How's the weather?

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
18,108
I just don't understand the reluctance ...
The reluctance is against sucking $100T from the global economy, plunging our species back a millennium, to chase an unrealistic goal that quite possibly is beyond our control.

The main purveyors of CAGW have already admitted it was a scheme to destroy capitalism. I don't understand the reluctance to take them at their word.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
16,330
The reluctance is against sucking $100T from the global economy, plunging our species back a millennium, to chase an unrealistic goal that quite possibly is beyond our control.

The main purveyors of CAGW have already admitted it was a scheme to destroy capitalism. I don't understand the reluctance to take them at their word.
On that we agree but realistically, those types of world domination by CAGW nutcases are a dwindling minority. Most of us are true blue believers in capitalism, energy independence and good science. There is zero reason a nice profit to regular folks can't be made by fixing this problem if we stick to sane capitalistic practices.
 
Last edited:

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
18,108

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
6,307
From 'rich' guys like you and me.
Not really.

Supporters of the EV credit also tend to ignore its deeply regressive effects. While the credit is disproportionately financed by lower- and middle-income taxpayers who cannot afford to purchase EVs, the benefits of the credit flow to a small segment of high-income households, many of which would have purchased EVs even without government inducements.
For the record, I could afford an EV -- even without the subsidy.

I prefer my gas guzzler. I even keep it running while pumping gas.
 
Top