we have deep and abiding question marks surrounding how much harm we can credibly attribute to each ton of greenhouse gas emissions.
What would a Biden victory mean for the energy-importing countries of the Asia-Pacific region?
Are green jobs the bipartisan silver bullet they’re cracked up to be or are they instead a bipartisan mirage?
Californians are right to feel dismay in this situation. Basic services like electricity should be the norm, despite dry weather and upticks in wind speed. Their ire would be best directed not at PG&E, but at the regulated monopoly model that Californians themselves have maintained through their state government.
Carbon taxes are nonobjective, they are coercive, and they are impediments to prosperity.
A carbon tax with a realistic possibility of being signed into law, would not be the revenue-neutral, regulation-busting efficient solution that libertarian and conservative tax advocates desire. The political forces on the left want no part of an even nominally market-based solution.
In our evaluation of the conflict between industrial greenhouse gas emitters and coastal property owners—as in all others—economics serves as a complement to considerations of justice. And the Coasean approach affords us a valuable one.
In performing cost-benefit analyses our government has a responsibility to present the fullest view to the public that is possible. In the context of climate change, that means exploring the social cost of carbon at a wide range of discount rates, on a diversity of time horizons, and showing both the domestic and the global consequences.
What is critical, however, in rebutting the proposals is to parse the disparate, inchoate elements from one another, drawing attention to the ever-shifting justifications carbon tax advocates offer.
“More solar penetration in places like California will lead to an outcome no one wants: a less reliable electricity grid.”
Donald Trump opened himself up to mockery with his “Pittsburgh, not Paris” remark, but the Paris Agreement’s supporters have very little to offer beyond the level of “gotcha” jabs.
The Paris Agreement surrenders our political independence and stifles global energy development that benefits people across the planet.
A carbon tax—by design—will cause energy costs to soar.
A judge who focuses on applying the law by looking to the text may be just the remedy we need to halt the expansion of executive overreach and restore the balance of power in Washington.
It is critical to robust intellectual discussion of modern human life to acknowledge and celebrate the liberating role that the automobile has played in making this the greatest era in history for human flourishing.
South Australia has eschewed modernity, progress, and human well-being, and has instead chosen to chain itself to the unpredictability of intermittent sources.
By propagating the “100 percent renewable” myth, these companies—and politicians like President Obama—create a false public understanding of the viability of wind and solar energy.
By slashing the effective price for an electric car, the federal government and the state of Colorado are enriching savvy and typically wealthy consumers at the expense of everyone else.
“Generation shifting” is not a valid system of emission reduction.
By co-signing the loan for FirstElement Fuel Inc., the State of California has undermined prospective competition.
Like this content? Subscribe to support our work — it's free.
Read by students, professors, and citizens, Capitalism Magazine provides over 9,000 free to read articles and essays from pro-reason, individual rights perspective. 100% independent.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.