....One result is that even the candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost: How do they intend to pay for all the new efficiencies and technologies that will be necessary? And what kind of sacrifices will they be asking of people who almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills and their greener cars?...
Ostensibly an argument for addressing global warming, the Times editorial is a re-iteration of the Big Lie of their carbon/auto puppeteers. How will we pay? How will we pay? What an insult to our intelligence. We are currently paying very dearly by allowing the carbon/auto industry to pollute essentially for free. But that is evidently the "free" market and stopping this trillion-dollar subsidy is considered a "cost" that we who want to stop the subsidy have to justify. Pathetic.
