Acton Institute Powerblog Archives

Post Tagged 'carbon emissions'

The Regressive Carbon Tax

A new NBER working paper promises to blow up the myth that it is primarily the wealthy that will bear the cost of taxes on carbon emissions. In “Who Pays a Price on Carbon?” Corbett A. Continue Reading...

Capitalism without Bankruptcy

On the first half of today’s installment of The Diane Rehm Show, Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute got off a good line in the midst of a discussion concerning federal regulation of emission standards. Continue Reading...

Coal-Powered Hybrids

As I said in 2006: Without too much exaggeration, you could say that today’s electric cars are really coal-powered. If you look at the sources of electricity in the US, “coal provides over half of the electricity flowing into American homes.” That means that in one ideal world of the alternative fuel crowd, when you plug your car in, you’re plugging it in to a coal plant (this is also why the idea of consumer carbon credits is catching on). Continue Reading...

What Would Jesus Drive? – Jay W. Richards in NRO

Jay W. Richards of the Acton Institute, has a commentary today in the National Review Online titled, What Would Jesus Drive?: Electrified Evangelical theological confusion. Richards notes in his article, “With respect to the environment, the theological principles are uncontroversial: human beings, as image bearers of God, are placed as stewards over the created order.” He asks four separate questions, which he calls “tough.” (1) Is the planet warming? Continue Reading...

Global Warming Consensus Alert: Silver Lining Edition

It turns out that the Chinese were really thinking ahead back in 1979 when they implemented their one child policy. After all, imagine what their carbon emissions would be today if they hadn’t: The number of births avoided equals the entire population of the United States. Continue Reading...

The Moral Calculus of Climate Change

I was thinking this morning about the moral calculus that goes into discussions about climate change policy. It’s the case that for any even or action, there are an infinite number of causes (conditions that are necessary but not sufficient for the event to occur). Continue Reading...

National Security and Energy Policy

Over at the Becker-Posner blog, the gentlemen consider the question, “Do National Security and Environmental Energy Policies Conflict?” (a topic also discussed here.) Becker predicts, “Driven by environmental and security concerns, more extensive government intervention in the supply and demand for energy are to be expected during the next few years in all economically important countries. Continue Reading...

2006 in Review, 4th Quarter

Our 2006 year in review series concludes with the fourth quarter: October “Do You See More than Just a ‘Carbon Footprint’?” Jordan J. Ballor It’s a fair question to ask, I think, of those who are a part of the radical environmentalist/population control political lobby. Continue Reading...

‘There’s no injury if there’s not global warming.’

I have read through the opening arguments (PDF) in Massachusetts, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (05-1120) conducted yesterday morning before the Supreme Court. From a layperson’s perspective I would have to say that Jonathan Adler’s characterization of the nature of the proceedings in not quite correct. Continue Reading...

Climate Change Hype Reaches Supreme Court

Right about now, the Supreme Court of the United States should be hearing the beginning arguments in Massachusetts, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (05-1120). Not much attention has been paid to this case over the last few months, but recently a spate of media attention has arisen, citing this case as perhaps “the most important environmental case in many years,” as well as “one of the biggest environmental cases in years.” (Jonathan Adler responds to the NYT editorial at The Volokh Conspiracy.) There are reasons to doubt the hype surrounding this case, however, and not just because of the dubiousness of the scientific “consensus” on climate change. Continue Reading...