Easy-money policies pushed by central banks may be redirecting wealth away from investment, and toward greater production and consumption of cheap consumer goods. That's not "green."
Central planners cannot calculate the costs and benefits of environmental policy.
The State of California is now forcing insurance companies to cover homeowners who put their houses in some of the most fire-prone areas. What could go wrong?
The ECB, always happy to repeat the mistakes of Japan, is likely to start new programs of debt monetization for green projects and claim it is a different, radical and new measure.
Despite the IMF’s claims to the contrary, the case of Sweden actually shows that a political “solution” to climate change is ineffective.
The standard Austrian approach to air pollution and regulation rejects the bean-counting of winners and losers, and instead embraces a property rights approach.
From the beginning, the “97% consensus” claim about climate change has been dubious, with supporters claiming that it represented much more than it really did.
Environmentalists rightly point out it is very difficult to manage a complex ecosystem. But they conveniently ignore the fact it's even more difficult to manage an economic system — especially one thrown into disarray by environmental regulations.
There are only two ways to solve environmental challenges: competition and technology. That requires capitalism, not the government.
It appears many Indians and Brazilians and Chinese are willing to risk the global warming for a chance at experiencing even a small piece of what wealthy first-world climate activists have been enjoying all their lives.
