“It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said.
It’s also sensible societally.
Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets.
They do. And?
Well, I’m not a hypocrite. After all, my sole concern is that society should pander to MY welfare.
Thus since I’m not convinced that windmills will keep me in the luxury to which I just know I’m entitled, I naturally oppose them.
I therefore believe the Greenies should spend all THEIR money to make sure THEIR lifestyle is powered solely by windmills and solar panels. When they are living in decadent luxury after years of their toil and at their expense, they can then devote all their money and effort to making sure I’m even better off.
Oil industry “subsides” = government generously allowing producers to keep some of the profits.
“Renewables” subsidies = government generously taxing consumers of electricity to guarantee the profits of producers.
“Kenner compared the industry’s lobbying to gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights, and canal companies who protested against new railways.”
Well, no. It’s the other way around. The canal companies wanted the government to interfere to block the choices the people want, much like how most people don’t want to travel by train and spend £50K on a car.
And of course when National Rail talk about CO2 use, and cherry pick just the busiest, electric services, that’s not lobbying, not at all.
As Bloke says, the better comparison would be the theoretical case of electric companies lobbying to get gas outlawed, and railway companies lobbying to prevent people using canals.
“gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights”: he did mention, did he, that the gas companies were usually owned by the local authorities and the electric companies rarely?
O/T. If you’ve had your balls cut off you can get your pension earlier.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-backdated-state-pension-if-youre-a-transgender-woman?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=a01e897a-f87b-45ba-aa67-e388504e1aec&utm_content=weekly
I would respectfully suggest such a drastic course would not be necessary. Your wise politicians have made it remarkably easy to adopt a more financially beneficial sex. So why not do so? En mass would be even better & funnier.
Hmmmmmm… BiS has a point…
Given current rules/fads in the UK, you can file the Paperwork and “identify” as a Woman, TGIFLPOE from Working Life, and not do anything more serious than show up in a dress and make sure to wear lipstick when Official People are Watching and make some of the Right Noises.
What was that about second order consequences?