Libertarians know lots about economics.
The Climate Change debate is made up of two parts: a scientific one - is it happening? if so, what’s causing it? etc - and an economic one - what should be done about it?
So, why is it that libertarians spend their entire time talking about the science and not the economics?
Let me put me like this. If you could prove that all the statements about the science - that it is happening, that it is caused by humans, that it’s going to be truly catastrophic etc, - were true, wouldn’t that demand a heavy-duty libertarian approach? Wouldn’t that demand a huge increase in human productivity and wouldn’t that in turn demand a massive scaling down of the unproductive/state-directed parts of the economy?
Frankly, if people were really taking climate change seriously can you imagine that such brakes on human progress such as the welfare state, the NHS, state education and the whole panoply of labour market regulations would last five minutes?
Wouldn't it just be easier for David Cameron to say that a future Conservative government won't pay it? Because if he said that right now (and loudly enough) no one in their right mind would buy the government's debt and the problem would disappear in an instant.
Which is true.
But it begs the question. Why, assuming that Downing Street's email system wasn't hacked by Guido himself, did the leaker contact Guido? Why not go straight to the MSM? Maybe, he did, of course. But assuming he didn't the reason he contacted Guido was because he knew the story would be published.
Guido: the scandal sheet of last resort. And good thing too.
So, the News of the World runs an article claiming that Gordon Ramsay isn’t the saviour of failing restaurants that the TV claims he is.
So, a huge numbers of commenters, many apparently chefs themselves, come to Ramsay’s defence.