When MSNBC announced that it was hosting a two-day climate-changeforum focused on Democrat presidential candidates, you just knew that some “unusual” ideas were going to be forwarded. On day one of the proceedings, Andrew Yang — who is currently surging in the polls — may have won the most-ridiculous-statement-of-the-day award when he suggested that private car ownership may soon go the way of the dodo bird.
On his campaign website, Yang describes himself as “an entrepreneur who understands the economy.” But Yang may not understand it as well as he thinks he does — at least a capitalist economy. In addition to his socialist plan to give every American $1,000 per month in basic income, Yang doesn’t seem to get the fact that Americans like to own and drive their own vehicles.
While conversing with MSNBC’s Ali Velshi, Yang suggested that “we might not own our own cars” by the year 2050 should we decide to get serious about fighting so-called anthropogenic climate change.
When Velshi asked Yang, “What does the world look like to you in 2050? What physically do you think we will do differently than we do today that will result in us fighting climate change?”
Yang answered, “Well, I mentioned before that we might not own our own cars. Our current car ownership and usage model is really inefficient and bad for the environment.”
“You guys probably all probably agree with this because you’re quite young,” Yang said, playing to the Georgetown University crowd, before launching into his private-vehicle-free vision for the future.
“What we’re really selling is not the car, it’s mobility,” Yang said. “So, if you have mobility that’s then tied into a much more, if you had like, for example, this constant roving fleet of electric cars that you would just order up, then you could diminish the impact of ground transportation on our environment very, very quickly.”
So, a vast fleet of electric vehicles will be constantly roving and, in order to go somewhere, you just order up one of those roving vehicles in order to head to your destination? Sounds like a stressful rush hour.
According to Yang, “climate change is an existential threat, and we need to recognize that we’re already living through the negative effects.” His own climate plan — because all the Democrats need to have a climate plan in order to be taken seriously — calls for five trillion dollars in federal spending over the next 20 years. Better than AOC’s Green New Deal in terms of spending but still a lot of cash that we don’t really have.
Yang’s climate plan is full of United Nations buzzwords, “sustainable” being the main one. As president, Yang would: “Build a sustainable economy by transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, upgrading our infrastructure, and improving the way we farm and use land. Public financing options will allow individuals to make the right decisions for their families.”
No word yet on exactly what those new renewable energies would be, although Yang, unlike other Democrats, does include nuclear power in his strategy. Current wind and solar technology won’t cut it.
He’d also, “Build a sustainable world. The United States, throughout history, has led the world in times of crisis. We’re the most entrepreneurial country in the history of the world. It’s time to activate the American imagination and work ethic to provide the innovation and technology that will power the rest of the world.”
As capitalists, it’s true that we have led the world in times of crisis. It won’t work if we transition into a socialist nation.
In the meantime, he’d, “Move our people to higher ground. Natural disasters and other effects of climate change are already causing damage and death. We need to adapt our country to this new reality. Reverse the damage we’ve done. Research needs to be done on removing carbon from our atmosphere, cooling the planet and rejuvenating ecosystems.”
“Move people to higher ground?” What if they don’t want to go? Would a President Yang simply force them to move for their own good? And “cooling the planet?” How, exactly? Does Yang hold the patent for a weather machine?
“Hold future administrations accountable. We need to pass a constitutional amendment that creates a duty on the federal and state governments to be stewards for the environment.”
Good luck getting two-thirds of the states to agree to that.
Other Democrats said other absurd things on Thursday and more absurd statements are certain to come today. Fringe candidate and Oprah Winfrey acolyte Marianne Williamson said, “I want to go to Washington and be a grown-up Greta Thunberg,” referencing the Swedish teenager who has become the face of the international climate-change cult. Bernie Sanders, whose climate plan is based on the Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and would cost some $16 trillion, suggested possible criminal prosecution of fossil-fuel producers. “I think it’s something we should look at,” Sanders said, before getting into a gasoline-powered vehicle to continue his campaign.
All of the Democrat candidates — and the Left in general — look at the Earth’s climate as something government can (and should) control, and, worse, they claim that science is behind that assertion. That’s the level of insanity that has been slowly creeping into the national and international consciousness for decades.
In the process they’ve decided Americans should cut meat consumption, lose our ability to use plastic straws, give up our privately owned automobiles — and pay huge taxes for the privilege of doing so. Great.
Image of Andrew Yang: Screenshot of Yang2020.com
