My stance on climate change is that even if the models and the measurements are not flawed, and we can ascertain that human industrialization has caused a climatic shift, I'm 100% certain that State-planned central management can NEVER under any circumstance be successful at palliating it.

Not only because science can diagnose the problem but not necessarily have the right solutions, but because central planning simply is incompetent and immoral by definition.

In fact, the more the Corporatist State embroils itself in it, the worse the result will be.

On the other hand, as a libertarian, I think Henry George got it exactly right, and people should pay rent on their usage and the deterioration they cause with their economic activity of non-produced non-renewable resources, like land and the atmosphere.

Not on any form of economic and productive activity they carry out, only on their exclusive appropriation and consumption of resources that they did not originate.

I also think that unlike with "global climate" events, science can be a lot more accurate and trustworthy when it comes to local events and resources as georgist policies would demand.

To simplify: tell me you want non-emission vehicles because they save my town from pulmonary disease and stunted infantile growth. Not because the ocean levels in whatever buttfuck country on the other side of the world.

In the first case, we can campaign together until we convince people to walk and cycle more and stop burning so much diesel. In the second case, I know for a fact you're being sneaky with me and probably have ulterior hidden motives, and I will adamantly fight against you.