There is also the constant conflating of climate policy with climate science in order to make subjective and ideological policy choices seem as if the science dictates those choices. But science informs policy, it does not provide objective answers to policy questions. However, those who disagree with the climate policy choices favored by extremists are labeled with offensive terms like deniers.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute rejects climate policies that assume Americans and humans all over the world must sacrifice their quality of living, be guilted into radical life changes, and give up on improving their standard of living in the name of fighting climate change. Even if the United States no longer existed, there would be little to no meaningful impact on global temperatures. Therefore, the myriad of extreme policies are all costs and no gain.
Using the force of government to impose policies that severely hurt humans today, especially the poor, without any meaningful benefits is not just foolish but indefensible. And when such policies are advanced, the proponents of those policies should always be expected to explain how their policy choices would meaningfully affect global temperatures. When they are unable to provide answers, which will be the case, their policy choices should be quickly dismissed.
The best way to deal with any genuine climate concerns is to remove government obstacles that hinder innovation, reduce wealth, and undermine prosperity and opportunity. Economic liberty benefits Americans generally, and at the same time, it is also the world’s best climate policy. After all, the wealthiest and most prosperous nations are far more likely to develop solutions to such problems than other nations.
Featured Posts
Blog
Europe’s heat wave tragically demonstrates the need for air conditioning
Western European nations take a very different approach from the United States on many issues — immigration, defense, welfare, energy, health care, and more.
Blog
RCP8.5: Climate establishment officially retires extreme scenario (Part II)
Part I can be found here. Victim of its own success? Perhaps to save face or even boast of being right…
Blog
RCP8.5: Climate establishment officially retires extreme scenario (Part I)
Thanks to the scholarship, courage, and perseverance of a handful of independent researchers, notably Roger Pielke, Jr., Justin Ritchie, and Hadi…
Search Posts
Blog
The Great Greenhouse Rollback Begins
On Tuesday, March 28, President Trump signed his Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. The E.O. directs agencies to suspend, revise,…
Blog
Top Three Silliest Reactions to Trump’s Climate Executive Order
#3 Silliest Reaction: Red Scare! According to Nathan Richardson at Resources for the Future, the big problem with Trump’s Executive Order is what it signals…
Blog
More Anxiety over White House Budget for EPA
Whatever the administration hopes to accomplish with its budget, it must work with Congress.
Blog
Trump Must Avoid ‘Read My Lips’-style Blunder on Carbon Tax
Someone should remind Trump that carbon-tax elder statesman and CLC leader James Baker is recycling the fatal advice he gave to President George H. W.
Blog
White House Proposes Expanded Cuts to EPA Budget
The White House is going to send Congress an EPA budget that is $5.7 billion, or 31% below current funding of $8.1 billion.
Blog
Federal Budget Must Demand Value for Taxpayer Dollars
Competitive Enterprise Institute Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray responded to President Trump’s budget proposal today.
Staff & Scholars
Sam Kazman
Counsel Emeritus
- Antitrust
- Automobiles and Roads
- Banking and Finance
Marlo Lewis, Jr.
Senior Fellow
- Climate
- Energy
- Energy and Environment
Ben Lieberman
Senior Fellow
- Climate
- Consumer Freedom
- Energy
Jacob Tomasulo
Policy Analyst
- Climate
- Energy
- Energy and Environment
Kevin D. Williamson
Writer in Residence
- Climate
- Energy and Environment