using carbon capture to gain good favor doesn’t preclude it from being a potentially helpful process.

Part of the problem with new technologies is that they’re inherently less efficient than the same technologies once they’ve been further developed. And the problem with that is that it takes millions of dollars develop and deploy new technologies.

This was once the biggest argument against solar and wind. It was expensive and markedly less efficient than coal. However, solar and wind are now pretty good and continuing to get better. All because people were willing to invest the many millions of dollars to develop those technologies.

This is almost always the argument with new technologies. But to make the argument that it’s a good reason to stop investing in a wide variety of technologies that could literally help save the world is shortsighted.

It means that he has been formally accused of these crimes and there will be trials in court to determine his guilt. There has to be sufficient evidence of a crime before they (a group of people called a grand jury) will allow a case to move to trial. This limits the government from making false charges and tying people up in court on bogus charges.

An indictment means that they find that the Department of Justice (DoJ) do have sufficient evidence for a trial. It is not a determination of guilt per se, but a determination that there is sufficient evidence that a trial (or trials) must be set to determine whether he is guilty.

Furthermore, it’s my understanding that the DoJ will not indict someone unless they are absolutely sure they have an ironclad case against them that will result in the person being found guilty.

There are a bunch of charges against him, many (all?) of which are felonies. Which means he could go to prison for who knows how long. Possibly the rest of his life. The penalties are determined separately after someone is found guilty. Though, of course, there are guidelines on what the penalties should be (i.e. how long they spend in prison for each crime, restitution they may have to pay, etc.).

TL;DR It means that Trump has been formally accused of these crimes, there is sufficient evidence for them to take him to trial, and if he is found guilty he will probably go to prison, maybe for a long time.