Rightwing populists don’t like the results of science (e.g., #globalwarming is caused by burning fossil fuels), so they try to discredit science and scientists. Then they falsely claim there is a lack of public trust in science.
They really think they can easily fool you with this nonsense. 🙄

Research has an economic return multiplier >1. So taxes don't even really pay for research. Research more than pays for itself, the taxes are just used to kick-start the positive economic cycle. The more money invested in research, the better the economy.

If certain people are so sure climate change is NOT real, this should be a good business opportunity for them: insure these properties! Put your money on the line!

Data from CA Air Resources Board LCA suggests otherwise: ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/defaul...

I am suggesting that we *avoid burning* ethanol as a fuel and instead repurpose it as a feedstock for making durable materials that would sequester the molecule in a long-lived manner.

Converting ethanol into carbon-negative chemicals to replace the petrochemical industry is a good idea, however. It's a cost-effective, circular, energy efficient way to build stuff.

We must remind people that investment in science is crucial for our health, for our economy, and for our future.
Science is an investment and so if you’re business minded, it’s basically an offer you can’t refuse!
Thank you!

Startups are always being asked whether we can compete on price with the incumbent technology and without reliance on government support. This is the right question! But why should the incumbent get government money when competing with us?!? Where's the free-market level playing field?

Given the pushback against subsidies for climatetech from free-market purists, it galls me that there's so much government money for these polluting, well-established industries.