humanspiral

Not sure about calling renewable energy projects "junk offsets" on the basis of "the energy is already cheap enough". Forest based offsets are also subject to private ownership, logging rights, and going up in flames. The auditing for those is suspect as well. Both forests and renewables would exist without a carbon offset market, and so perhaps they are all "junk".

The right price for a carbon tax is $300/ton ($3/gallon gasoline/diesel). Tax revenue paid as dividend to residents. By far, the cheapest way to avoid paying taxes on energy is cheap renewables. But if costs of capture/sequestration are lower than $300/ton, then FF companies investing in these, lowers their taxes, and does not prevent more renewables in addition to this. They are independent industries with independent skills.

CO2 levels are likely to overshoot even with 100% energy transition by 2040.

one of the largest offset projects in Kariba, Zimbabwe, suggested that the amount reaching communities was 6%, at most.

and by "communities", they mean the "forest owner". Perhaps that is more capital to buy harvesting machinery. But in general this is an extra monetization/financialization scheme that doesn't affect actual carbon reduction. This is not money that goes towards transitioning energy systems and reducing emissions.

A carbon tax and dividend scheme can properly compensate maintained forests that don't burn. Instead of financializing corporate PR schemes.

about 42 panels per hour. If that includes wiring somehow, that is faster than other solar. Maybe their daily productivity estimate includes scooting out of the way of other trains and less than 24 hours operation.

10gwh is last report I have of CA utility battery storage.

And in 20 years, the climate change migration period will start in full.

It already has. Syrian instability started with droughts. The worse of it, is that war will always be a higher priority to oil interests and their captured governments than cooperating on human sustainability.

Seems credible that there is no threat to ROK. OP is suggesting a tiny role for ROK being discussed anyway.

NK has a bigger army, and sure to receive support from neighbours. US has logistical issues in providing support. DPRK blowing up bridges does mean not seeking to use them for their own invasion, so on that point, you are right.

After WW2, the US were Japan's proxies in the "temporary" division of South Korea, and then against the Democratic result that elected a North Korean as leader of all Korea. Colonized ever since.

There were national guard snipers deployed to, I think, an Indiana University protest.

I don't know about the practicality of rails as conductor, but it wouldn't have to be high voltage.

About the train “deploying tons a day”, where did you get that from?

article said special train could deploy 1000 panels per day.