At the individual level: Wealthier individuals pollute more and favor growth; poorer push protection.

I would have guessed the opposite, since higher income people have the time and means to care about the environment. For example they can afford to buy organic and trade in their gas car for an EV while poorer people would be hurt more by fuel taxes and/or higher fuel prices. Wasn't the yellow vest protest movement in France against higher fuel taxes?

How did the authors define wealthy and poor?

Said the pot to the kettle. I'm done too.

Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics.

That's not how a debt trap is supposed to work.

Won't be long now.

It'll take longer than you like.

Well...you started with the idea that the financing of the port was a debt trap. I and others have already provided info stating otherwise. You appear to be moving the goalposts.

Said the pot to the kettle... your claim was refuted by several people. Maybe reconsider your stance?

What do you gain from arguing against optimism? This is a long process and it will improve. You can't look at things now in the United States and accurately extrapolate into the future. China and Europe are stepping in the right direction.

whether the focus should shift from prevention to adaptation.

Why the arbitrary binary? You do both, all the time. We can't stop preventing. What, are we just going to be like, oh well, we tried for a bit but didn't get the results we hoped for, let's burn all the coal and gas from now on? No, that's idiotic.

We've got some good results already, I've been seeing headlines that we're preventing the worst climate outcomes. That will likely continue to slowly improve. Every problem that comes with every solution is being addressed. Sometimes a step is taken backwards, but two steps are eventually taken in the right direction. It's happening in one of the dumbest ways possible, but it's happening.

I'd let this play out for awhile if it was my house, unless of course they're causing trouble elsewhere. It'd be fun to watch.

I think so. Journals are only in use today because that's how scientific reporting was done before the internet. They're still around because institutions and academics need some way of keeping score. What's the point of it all if you can't say you're better than someone else?

Journals could be replaced with something like Wikipedia, but more sophisticated and editing would be a highly controlled process that requires reproducible data and peer review.

Score could be kept with citations. You'd be required to list the work you built on, as we do today, and the authors would receive credit. No citation would be worth more than another. If you published something useful for a particular field or made a major discovery that opened a new field, then your citation count would reflect it.

Perhaps competing labs could both receive citation credit if their results essentially showed the same thing. If nobody could scoop anyone else's work, then cooperation may be encouraged over competition.

The entire wiki would be a public good, funded by governments across the world, free for all to read and for those with the relevant credentials to publicly comment on.

Negative results could also be published. "We had this hypothesis, we tried this, it didn't work out." It'd probably save time and these works could be cited as well. Imagine making a very important mistake that saves everyone time and effort and being rewarded for it.

I also feel like there is opportunity here to expand a particular field's community. Since the wiki would be more free and open, academic silos may have more metaphorical doors, allowing more cross-field dialog.

I could go on, but I think the tools we need already exist, but we're not using them because... tradition. It would be easier, more efficient, and flexible to use some kind of wiki structure than what's currently happening.

Edit: I thought of one more thing. Searching for information could be so easy. Instead of finding a dozen papers (some slightly off topic, some of questionable quality, some poorly written, some your institution isn't subscribed to, etc) and review articles, all of the information could be easily compiled into review wikis. The level of detail could be easily changed depending on what you want and it would all be right there.

Evolution and natural selection never stops, we've only changed what the selective pressures are.

It's just a ship dropping out of warp a safe distance from our system. While inconvenient, it's considered best practice to drop out well away from the system's center to shed the particles you've accumulated in your warp bubble during transit. They are extremely energetic and can cause immense damage if released irresponsibly close to an inhabited planet. This is especially true when visiting a primitive world that hasn't set up any sensible warp safety systems.