Reducing carbon emissions is clearly good for the environment but often imposes substantial costs. The costs are most obvious when coal companies go bankrupt, but can affect everyone indirectly through higher energy costs, slower economic growth, reduced employment, and lower business profits. Has the Environmental Protection Agency considered the costs and benefits of its regulatory mandates fairly and appropriately? Is its Clean Power Plan a bold initiative to reduce carbon pollution at power plants, or an unconstitutional usurpation of power?
Bob Barr0 Items
- The 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and Board Member of the National Rifle Association
Jeffrey Rosen0 Items
- Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School and the Legal Affairs Editor of the New Republic
Nadine Strossen4 Items
More from Nadine Strossen
- Fmr President, ACLU & Professor, New York Law School