Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
y'know, based on how shoddy and full of holes the science is, and how shady the methods used, you're obviously correct. I'm old enough to remember harsh winters when I was a kid. Not even that long ago. The 70's. This is very similar. Back then we didn't know or care what the weather was 500 miles away, so who knew what they were experiencing? We're too worried about what other people are doing.
Maybe this is the biggest battle of the future: convince millions of people that they have been scammed out of huge sums of money and out of huge opportunities, by the global warming mafia that got rich by this lie.We need books and articles that expose the truth. From teh 60s when they claimed the world was cooling, to the 70s when they claimed the rainforest was cut to the 80s when Africa was in danger , and so on. Expose who made money out of this lie, how much did it cost, facts and sums of money. It would do a great deal of service to all human kind to expose this great lie.
Global warming might not be a real thing but climate change is. As in the climate is always changing. Its always been changing and it always will be. Its been changing since before humans arrived and it will continue to change after we are extinct. The only positive thing I can see about the climate change hysteria is maybe we will pollute the earth less. Not likely though. The obvious solution is to reduce our population to a small fraction of what it is. Obviously this will never happen because they are pushing the whole we have to increase immigration to fund out pensions. Constant growth will require constant growth to support us in the future. No one seems to want to deal with the real problem just push it further down the road.
I don't think that debating the science of global warming is in the best interests of freedom loving libertarians. Because, what if it does turn out to be true that global warming is both happening and threatening our survival, given that you based your defense against tyranny solely on the truthfulness of global warming or not will now place you at the mercy of climate tyranny.Instead, you must debate the METHODS proposed by the global warming activists and debate wether taxes, price controls, emissions mandates, renewable energy mandates and anti-freedom methods are the best way to fight against global warming.Instead, you must make the case that if there is global warming, then freedom, non-aggression, private property rights and free markets are the best approach to reduce the global warming that threatens our existence.In fact, free markets might be able to accomodate to a higher temperature than government mandates that restricts land ownership or restricts freedom of movement.Fighting against the global warming mandates solely on the basis that it is false and does not exist exposes you to tyranny in the case that it exists. You are conceding the debate and will have to accept their anti-freedom measures if global warming turns out to be true.You must fight the methods and make the case for freedom as the best tool to manage the climate. THAT is a lot more difficult but a lot more genuine.If you believe in freedom, then you believe that it applies even in the case of a warming climate.I am not debating the science, I am debating the methods and so should you.
An example of a libertarian and free market approach to global climate management.TAXES represent a dead weight expense on the economy and in order to make up for the money lost in taxes, people have to work more and produce more. This economic activity that is drowned in taxes represents energy and CO2 emissions for nothing.Also, urban zoning forces houses to be built in a sector that is located far away from commercial and industrial zonings. This requires workers and consumers to commute long distances and expend more energy than necessary. That is the result of local government mandates.In a free market arrangement, workplaces and marketplaces would naturally be closer to livingspaces and represent smaller commuting distances. The fact that less taxation or even no taxation would take place would allow people to adopt minimalist lifestyles with less economic activity that expends energy.Government mandates and taxation is producing a lot of wasteful economic activity that expends more energy than is necessary and contributes to global warming.You must make the case that markets would efficiently allow people to live simple and within their means, that this would result in less CO2 emissions.I would totally live in a tiny house if it was not outlawed and I would save more money if property taxes and other taxes were abolished, I could retire earlier.So, if global warming policies bother you, debate the policies and the methods and make the case for free markets and freedom.Don't fall into the trap of trying to prove the science wrong because a lot of that science is in fact beliefs and paranoia.You could not debate a religious person on the existence of God but you can debate against proselytism and make the case that it is best for people to freely convert than to be forced into their religion. Same thing for global warming.You can also demonstrate how mandates, taxes and regulations will harm the climate and result in wasteful activity.
Post a Comment