Presumably she's referring to her first proposal -- a carbon tax. It's my understanding that there's nearly consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the most efficient solution to global warming, but political consensus that it would never happen when framed as a tax.
If you don't know what a carbon tax is, or why it's orders of magnitude more efficient a solution than "eat less meat" I'd encourage you to look into it a bit. Essentially if you create a system where what is best for the planet is also the cheapest course of action (for individuals and businesses), you no longer have to rely on convincing every single individual to change their morality/beliefs.
We should not be making energy expensive for the lay person.
Provide subsidies to build new solar, wind and nuclear farms - sure.
The world will quickly adapt renewable energy if it is much cheaper and convenient to use it.
In similar vein, for god sake don’t tax solar panels above usual tax rate. I’m looking at Arizona.
The biggest mistake any democratic government can make is life more expensive and miserable for their population.
That seldom goes well.
Is it something like a downvoted comment? I fail to see a downvote button (which I am happy about).
I've found HN pretty divided when it comes topics like energy/climate/electric vehicles, immigration and foreign policy.
Before I used to feel bad, now I somewhat expect to be downvoted bringing up anything that doesn't fit someone's worldview.
I lived a decade in Seattle, WA which is a strong blue/liberal state as it goes. Sometimes pretty extreme. Now I am in Florida which is now a solid red state since Trump. It's interesting to see how the thought bubbles and world views have formed.