Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them? | Rebecca Solnit

Q: How long will it take to read this news story?

The story "Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them? | Rebecca Solnit" has 954 words across 28 sentences, which will take approximately 4 - 8 minutes for the average person to read.

Q: Which news outlet covered this story?

The story "Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them? | Rebecca Solnit" was covered 13 hours ago by The Guardian, a news publisher based in United Kingdom.

Q: How trustworthy is 'The Guardian' news outlet?

The Guardian is a fully independent (privately-owned) news outlet established in 1821 that covers mostly artificial-intelligence and technology news. The outlet is headquartered in United Kingdom and publishes an average of 5 news stories per day. It's most recent story was published 15 hours ago.

Q: What do people currently think of this news story?

The sentiment for this story is currently Neutral, indicating that people are not responding positively or negatively to this news.

Q: How do I report this news for inaccuracy?

You can report an inaccurate news publication to us via our contact page. Please also include the news #ID number and the URL to this story.<ul><li>News ID: #23085780</li><li>URL: https://beamstart.com/news/is-it-worse-to-have-17290751149577</li></ul>

The Guardian 13h ago

Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them? | Rebecca Solnit - The Guardian

Quick Summary:

At an artificial intelligence conference in Washington DC, the former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently claimed that "[w]e’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it” and that we should just plunge ahead with AI, which is so huge an energy hog it’s prompted a number of tech companies to abandon their climate goals.

One particularly pernicious way comes from the men in love with big tech, who are forever insisting that we need some amazing new technology to solve our problems, be it geoengineering, carbon sequestration or fusion – but wait, it gets worse.

Schmidt then threw out the farfetched notion that we should go all in on AI because maybe AI will somehow, maybe, eventually know how to "solve” climate, saying: "I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it.”Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist.