That article is a reasonable summary - if you discount the oil bias!! of the H economy. It is couched in economic terms - cheapest = best. I feel that the warmi

That article is a reasonable summary - if you discount the oil bias!! of the H economy. It is couched in economic terms - cheapest = best. I feel that the warming climate is an overriding economic factor. We simply must reduce the drivers of warming by every possible method we can achieve. We now see that many countries are suffering as we approach the targeted 'preventable' 1.5C rise. It is apparent we will miss this target, but we have a good chance at staying below 2C and following on to reduce below 1.5C over the next ~~100 years - with huge suffering, far worse than we experience now. A better target for the 1000's of cruise missiles in national inventories might well be coal power plants and perhaps even gas ones - something for Greenpeace militancy? That said, all ways of mitigation to reach 100% renewable electrical energy production must be achieved in the next 50 years or less. All the $$ wasted by all nations on weapons - about 2-4% of various GNP's would do it easily enough. I see the various military dictators still make arms - how can they be persuaded to stop - and if they will not stop - will we? Can we? What value is a weaponised and baked sterile is a cooked earth with no inhabitants, save the burrowed few??