Many say economics must focus on preserving resources for distant future generations. They say climate change is why. That's may seem convincing in the abstract, but we soon learn how hard it is to predict future needs, and to ignore present ones.
Singer's Hot Talk, Cold Science is largely a skeptical scientific inquiry about popular global-warming theses. But there is one area of this that he understands is not scientific: the policy question of what, if anything, to do about climate problems.
Climate "science" now often amounts to little more than a smug proclamation from a TV personality and a demand that everyone vote for Joe Biden.
"The race to zero [carbon emissions] would have to be coordinated through control measures—rationing, reallocating, requisitioning, sanctioning, ordering" and much more.
The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy.
The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy.
The doomsday mantra of climate activists is guided by antihumanism and a desire for control. This worldview is a grave danger to human flourishing.
Although many central bankers have claimed the central banks are instrumental in ushering in a more green economy, a closer look suggests the opposite is true.
The popular notion that indigenous peoples residing in a precapitalist order are particularly skillful at managing the earth's resources is a myth.
The so-called CLEAN Future Act is as poorly designed as its acronym. Like the Green New Deal, it consists of radical new spending proposals that the bill’s supporters would have liked for other reasons, and which aren’t even compatible.
