Can we gut Jeff?

Like the NYT, they weren't that reliable on it either way.

In general, if journalists took climate change seriously, most of media would be about it; most screens would be half about it, with tickers and banners constantly on it. The anti-alarmists are the half-assers who took the air out of it.

It's so silly. Even if you don't understand the science of climate change (which isn't that fucking hard to understand) you can definitely understand this;

• Solar PV + Battery: 2.0–2.7 USD/W (2.4 $/kW)
• Solar PV standalone: ~1.33–2.74 USD/W
• Wind (onshore): ~1.46–5.9 USD/W
• Hydro: ~3.0–5.9 USD/W
• Coal: ~3.1–5.5 USD/W
• Natural Gas (combined cycle): ~1.06–1.2 USD/W
• Oil/peakers (simple turbines): ~0.8–2.6 USD/W
• Nuclear: ~6.7–8.0 USD/W

Even with batteries solar has the greatest fricken ROI in this list at the cheapest cost.

Fossil fuels are finite. After you pay back your solar panel capex your opex is barely anything and for the next 20-30 you have free fucking energy.

Jeebus, even if you don't give a shit about the environment picking anything but renewables is like the dumbest decision you can use your money on.

Wow, 30%

Worth repeating that medias should be owned by their journalists, and financed by giving citizens an allocation that they'll distribute between medias as they see fit, like a vote.
The thing is that it's not a problem of solutions but of will, they want to control us, otherwise they'd improve the current system.

They're already talking about just taking Greenland, and probably Antarctica. Climate change is locked in.

Bezos’s conscience died decades ago

Umm, https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/climate-solutions/carbon-free-energy

Can't wait to watch the Seattle Kraken play at Climate Pledge Arena, which Amazon bestowed that name upon.

Absolute ghoul.