Today's comment comes to us from SocialBlunder, accompanying a Slate article arguing against banning incandescent light bulbs:
If you think it is safe to wait for a deus ex machina to reduce CO2 before climate change caused agriculture failure, flooding, droughts then waiting for innovation is reasonable. Unfortunately we are already above 350 ppm (http://www.350.org/en/understanding-350#11). Adding coal plants and developing tar sand oil are now moral issues. Patio heaters, heated car seats, light bulbs, and fireplaces in air conditioned hotel lobbies are those same issues writ small.
It is the role of government to ban or tax undesirable behavior. This has to mean behavioral change – I don’t think we will find an energy source as calorie dense as fossil fuels, so “luxurious” patio heaters may have to give way to warmer socks and a sweater.
Who gets to decide what is undesirable? The government? Pass. It amazes me that anyone could write this with a straight face. I guess they think that if that sort of totalitarianism ever comes to pass, they'll be magically elevated to the role of arbiter based on their ideological purity or something.
Until that happens, excuse me while I point and laugh.