Seriously? Perhaps a 3rd party one other than a stranger on the internet? Not sure what to say if you can't stand having your views challenged in life...
> Everyone who did nothing came up with something better
With that attitude, no research projects will ever go to production.
As an aside, spending money doesn't destroy it. You talk as if some grave crime was committed... nah. People passionate about the environment (or at the very least, blue collar folks in need of work) likely earned a living supporting this project, something that wouldn't have happened if zero dollars were spent trying to solve the problem. The funding will continue only if we're willing to spend towards validating or invalidating new ideas; researchers just need to either rework or exclude this approach and explore others as different concepts succeed or fail.
The ocean is a common resource, and the full-scale ocean cleanup would have far-reaching negative consequences around the pacific. Opposition to the project is more than just an attitude: it's supported by decades of scientific evidence regarding the nature of the ocean and the plastics within it. The ocean cleanup seems to be ignoring the warnings and skepticism because they believe they'll be on the right side of history no matter what happens. If they don't change course, the ocean cleanup will be heading into a very slow, very expensive PR nightmare.
Edit: unfortunately, it looks like your comments have done little but break the site guidelines lately. If you keep that up, we're going to have to ban you. If you'd review the guidelines and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it. You might find these additional links helpful for getting a clearer idea of that original spirit:
If you look at this post by cultus you'll see how to share the exact opinion you describe, without violating the HN posting guidelines like glibgil's comment did:
GP comment was clearly directed in support of a decentralized "winning tech will win without the need and costs of centralized government planning".
My Nissan LEAF is wildly cheaper (~40-70% cheaper) to operate per-mile than my wife's very sensible Honda CR-V. Her car is wildly cheaper all-in because it's a 2005 vs the 2015 LEAF. Give it 5 more years for the common electrics to be readily and plentifully available on the used market and this will even out. The electric cars are already coming. Quickly.
This is all happening without the need for a government program to guarantee a job with the government for anyone who wants one as the article pitches as an essential part of the "Green New Deal". (What does a government job have to do with sea level rise either?)
> This is all happening without the need for a government program to guarantee a job with the government for anyone who wants one as the article pitches as an essential part of the "Green New Deal".
If we're going to decarbonize the economy at a decent rate, we most likely will need to find a just solution for those whose jobs will be disappearing under them (e.g. workers in the fossil fuel industry).
See the riots in France for what happens when you give tax cuts to the rich and try to make the working classes pay for decarbonizing.
Some kind of federal job guarantee could be a way to guarantee some amount of income for displaced workers.
IMO, by setting desired outcomes and incentives, not by mandating specific solutions and certainly not by creating a government jobs program to create the solutions that the government dictates are "the winner".
I don't want ocean levels or carbon levels to be the next Joint Strike Fighter...
Then the discussion should have been a post unto itself, not a comment piggy-backing on another project's thread. I dunno, seems like basic netiquette to me.
But I agree that if you think your solution is better, there's really nowhere better to put it out there than in front of eyes that are looking at something similar.
