Would anyone like to take a crack at refuting this? Any helpful pointers? First analogy is particularly laughable I must say! It’s a good one though.
Taking Politics out of Climate Change.
Big companies pay for polluting our air.
The money goes to help for households.
Investing in clean energy.
Helping the environment.
Expecting politicians to pass laws to take money from big companies, then giving that money to households (politispeak for voters), that is not taking politics out of climate change it is exactly the opposite. When people say: “lets take the politics out of XXX”, what they really are trying to say is: “Do as I say, this is not up for debate”.
Easy refutation. I stopped after 29 seconds when it said it would be an independant body similar to how we control interest rates. The vid refutes itself.
RANT INVOLVED, SKIP AHEAD IF TL;DR
Call me blunt, but you know what I’d like to see? A solution to some alleged “problem” that didn’t involve creating some new, bloated managerial bureaucracy to transfer wealth from the poor and the middle class to plutocrats like George Soros and their intellectual cheering squad. Never seen it proposed once in the MSM, be it on Piltdown Studies, err, global cooling… err, global warming… err, “climate change”, financial meltdowns, the large bonuses executives of companies bailed out by the governments they lobby receive, the long, slow collapse of Western education, the alleged dangers of doubleplusungood thoughtcrime… err, “hate speech” and hackers on the Internet or any other issue that “community activists” or the Intellectual Poverty Defamation Tribunal is banging on about. Even the so called “original” or “inventive” thinkers in the West (particularily the ones like the Economist who Al-Guardian alleges are borderline anarcho-capitalists) are only “original” in the sense a man proposing the hiring of private contractors to operate the Gulags would be in Stalinist Russia.
RANT OFF
If this whole “global warming” thing ain’t a manmade issue, the whole issue is moot. Even if it is (like the whole “overpopulation” hysteria campaign the eco-nuts are quietly preparing us for), let’s try looking at getting rid of the existing ecarbating factors in a way that doesn’t involve a system two steps away from Soviet-style production quotas.
For instance, end corporate welfare and subsidies for polluting companies, and in more than a monetary sense, such as holding such entities accountable for the damage they cause to individuals (not the abstract, undefinable concept of “the environment”) through practices like toxic waste dumping in military bases or ending barriers to trade to let the Chinese and Indians produce things far quicker and cheaper, and thus necessitate less global reliance on such smog-belching technology. The same thing goes for energy crises. Let people drill in their own backyards if it isn’t going to damage their neighbours property, and we can please both the No Blood For Oil Brigade and those of us who think being on the leash of OPEC and other terrorist-funding nations rather than domestic producers is not in the US’s interest.
End energy monopolies, subsidies and other artificial barriers, so that any man with a wind turbine can compete against Exxon and ConEd if he’s got the cojones. Hell, why not give a few more tax credits (or better yet, abolitions of particular taxes affecting those industries) to R&D so that the eggheads can give us the kind of power technologies a good SimCity player could get going by the 2020’s.
Start with those things, watch this space, and then we can talk about whether another enterprise run by the people who brought you the top-notch service at the Post Office, IRS and TSA can run a global thermostat scheme.