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.
The human mind is the ultimate resource because it, and only it, creates all of the other economically valuable inputs that we call “resources.”
When social media platforms only pick certain politically disfavored positions to add Wiki links to, they skew debate.
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.
I’m glad Twitter purges robots and Facebook bans posts that call for direct violence (that’s illegal, after all). But I worry when big media companies start policing content.
Taking taxpayers’ money and allocating it to fighting climate change, the causes of which are complex, is not rational but irrational climate policy.
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.
Regulating public utilities to be “neutral” has led to ever-escalating prices and poor service (think of postal services and roads), due to inefficient operations and the lack of incentives—competition—to lower costs and to improve service.
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.
Is nature’s inherent dynamism responsible for the climate change of our era? Or are the cause(s) man-made?
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.
“Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is supremely virtuous—because human life is the standard of value and because using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human life.”
Only by recognizing the moral value of its work, can business stand up and defend itself like Resolute Forest Products has done.
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.
Governments’ use of force to curtail CO2 emissions is not only futile—it undermines freedom of business and of the rest of us, and therefore, human prosperity and flourishing.
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.
The environmentalist and other activist leaders concentrate on reversing human progress and diminishing human well-being as much as possible.
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.
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.
Read by students, professors, and citizens, Capitalism Magazine provides over 9,000 free to read articles and essays from pro-reason, individual rights perspective.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.