The New York Times drives me to despair. Yes, they are on the side of the angels but it is all aimed at the people inside the bubble (i.e. the bubble of people aware of and/or active in the environmental crisis). But they don't ask the more fundamental questions. Sure cargo ships with wind power assistance may be a good thing. But do we need all that stuff being shipped? (e.g. Home Depot in New Jersey sells pine boards from New Zealand...and I buy them, so guilty by association). And direct carbon capture may become necessary. But shouldn't we do everything to avoid that need? Does it make sense to tie carbon capture to a need for profit? If a carbon capture technology generates even more plastic is that good thing? - and so forth. The analysis is lacking.
What are the real NYT priorities? Politics, the mayoral race, social issues, the price of a penthouse, fancy cuisine and when, oh when, can we see a musical again.