Your comment reminded me of a recent article from Carbon Brief:

Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?

Just to note that at some point in this article it looks like SDGs are portrayed as something positive. I don’t share this view. I am more of the view that it is SDG-washing.

Edit: In principle, SDGs could be a step towards the right direction. In practice, to my understanding, they are used for PR. Companies and corporations, more often than not, are vaguely supporting some of these goals in order to be considered as SDG compliant, while covering up the sectors that are actively harmful. And that’s perhaps one of the best case scenario.

For socialism in the context of the so-called communist countries, I agree with you.

For socialism in the context of the nordic model, I am not sure because I am not well informed about how they have handled nuclear power.

Edit: Regardless of the past, it’s capitalism that has prevailed globally for now, so currently this is what we have to deal with.

The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.

Super-briefly, time and money related to: planning, maintenance, decommissioning, and last but not least, nuclear waste.

Imo and due to climate emergency, we’d be better putting the money that would go for nuclear towards renewables. Let’s keep in mind that numerous nuclear projects were funded with enormous amounts of money for 10-20 years, to be abandoned before producing any electricity.

Just a few relevant links:

• Why Nuclear Maintenance Equipment Requires a Single-Source Solution
• Dismantling work begins at Hamaoka nuclear plant
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia

It’s a buy your right to pollute scheme.

To my understanding, the overwhelmingly vast majority of carbon offsets and carbon credits are at best ineffective or at worst just scams. Consequently, they lead to more emissions and are used to delay the phasing out of fossil fuels.

I don’t think I understand why you say that the author is assuming 5% of GDP goes towards making guns, since they talk throughout the article about military expenditure and military spending, which are much broader terms.

Of course, it’s not normal for such high temperatures so early in the summer, or for them to occur more and more often. I’m not implying we are used to climate change, just that we are used to much hotter weather than other people.

I could say it depends on what one is used to. For example, yesterday the temperature here was 37°C, and the app was saying Real feel 40.6°C. We get 29°C only at night and it feels almost like a breeze. And the tough part of the summer isn’t here yet.

This article is not really about mathematical talent. It mentions that stereotypes might be reproduced by attributing success in girls to diligence and in boys to talent, but it’s about mathematical ability.

At the start of the first school year (when children are five or six years old), there are no differences, on average, between boys and girls in mathematical ability. But after just four months, boys have pulled ahead. The gap widens throughout the year.