I came in to drop a “glad the obvious is being confirmed!”, but after skimming the actual study I’m sadly a little dubious of its reasoning. It didn’t examine t

I came in to drop a “glad the obvious is being confirmed!”, but after skimming the actual study I’m sadly a little dubious of its reasoning. It didn’t examine the two approaches (technically three: renewables, natural carbon capture, and synthetic carbon capture) on their engineering or economic merits, but rather just compiled historical data on jurisdictions that mainly promoted one of the three and compared the outcomes. I think the noisy nature of such an analysis is obvious, not to mention the bias against synthetic approaches from analyzing outdated tech. I’m a huge believer in renewables being the only path forward, but this study isn’t very convincing IMHO! Also would’ve loved to see “degrowth”/reduce usage as an option, since that’s the last big one people advocate for IME. P.S. does anyone know if the current US regime’s “any university that works on federal grants is forbidden from promoting DEI” policy is intended to apply to climate change as well? Seems likely, but I don’t recall seeing anything explicit in any of the EOs I’ve read. This study isn’t very out of Stanford, which would clearly be impacted — thus it piqued my interest.