Here are a few highlights:
"The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies."This position you outline: it is not a conservative one. Conservatives do not believe in higher taxes; conservatives do not believe that governments can pick winners or, as you weasellishly put it, "empower the marketplace". Maybe it's time you and you had a serious chat about this with David L Brooks in the New York Times canteen. If you both joined the Democrats together, they might give you a two for the price of one deal."It’s true that the United States can’t solve this problem alone."Indeed. The word you're looking for is "China." And guess what? They're building a new coal-fired power plant every five days. That's how much they care about your plans to stop global warming."Looking back at the dark days of the financial crisis in 2008, it is easy to see the similarities between the financial crisis and the climate challenge we now face."Yes,they're both classic examples of Enron economics: a gigantic Ponzi scheme in which rent-seeking corporations, faux experts, and low-down shysters exploit government regulation and incompetence to fleece everyone else."Our experts (financial experts then, climate scientists now) try to understand what they see and to model possible futures."So let me get this right: you're using the example of all those useless "experts" who failed to predict the 2008 crash as a justification for trusting the widely discredited models of "climate scientists"? Good luck with that.
Really liked this one:
"I'm a businessman, not a climatologist"
No shit, Sherlock!
Many more, so read it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment