At least we're not bombarded with pop-up holograms. Yet.
We could take *some* carbon out of circulation by growing trees and bulldozing them into covered trenches. But -- stay with me here -- how much carbon could we take out of circulation if we bulldozed **think tanks** into trenches?
Might be time to check in with Monica Guzman - a progressive Latina writer with conservative immigrant parents.
Journalist, speaker, and Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels
No, but he is (I understand) a self-described Marxist, which is quite different from, say, a self-described politician.
FWIW, I have not a clue what sort of Maxist economist Prof. Harris is. nor do I have any particular need to know.
When the adjective "Marxist" modifies "economist", it means something quite different from "Marxist" in other contexts. Few economists could honestly claim they are not Marxists, i.e., they use none of the analytic frameworks Marx brought to the discipline.
Not insane. Not even surprising. "Insane" is assuming voters think how they should. Idealists do this. But voters think how they do, not how they should, and Republicans are more interested in that.
If we had boundless surplus energy, we could do carbon removal. We could do a lot of things, if we had boundless energy.
You're in all the right cites, I see.