Not what I'm saying. I am simply saying, you are showing one side of the issue, I just posted the other. I am not fore or against either, in fact I think the truth lay in the middle. You need to cut regulation to increase productivity, which decreases cost of living, BUT, you also need to do things in a way to not destroy the planet doing it.
Regulation for climate change has rocked countries globally. You need some of it, but you can't do it to the point where cost of living is difficult and you destroy your middle class. There is a balance, and that balance, IMHO, right now is way too regulated and driving up the cost of living for citizens.
Hell... Bill Gates has rolled back his attitude on climate change, and he was one of the loudest voices for it, but now admits, maybe its not as big a concern was what was thought and maybe, just maybe, we have over-done regulation in this area without hard data. Lots of theoretical data, some hard data, but hard data also shows Earth going through these natural heating cooling cycles from core factual data.
We are doing some bad things, which we need to improve upon, but not at the expense of most human beings capacity to feed themselves and their families. Commonsense got lost along the way.
This is like having a debate on EV's. EV's are toxic AF for the planet. There is nothing good for climate change about EV's, yet they are pushed to be climate friendly, yet they are less friendly than a petrol vehicle, from build to use. Yet, they are early technology, and we need to improve them to not be more destructive than petrol vehicles and eventually replace them once technology has matured. Automobiles didn't happen over a decade, like EV's have, they matured over 120+ years. EV's won't take that long, as they have a platform from petrol vehicles, but they are far from efficient as claimed, they are extremely destructive to the planet.
grabien.com
is their Lord and Savior. 
