<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Regulation on Prosperitist</title>
		<link>https://www.prosperitist.com/tags/regulation/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Regulation on Prosperitist</description>
		<language>en-US</language>
		
			<managingEditor>r@raphaelbauer.com (Raphael Bauer)</managingEditor>
		
		
			<webMaster>r@raphaelbauer.com (Raphael Bauer)</webMaster>
		
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:00:00 +0200</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="https://www.prosperitist.com/tags/regulation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>Six Hours of Aviation</title>
				<link>https://www.prosperitist.com/climate/six-hours-of-aviation/</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate><author>r@raphaelbauer.com (Raphael Bauer)</author>
				<guid>https://www.prosperitist.com/climate/six-hours-of-aviation/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Every so often somebody notices that a Starship is very large, that it is filled with fossil natural gas, and that SpaceX would like to fly one most weeks, and concludes that the biggest rocket ever built must be a climate problem in proportion to its size. The first two observations are correct. The conclusion does not follow from them, and the distance between the premise and the conclusion is one of the widest in any live argument about emissions.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
