I really shouldn't let the above pass without comment. You have a comprehension problem. She is speaking about the "advocates of climate change legislation," not herself, in the portion you selected.
investigateworld,
She uses a literary device of rationalizing your opponents arguments to the logical conclusion, a conclusion your opponent won’t admit to. She is making the arguments the proponents of Cap and Trade make, then filling in the blanks of what happens..
Rush often does this with humor (illustrating the absurdity by being absurd).. Daniella is much more intellectual and nuanced in her approach, she isn’t trying to be funny, it is more like she is finishing the equation for the cap and trade proponents.