... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
I was pretty amazed by 1 district in Alabama that stretches 100 miles or so from the famed "Black Belt" up into Birmingham. Apparently North Carolina is just as creative. But this article also brings up the "majority vs. influence" quandary - electing 1 rep is better than not quite electing either of 2, but this difference changes according to party preference, migration of populations, et al., not just gerrymandering. However, at the moment, gerrymandering and other obstruction seems to be high GOP strategy, so it's worth revisiting in terms of that context in terms of what would the black electorate like.
It's science - you'd think there'd be some capacity for uncertainty. Even with gravity we just measured the first gravity waves for the first time, a few months back. We just discovered the assortment of planets in our solar system is *very bizarrely* ordered (though balanced, just more peculiarly than we thought). How quickly can a new science move to completely untouchable doctrine? The point of the guy's work wasn't even to deny manmade global warming - he's in - it was to assess accuracy of predictions and such. As Trump would say, "Not good enough!"
"The Americans loved our stories and we make money from them," he boasts, making sure I see the designer watch he's fiddling with. "Who cares if they are true or false? Goran...is one of scores, or probably hundreds of Macedonian teenagers...in the small city of Veles which churned out fake pro-Trump news during the US election campaign." If Trump can scam them, why not Macedonians?
I mean, why else would he get the position aside from growing up in the inner city until he was 18 (though I hear the pharoah may have been black, so perhaps that explains it. Or perhaps big cities are like one big brain with people like cells....