Jim Penman argues Australia's net-zero policies are economically destructive, claiming power prices have doubled and goods costs have risen sharply. He cites the Copenhagen Consensus ranking climate mitigation around 20th in cost-effectiveness for reducing human suffering, calling current policies an inefficient misallocation of resources.
Rubbish. People are paying double their power, and that actually understates it because it's not just the fact that you pay twice as much for power, you pay more for every good that's produced using power. So in actual fact, it's putting a huge burden on the population. And net zero is crazy because they say it's a matter of helping people who are poor. You look at Copenhagen Consensus and they, and they, and they list the ways that you can spend money to give the most benefit to the most people. And maybe solving global warming comes about 20th. It's one of the least efficient ways to spend money to reduce human suffering. There are far better ways. And yet we are seeing our economy go stagnant and under control because of this insane thing. And it's not that I don't believe in global warming. Of course carbon dioxide has an effect. But the question is impoverishing Australia and making it— turning us into a banana. Is that solving the climate crisis? Well, it's not.
Rising mental illness and falling birth rates have the same cause, it is this.....
