There are examples of societies deciding to do something about that. The New Deal comes to mind.
Syndicated copies of the article, like the one I linked above, don't include the cartoon illustration that's in the bloomberg.com version
Very surprised at the price claims; in the US, doing a conversion has been expensive enough that it's rarely done
The two actions are not mutually exclusive.
She likely needs to win in Pennsylvania to win, and opposition to fracking would cost her votes there.
Attitudes in the state are changing, but not yet at the point where she can openly oppose fracking and win.
He'll spout words, likely ones which make it clear he's going to make good on his side of the oil industry's billion-dollar bribe.
Making that clear to people is likely a big deal
Version 1:
- The world is going to end real soon
- they expect to be raptured away to Heaven
- God put stuff on the earth for us to use up before the rapture
Version 2:
- Somebody else is going to suffer because of the environmental damage
- Hurting other people shows how masculine and powerful I am
- I profit from the damage
- Damage = good
There's a significant impact from the higher temperatures.
It's not just the management history, though that doesn't help.
That's a very plausible claim, but difficult to prove
I'd love to get rid of PG&E and have a publicly-owned utility instead, which doesn't charge the @#$@#% markup the PG&E gets to in order to pay an ever-increasing dividend.
Which is why lobsters have been shifting northward, with populations rising on the north edge of their range, and declining on the southern end.
Not exactly what we want humans to be forced to do.
Per the article, they'll go where people want; not automatically down into "it's God's plan"
It's more that there needs to be a lot more discussion of the fact that converting to EVs doesn't mean fewer jobs. So the autoworkers unions don't need to fight it.