Yes but it is important not to confuse the source with the form.
For example we can create hydrocarbons using solar/wind energy and that is still "renewable" even though hydrocarbons are involved. They are merely the medium of energy storage.
Call me when the hydrocarbons we buy off the shelf are actually made from wind and solar. Until that day you’re still arguing for the artificiality of a real distinction.
How much are you willing to pay? https://renewablelube.com/ mostly plant based for the solar source. In general about 5x the price of pumped oil, and they may not last as long. I've bought for them before, no other relation
Prices of products are a very strong function of total production. Solar panel electricity once was 20x the price of other ways - now its 0.5x or less. In competitive industries the price will come down to only a small multiplier on raw input price.
Technologies of making synthetic fuel using energy, water and carbon dioxide are a century old and they have been used for producing great quantities is special circumstances when the price did not matter, e.g. by Germany during WWII (though at that time they produced cabon monoxide by burning coal, instead of reducing carbon dioxide from air, because this was cheaper).
The only reason why they are not used now is that the current price of fossil oil is significantly lower.
There is research to develop more efficient methods for the synthesis of hydrocarbons, based on the electrolytic reduction of carbon dioxide, but their progress is slow, in good part because such critical research is funded much less than frivolous research, such as that for AGI.
That was a real news story. A journalist looked at the state's educator-credentials checker, viewed the source and saw it had teacher's SSNs in base64 somewhere in the plaintext. Missouri Governor Mike Parson then tried to legally threaten the journalist. Honestly, if this case wasn't as high-profile, I think he might have got a conviction, at least in state court.
Can't a law be passed that states prosecutors legally cannot consult or assist in cases or for defendants they were involved with during their tenure as a prosecutor for X years after they leave their position?
Restricting them too much is a double edged sword because a lot of people use government work as a stepping stone even if they don't go to work for people they directly deal with. Making it too hard to find a job after can make good lawyers never go into public service because they couldn't get the cushy private gig afterwards.
Politicians don't have much incentive to do this since plenty of them get cushy jobs at bigco benefactors of the spending bills they voted on. Trying to target prosecutors would cast a eye on themselves.
It's like trying to separate church and state in England back in 1600-1700s.
Or firms could trade hires ("if you hire this person, I'll refer a client to you"). Or they could "persuade" a client's legal dept to hire her ("We're looking for a new partner and we like your experience... On a totally unrelated note, I know a talented young woman who's looking for a job...")
Ah so the implication is not that the prosecutor gave them inside info on the government's case's weaknesses but the prosecutor intentionally played the case suboptimally in hopes of being paid after the fact? If this was done with prior assurance that sounds already illegal no? If it was done simply on the hopes of securing "payment" afterwards with no prior deal then that seems like a large risk for the prosecutor to take.
I like science, but that doesn't mean it has to be the end-all-be-all. Otherwise it would be a religion.
There are situations where overthinking it is bad. Yes, obviously, microplastics in your brain are bad for you. Common sense. Any delay because "the science isn't there yet" does more harm than good.
For example we can create hydrocarbons using solar/wind energy and that is still "renewable" even though hydrocarbons are involved. They are merely the medium of energy storage.