Yes, California could export more solar and wind power, but would be forced to stop removing fossil fuel plants, stop creating new renewable energy generation, and would have to buy dirty electricity from it's neighbors. We also would, as mentioned, lose all control over our energy production to the federal government, which is owned by the oil industries.
If it was as simple as selling our excess electricity, it would be great, but it's simply not. Joining an RTO would mean California would not be able to go 100% renewable ever, because our neighbors don't and the Fed doesn't want to.
If our neighbors want to make an agreement outside of the Fed to share our cleaner power, we would likely jump at it, especially if we could insist they agree to strive for 100% clean renewable energy production. If the Fed is involved, it's a non starter. We've spent billions on making our state cleaner, fighting the federal government tooth and nail the whole way. There's no way in hell California is going to toss that investment and the freedom to regulate our own energy production in the toilet just to sell our excess to our dirty neighbors. We would rather secede.

*promote

I like the total full coverage Medicare with dental and eye care for all who want it plan. Give it a year, there won't be many left willing to pay a mint for less coverage and more restrictions, but they'll have the right to choose to be stupid.
Getting rid of the insurance industry removes at least 20% of total medical costs, but you don't lose anything else besides headaches and bankruptcies.

A superpower hardly needs to be perfect, it just needs to be good at being a superpower - science level, industry production, human resources, military, ie the stuff that China is catching up fast with or is gone already.

Quality of life, human rights and democratic institutions are nice but not vital to superpower status. They are vital for sucess lasting more than two generations though so there is hope in that.

Why? Gotta feed the military industrial complex! Republicans always look to start a war somewhere, the Democrats' always lack the will to stop them cold.

Just pointing out that your stated plan, abandoning all dairy for stuff like almond milk, leads to a water shortage disaster without halting cattle death one whit. It would actually cause exponentially more animal deaths, most by thirst, a far more brutal and painful death than veal get....but you didn't think it through, did you?

There's no question that I enjoy eating meats of many kinds, I've never once hidden or denied that...I would eat long pig if people didn't spoil that meat. That said, I don't eat veal.

....and you say I make everything an argument?! You're style is why people hate vegans. You personally insult them, then whine and get pissy if they contradict your falsehoods and poorly thought out "solutions".

Besides...I thought you quit me. What gives? Enthralled by my swinging cod? Sorry, it's spoken for, and it's too beefy for your taste. ;-)

Edit : btw, the meat industry "hiding" it's methods isn't about the horrific violence at all, it's about hiding the violations of regulations that delineate how they are to be raised, killed, and which can't be used at all. Many smaller producers don't agree with that, they want to be seen doing it right, it's industrial meat production you're complaining about, not all production as you want to claim.

You would prefer they get put out in an unusable field to starve, as long as they aren't eaten? If they serve no purpose, they won't be cared for, but they'll still exist.

If the dairy industry is gone, beef ranchers would just fill the veal gap, so different young cows still die under that plan.

Switching to non dairy isn't ecologically sound too....especially with almond milk for many reasons.

These little cute cows are left overs from the dairy industry, so we don't need to kill these ones for steak.

If we buy dairy alternatives, then the killing of these young cows stops.

Anyway, give yourself some credit, you're definitely smarter than a caveman :-)

the O&G industry knew about climate change in the 60s and 70s and were initially concerned about it's effects on both the planet and their business. i don't know why you think either al gore or spock or whoever are the only choices for understanding the phenomena.

1) unless that trade is privately controlled, then it is.
2) you said MADE. They make them. ;-)
3) Capitalism isn't technological industry, or civil rights...it's trade and ownership. If an individual can own a business (edit :and profit from freely selling it's products) that's capitalism. Farms count.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
4) well, that's one thing we agree on then, but it's hardly a selling point for capitalism to most people.
5) If public funds are used for any public purposes, that's socialism imo. I certainly think basic research where the results are free to the public counts.

1) I question your sources, because some of the earliest writings ever found were business ledgers dealing with selling grains as I understand it. Capitalism has been a thing since before writing was a thing.

2) um...I think those kids in China would dispute that....THEY made the Iphones, which created a smart phone market by being useful and fun (for most people).

3) do you believe capitalism and the industrial revolution started at the same time, or that capitalism has something to do with surfs, civil rights, or secularism? Capitalism applied to people is indentured servitude, what we lazily call slavery. Unfettered capitalism created a situation where civil rights needed to be delineated and codified, it didn't create them any more than wildfires created firemen imo.

Some people do educate themselves before acting or making purchases, but it's not the norm.

Capitalism says your poor neighbors should die, because capitalism says there is no value to human life...I did a term paper on that. Value is derived from a supply/demand equation, and there's such a glut of humanity that human life has a negative value.

The government paid for around 75% of the technology development. "...it paid for some of the technology...." is incredibly misleading, if technically correct (the best kind of correct). Without a healthy dose of socialism, progress slows to a crawl and only the privileged few can afford it.

1 word....flip-phones. ;-) (I don't even have one of those)

1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.

Sounds good, but .08kWh per liter is 80kWh per M³. Desalination is as low as 2-3kWh per M³. That makes this technology very inefficient by comparison. Useful where absolutely no other source is available.
It bears noting that no where can I find the cost of his machine, only estimates of operation energy costs. Others that make 250 liters per day (with enough humidity) cost around $8500 on eBay. That makes me think his larger unit is likely 10 times that cost or more.
Also, he didn't invent this technology, Arye Kohavi is credited with that, but he may have made it more efficient. Essentially it's an industrial dehumidifier and nothing more.

Hard talk?! Lol....I get it.

.

I already know the pornography industry preys on young women with esteem and or money issues who often don't consider the life long ramifications. Khalifa, however, knew she was asking for extra trouble by wearing a hijab in a porno, and should have known religious zealots wouldn't be amused. I'm not excusing those who threatened her, just pointing out that she should have known portraying a devout Muslim woman in that way is almost as intentionally provocative as doing pornography in black face. She didn't say "no" because she didn't want to end her career, not because she was forced or coerced. She knew it wasn't smart before she did it.

I'm glad she at least says she accepts 100% of the responsibility, as she said, it was totally her choice. Sadly, the rest of what she said was assigning the responsibility to others and playing dumb. What 21 year old thinks making professional pornography is going to stay secret, especially the kind she made? She now wants to force actors (or maybe just actresses) to have any contract approved by a lawyer before signing, with a 3 day cooling off period? Good luck. If they only make $1000 per shoot, how are they supposed to pay an attorney $1000 to review their contracts?

How do you easily solve something thats going apeshit in another country, big or small? There is next to nothing the west can do to help other than alleviate the symptoms. Remember the cold war? What could the west do to help the people beyond the dividing line in countries that used to be democracies before WW2? Next to nothing.

Hong-Kong is currently part of the largest... just kidding.

What is her impact in China? Russia? India? Brazil? Indonesia? On people who make decisions? This is a real question.

I dont doubt her content, she seems well prepared and I have nothing to point out as obvious propaganda. Her delivery is off-putting. unpleasant, distracting and weird. Petulant child. Also she is pointing out the obvious without thinking of implementation. Normal millenial, just wants something.

The Republican party has been a good marketing tool for the fossil fuel industry so far, yes.

Adults tools in her hands? Seriously? I havent considered that and it frightens me.