When an animal catches rabies, in the end, stages, it manifests bizarre, aggressive behaviour. A normally shy racoon will charge a human, growling and frothing at the mouth.
There is only one treatment for a rabid racoon.
How about humans afflicted with the disease called “environmentalism”?
It is a form of rabies – and much more dangerous.
California Assemblywoman Autumn Burke, for instance. This “environmentalist” (what’s the credential, exactly?) is pushing legislation that would require 15 percent of all new cars sold in California be “emissions free” by the model year 2025.
This means electric cars, as only electric cars qualify as “emissions-free”… notwithstanding that they also most definitely produce emissions.
Just not at the tailpipe.
This also means catastrophe for the car industry – for car buyers. For buyers of cars that aren’t electric cars.
The price of which will skyrocket – in order to offset the losses imposed on car companies forced to the manufacturer and then give away vast fleets of electric cars in order to be allowed to sell any cars at all. Electric cars only being “salable” when subsidised or “sold” at a loss.
Why are the most advertised Gold and Silver coins NOT the best way to invest?
In the past, there was a dodge.
A con, actually.
It’s the one that helped make the rent-seeking Andrew Carnegie of our time, Elon Musk – purveyor of the Tesla electric car – a very wealthy man. He sells carbon credits to other car companies. These credits serve as flim-flam-than-you-ma’am proxies for not building electric cars. GM, for instance, avoids wasting money and time designing, manufacturing and then attempting to sell (at a loss) an electric Edsel (like the ’90s-era EV1) by purchasing carbon credits from Elon for the tailpipe emissions not produced by the cars he makes. In order to offset the tailpipe emissions of the cars GM makes.
In this way, Elon gets rich and the regulatory fatwa is obeyed – with relatively minimal fuss and muss for those engaged in actual productive endeavours rather than rent-seeking.
But the California nomenklatura, of which Burke is a high muckety-muck, is unhappy. The nomenklatura does not like that manufacturer of non-electric cars skate around the “zero emissions” sales quotas by buying carbon credits from Elon. They want the electric cars made, as many as possible.
“That’s why we need to reform the rules to require that 15 percent of all new cars sold in California have (sic) zero emissions by 2025,” says Burke. “This is about clean cars, not credits.”
Who is “we,” by the way?
Elon’s surely unhappy. If the carbon con goes away, his rent-seeking operation will suffer. But then, he’s already fat and happy on the taxpayer dime.
Besides which, the object of this exercise is not to make Elon rich. It is to make us poor.
To make driving ever more expensive. Such that hopefully – from the point of view of “environmentalists” – we (the peonage) will not be able to do much driving at all.
California Governor Jerry Brown – another “environmentalist” – has already laid down the “ambitious goal” (says Burke, sounding like a Komsomol or Junior Anti-Sex League harridan) of getting 1.5 million electric cars on the road by 2025, a little more than eight years from now.
The problem is that there are only about 200,000 electric cars registered in California right now; about 4 percent of the desired 15 percent.
There are only so many suckers.
