All of those except that it means less profits for the people who own big oil.
Sure, and it also costs him a ton of votes. Not a good deal for Trump at this point in the election
He started taking money from Thiel.
He doesn't even have a stable name; so far as I can tell.
In this case, it hasn't been happening intentionally at a meaningful scale; you'd be able to look up and see the thin haze from it, and use a spectrometer to figure out that it's not water vapor.
What has happened is that ordinary sulphur mixed with fossil fuels has produced particulates lower in the atmosphere. These turn into sulfuric acid when in contact with water, resulting in acid rain. Policies to sharply lower sulfate particle emissions have resulted in that becoming far less of a problem, but also accelerated warming in recent years.
Mostly, they seem to have looked in detail at Gouda.
At an individual level, yes.
I don't think there's an easy path to replacing him after the nominating convention. Vance could drop out, and Trump run alone, with any VP then subject to Senate approval.
There are a bunch of issues:
- It requires maintaining technical infrastructure for longer than civilizations last
- It changes the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, altering weather patterns worldwide
- It changes rainfall distribution in ways that we're not clear on yet, potentially risking agriculture
- If we keep on burning fossil fuels but limiting temperature increase with a scheme like this, we still end up with ocean acidification, killing off pretty much everything with hard body parts in the oceans
What it needs is a much larger group of people showing support, even if not actually blocking the runway themselves.
Probably when major fires become as common as sporting events.
Oh they help, but at scale, they help by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. You just can't actually increase the forested area by enough to fully offset the damage we're doing