Energy

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 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.

Why are businesses not gearing up for the post-carbon economy?

“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.

A carbon tax—by design—will cause energy costs to soar.

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.

Fonda’s attack on the oil sands is inconsequential; Trudeau’s is evil.

Government-caused uncertainty, such as not approving pipeline construction or imposing more taxes (such as the carbon tax), discourages investment and thus prevents employment recovery.

Telus doesn’t get that its role is the creation of material values (cell phone service), not encouraging more taxation. On the contrary, it should oppose the carbon tax and any other taxes as they destroy human welfare.

Recognizing facts and assessing them by the standard of human flourishing inevitably leads to the conclusion that fossil fuel companies are not villains but producers of essential human value and deserve to be not attacked, but thanked.

“Generation shifting” is not a valid system of emission reduction.

As appeasement and pursuit of ‘social license’ is futile, other oil and pipeline executives should follow Girling’s example and defend their companies on moral grounds for the great value they provide. Governments, for their part, should cease their welfare-destroying climate change policies and focus on protecting individual rights instead.

By co-signing the loan for FirstElement Fuel Inc., the State of California has undermined prospective competition.

Is the premise that catastrophic man-made climate change is happening and that corporations, particularly those involved in producing fossil fuels, are largely culpable, valid?

Individual rights include the freedom to use whichever sources of energy people and businesses want, as long as they don’t violate others’ rights.

Despite the increased use of fossil fuels, toxic pollution has already decreased significantly, and the availability of clean water has increased—thanks to human ingenuity and innovation.

Obama and environmentalists have it in for fossil fuels because they are, overwhelmingly, the form of energy that lifts millions out of poverty and sustains lives longer and healthier than any before.

Most people in industrialized countries take the availability of such energy for granted: we turn on a switch, and the power is there, for heating, cooling, lighting, manufacturing, transportation, and for any other human purpose.

Ethanol is an expensive boondoggle that wouldn’t survive in a competitive market.

The feather in Mr. DiCaprio’s dunce cap is his hypocrisy over fossil fuels — without the energy provided by the fossil fuel companies, the Hollywood film industry could not exist, and DiCaprio could not have had the career and earned wealth he has.