The environment’s greatest friend is technological innovation. Human ingenuity–what Julian Simon called “the ultimate resource”–has consistently enabled us to make more with less. Yet environmental laws too often throw up roadblocks to that progress, favoring the dirty status quo over a cleaner future.
Federalism is not a facile commitment to “states-rights” no matter what states do. EPA Administrator Pruit’s criticism of California’s attempt to regulate beyond its borders is entirely consistent with a commitment to federalism.
Climate change challenges conservative and libertarian instincts in a way that makes it harder to believe the evidence, no matter how strong it is. Climate evangelists likewise tend to embrace science and evidence when it confirms their prior political views and reject it otherwise. For progressives and big-government liberals, climate change is easy to accept to the extent it seems to call out for a big-government solution. But even among climate evangelicals, where science and their prior political commitments conflict, politics usually win.
Environmental permitting should supplement property rights, not destroy them.
Last week, several prominent Republicans pitched a carbon tax to the Trump administration. The plan has four pillars, meant to … More
Would eliminating Chevron deference threaten environmental protection?
Regulations can’t be defended based on overall costs v. benefits, but must be justified on the margins.
Federalism should always drive environmental policy, not just when the President is opposed to environmentalists.
Congress and the Trump administration should pursue federalism and libertarian environmentalist reforms, rather than legislating against the environment.
Lost in the much bigger election day surprise was news that a Washington state referendum to adopt a carbon tax, … More