Twitter | Search | |
Kelsey D. Atherton
If I'm reading this right, the cost is roughly 1/11th of the Pentagon's annual budget, not counting the separate Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
Reply Retweet Like More
Martin “Exceeding Design Limits” Pfeiffer 🏳️‍🌈 1 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD
Why, that will be about what we spend on nuclear weapons a year in the 2020s!
Reply Retweet Like
Kelsey D. Atherton 1 Aug 19
Replying to @NuclearAnthro
$55 billion: enough to preserve the capacity to start an apocalypse, enough to fund the transition away from one
Reply Retweet Like
R. S. 1 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD @pareene
That number is ridiculous. I did not pay $5 to read the paper, but.....around 1.5 trillion? No. Wayyyyyyyy too low
Reply Retweet Like
⬤ Wolf Baginski 2 Aug 19
Taking until 2050 is starting to look way too slow. but as a comparison, it works. Dealing with Climate Change, just what we're already seeing, is certainly comparable with a World War, but there are pay-backs from power stations.
Reply Retweet Like
Emergent species 2 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD
A tenth of the Pentagon's budget sounds like excellent value for money to me.
Reply Retweet Like
Dogging Bork 2 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD @MrJonCryer
Net of the cost of not building alternatives.
Reply Retweet Like
jennifer 3 Aug 19
We still don't have appropriate storage options for nights/no wind days.
Reply Retweet Like
barry levine 3 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD @cydharrell
Less than a third of what we've already spent on two pointless (and ongoing) war/occupation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Blapple 1 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD @bad_takes
Whoa who. Calm down.
Reply Retweet Like
BeanePod 1 Aug 19
Replying to @AthertonKD @MrJonCryer
oh hi David, have you met my friend inconvenient facts?
Reply Retweet Like