Speaking Thursday at MSNBC’s climate forum at Georgetown University, presidential hopeful Andrew Yang suggested the government should tax the cattle industry and eliminate private car ownership.
“Cattle is very energy-consuming and energy-expensive, and if you project forward on what we would need to do to reduce emissions, you would want to modify Americans’ diets over time,” he told MSNBC host Ali Velshi.
“So then, what that would naturally do – and some people are going to hate this – but it would probably make those products more expensive. And that is appropriate because there’s a cost to producing food in that way. And so if you were to make it more expensive, then you would end up changing consumption patterns over time.”
Another thing Yang wants to take away from us in the name of climate change is our cars.
Private car ownership is “really inefficient and bad for the environment,” said Yang. To eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, private car ownership may be replaced by “a constant roving fleet of electric cars.”
Yang wants to set a zero emissions standard for all new cars by 2030 and envisions the end to private ownership occurring by 2050. His climate plan, which calls for nearly $5 trillion in spending over the next two decades, proposes moving populations to higher ground to avoid the effects of climate change.
“Natural disasters and other effects of climate change are already causing damage and death…We need to adapt our country to this new reality,” reads the plan.
Perhaps someone should remind Yang that this isn’t China.
Is Yang planning a totalitarian state like China where he gets to take away wholesale from the people and they have no say?
Whether or not his drastic proposals will help humanity survive, they will never work in a Democracy because voters will never approve such radical changes to their way of life.
If Yang really wants to push the United States toward a more energy efficient future, he needs to focus on smaller, more realistic changes than taking away our cars and our beef.
The Freedom Dividend
Let’s not forget about Yang’s hallmark proposal: a Universal Basic Income that provides $1,000 per month regardless of employment status. The plan would be funded by a new tax on companies that benefit most from automation.
“The most direct and concrete way for the government to improve your life is to send you a check for $1,000 every month and let you spend it in whatever manner will benefit you the most,” reads Yang’s campaign website.
“It is impossible to overstate the positive impact of $1K a month on households around the country. It would take people from a constant mindset of scarcity to a mindset of assured survival and possibility. It would transform our society in myriad positive ways by taking the boot off of people’s throats.”
Once again, Yang’s plans are immature and unrealistic. Yang has convinced himself that $1,000 per month would spur entrepreneurship, creativity, and art. Nothing in world history supports that notion.
Unfortunately, as history shows, many people who find the opportunity to earn money without working will not go out and create their own business; they will sit on the couch and do nothing.
Editor’s note: Yang and his fellow socialists know very little about human nature and instinctual drives.