The most important questions we face in combatting climate change are social repercussions of the medium-term physical impacts - how will humanity react as impacts worsen at 1.5-2C and beyond?
This variable explains predictions ranging from eco-socialism to fascism to collapse
1/ At the broadest level, you can ask: are big impacts going to lead to positive reactions, negative reactions, catastrophic reactions?

Will impacts make things better? Will there be a “Pearl Harbor” moment, spurring us to get our shit together?

google.com/amp/s/www.theg…

Ethics of general artificial intelligence is typically framed in a very anthropocentric way. Maybe this has been said, but isn't an obvious ethical argument that our species should create GAI because 1) we're probably gonna die soon; 2) it's the next rung on the ladder?
/1 Thread 2/
As best we can tell, there is no free will, no objective moral truths, nothing inherently sacred about humans. Things have operated deterministically by the initial conditions of the big bang. We're playing parts in a story that has already been written and cannot be changed.

"You’re trying in every way you can to eliminate political oxygen for prospective allies who are interested in exploring different paths."

This is the most interesting critique I see in the article. (messy thread - it'd be tighter but no time, sorry)
1/
niskanencenter.org/blog/an-open-l… To the extent that GND proponents are mandating the goals of an aggressive and just energy transition, but are negotiable on specific means ("here is our plan, either sign on or come up w/ a good alternative"), then the snark and scolding seems totally unjustified to me
2/

I studied philosophy in school, specifically ethics. I came to believe something that hadn't occurred to me before. Morality doesn't exist in the way I thought, as objective facts weaved into the fabric of the universe. It has implications for how I think about climate change.
1/ I'm not a sophisticated philosophical thinker, but broadly I agree with the Humean notion that moral judgments don't arise from us *discovering* objective moral facts through our senses or reason but by *making* ethical judgments by virtue of our subjective values.
2/

Recent articles (from great journos) noted NJ bill raising RPS to 35% by 2025 and 50% by 2030:

Vox @drvox : vox.com/energy-and-env…
Utility Dive @GavinBade: utilitydive.com/news/new-jerse…
NYT @bradplumer: nytimes.com/2018/04/12/nyr…

No one mentioned the new cost cap. It's important.
1/ Under existing law, assuming flat prices/ load, by 2028 NJ will spend $839m on Class I REC & SREC programs.

If this law is signed, in 2028 NJ can spend no more than $753 on Class I REC & SREC programs.

Story's more complicated. But "RPS ambitious b/c it says 50%" = misleading.

Prelim: 100% with you on NJ's nuke subsidy being a good thing, I understand that ACP = Price ceiling, individual RECs, and that Cost Cap = Total $ going into REC compliance market. What I'm saying:
Growing RPS target + Fixed lowish cost cap = Gimmick
Tell me where I'm wrong
1/19

https://twitter.com/JesseJenkins/status/986305361991913472

I'll bring us back to Phil 101, P1 + P2 = C, and you can tell me if I'm wrong on my premises or if my arg is invalid:

P1. Just for simplicity's sake, assume that independent variables like load demand, $ per MWh cost of various types of generation remain flat over time.

Fascinating paper comparing the potential/achieved capacity factor for wind power in China vs. US, by @jhuenteler @gabeaschan @l_diaz_anadon Tian Tang.

Big implications for energy transition w/in free(ish) market vs. heavier hand of the state. Thread.
1/
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108… I often despair of US markets' ability to drive fast enough clean energy transition & assume eventually central planning (or at least heavy government involvement) will play greater role. But this paper reminds me why capitalism is the worst economic system except for the rest
2/

Good narrative explaining why cost of nuclear energy in US went from reasonable to bananas in a short period of time from 60s-80s. Source is "dated," but so is US nuclear energy, so no real loss there. H/T & thanks to @JvDorp. Precis thread incoming...
phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chap…
1/ Source = Ch. 9 of 1990 book, The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90s, Bernard L. Cohen, Prof. Emeritus of Physics, U. of Pitt. To my rube eyes, book appears well sourced/reasoned, at least for reasonably credible back-of-napkin narrative. Grain of salt & all that
2/