My response on another forum;
... as I'm always saying, you know a politician is either corrupt or profoundly ignorant (or both) when they write a specific prescription for a broad problem. If you want to reduce fossil fuel consumption, you increase the tax on it. Cap and trade is a form of taxation, so that's also legit. You attack the problem at the fundamental level that it exists, not way downstream where layers of complexity develop, unforeseen consequences arise, administrative overhead explodes, and corruption vectors multiply.
Another person commented,
Quote:
|
Newsom is not exactly trustworthy on this point. He's promoting this for political gains knowing he will never have to make good on it. His office has been receiving a lot of justified criticisms recently for the number of fracking permits they're issuing and for how cozy they've been with the fossil fuels industry. Basically, this is just posturing.
|
These idiots can get away with it because we're profoundly ignorant about most things. We're more concerned with our team winning than actually solving problems.
I don't care to get other news opinions about the topic because there's practically no chance they could have reasoned this out better than I already have (challenge to prove me wrong).
Where is the study showing the estimated cost this will have, the benefits, and the specific targeted goals? How many days will we have forestalled global warming by implementing this?