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
Environmental Litigation Strategies and Defenses for Trump Era
Environmental litigation groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity will pursue three types of lawsuits over the…
Blog
Energy & Environmental Policy News: Multimedia Roundup
Observations and analysis on recent energy and environment news by senior fellow William Yeatman.
Blog
Is It ‘Mission Accomplished’ for the EPA?
Does it make any sense to spend ever greater sums of money for ever fewer environmental benefits? That’s the very fair question that’s been asked…
Blog
What Paul Ehrlich’s “Eco-Catastrophe!” Tells Us about Climate Change Alarmism
In “Eco-Catastrophe,” the bad guys are “obtuse agriculturists and economists” whose false bill of goods (the green revolution) plunges the globe into anarchy. In real…
Blog
RealClear Radio Hour: The War on Science and the Economy
Check out RealClear Radio Hour’s last episode with free market stalwarts John Tierney and Peter Wallison.
Blog
Obama Couldn’t Win a Third Term, Because He Would Have To Own His Global Warming Policy
I strongly doubt that President Obama would win a third term, as he claimed yesterday.
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