Yeah, no. On the first point, I'm pointing out that the correlation between economic freedom and poverty has no basis in reality, because it's based on an ahistorical, propaganda-driven, intentional misreading of a few decades of post-war data that completely ignores world systems or any kind of global political equality, let alone colonialism. Which is itself a very, very old take, which you would know if you have any kind of reference point for economics. But that would require subjecting your conservative "ideas" to the confrontational presence of an actual education.

In the second point, I'm arguing that economic incentives like tax breaks, fantastical technological solutions, and meek regulations are incapable of addressing climate change. I further contextualize this argument later, when I point out that Norway is only green insofar as it externalizes the negative environmental impacts of its heroine-like economic addiction to fossil fuels. You don't even need to read a book to know that, you just need to be literate enough to read what I wrote in the post above.

In the third point, I'm pointing out that it makes sense that you're completely uneducated about either of these issues, because you've bought into that Norwegian brand of conservativism which engages in the magical thinking that decontextualizes the economy and environmental policies of Norway from the global contexts and imagines that every other nation could somehow simultaneously exist in the same form. I didn't comment on the EEA because I don't think it's fucking relevant to Thom Yorke, Boris Johnson, Discourse, Rhetoric, Politics, Climate Change, or really anything we're talking about at all. You're literally just saying "EEA" like it's an argument. And that's fucking fine, because I'll chalk it up to composing thoughts as effectively as you interpret them.