I am not really convinced by the piece. According to the article the fix should be : > None of this is to say that the world should give up. Beyond nuclear pow

I am not really convinced by the piece. According to the article the fix should be : > None of this is to say that the world should give up. Beyond nuclear power, we need to be placing medium-sized bets on potentially transformative technologies not funded by regressive taxes or industrial subsidies, and not dependent on future breakthroughs that might still be decades off, if they happen at all. Let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work. I don't see any supporting arguments why it should work better. Also nuclear power was never the result of the effort of medium sized start up, but the effort of (apparently evil) governments and their military complex. You cannot have your cake and eat it too... The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.