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
News Release
Institute President Attacks “Greenhouse Pork”
Washington, DC, March 25, 1998 — CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. today called for an end to federal subsidies for research and development…
Newsletter
Vol. II, No. 6
Politics Backdoor Implementation Some Senators fear that Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat misled them when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “We have…
News Release
Don’t Sign The Kyoto Protocol: Climate Treaty Is Dangerous to U.S., World
WASHINGTON, DC, March 16, 1998 — “The Kyoto Protocol is a dangerous treaty, and President Clinton should not sign it,” said Marlo Lewis, Jr.,…
Newsletter
Vol. II, No. 5
Politics The Administration’s Negotiating Strategy On March 4, 1998, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat reassured the House Commerce Subcommittee that the U.S. was committed to…
Op-Eds
Climate Care
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /> Full article available in pdf format …
Newsletter
Vol. II, No. 4
Politics Senator Inhofe Opposes Clinton’s Greenhouse Budget U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) has made it clear he will oppose the Clinton Administration’s $6.3 billion…
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