Comm Goes Green

I’m trying to argue that this author (who uses this analogy) is using fallacious reasoning. What are some obvious differences?

The author’s writes the following:
"Just as 20th-century socialists savaged capitalism for all the world’s ills and offered worthless “five-year plans” as a replacement, so today’s environmentalists savage industrial energy and offer us “green energy plans” that they assure us will work–once we give them the power to forbid everything else that has already been proven to work."

Any ideas on disproving this?

First, any such assertion is pretty silly. Our government doesn’t tell us where to live, what we must grow on our farm, and send us to the Gulag if we disagree with them. However:

- We don’t have plans — more like objectives.
- We don’t force actions (generally) we reward success.
- I haven’t seen anyone "assure us" that any plan will work.

Quite clearly, dumping old oil into the creek out back does get rid of it. For us. If it’s a problem for someone down stream, why should we care?

That kind of attitude is quite appropriate for the government to ban. It’s also appropriate to regulate air quality. Look up into your sky, and compare it with this:

http://images.google.com/images?q=china%20pollution