Supply, demand, and prices affect human usage of natural resources in such a way that the most scarce and valued resources are economized and preserved. The practical effect is that valuable resources never really run out.
To borrow a line from Al Gore, this strikes me as a “risky scheme.”
The rhetorical framing of "climate change" is far removed from the underlying research. And the real-world costs of "doing something" are rarely considered.
Environmental activists admit that the Paris Agreement wasn't a "solution" to climate change, they should actually be thanking Trump for abandoning it.
Environmental activists in US politics are making it quite clear that their goal is nothing short of a socialist economic revolution.
The scare tactics from Beto O'Rourke and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is yet another example demonstrating the farce of the climate change policy debate.
You don’t make people better off by artificially making energy more expensive. You only make them poorer.
The emergence of "catastrophe bonds" in recent decades suggests an interesting way that Climate Warriors could alleviate the presumed costs of climate change — assuming climate activists are willing to spend any of their own money on the problem.
If Canadian provinces (or US states) implement a regional carbon tax, they shouldn’t fool themselves that they are “doing the right thing.” Households and businesses will suffer from higher energy prices and slower economic growth, with very little to show for it.
The Green New Deal contains a wish list of progressive social and economic goals that come with a staggering price tag.
