Last year, in one of his first actions on inauguration day, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to stop using the social cost of carbon (SCC) when weighing the costs and benefits of regulations. The decision prompted predictable outrage from many environmental activists, climate scientists, and economists, who argued that abandoning the SCC would strip climate regulations of their scientific grounding.
A new climate change lawsuit filed last week in Washington State takes a novel approach by arguing that the fossil-fuel industry is responsible for rising homeowners’ insurance premiums. The plaintiffs, two Washington residents, claim their costs have increased because of a growing number of climate-related natural disasters.
As politicians and philanthropists shift their attention to other global issues, many journalists and scientists continue to sound the alarm about climate change. There is a tendency, however, to highlight only the most negative interpretations of new research in order to amplify public concern and emphasize urgency. As a result, press releases and news stories far too often overstate or misrepresent the scientific findings they cite.
New York State recently approved construction of a controversial natural-gas pipeline in an effort to ease rising energy prices and prevent future supply shortages. The decision drew criticism from Democratic politicians and environmental groups, who argue that the underwater pipeline will compromise water quality and further entrench reliance on fossil fuels.
That alarmist messaging has never been particularly helpful. It creates an all-or-nothing perspective on climate change, where one side pushes for aggressive mitigation efforts at the expense of all other considerations, while the other dismisses climate risks altogether. It’s time to drop that framing and instead adopt a perspective that puts climate risks in context.
Washington’s latest energy-policy controversy centers on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent decision to cancel billions of dollars in grants, including subsidies for clean energy and greenhouse-gas-reduction projects. As companies appeal and policymakers debate the validity of these cancellations, it is worth considering the proper role of government in promoting energy innovation.
The debate over rising electricity prices in Washington has revealed a strange paradox. Republicans blame climate policies and renewable energy subsidies for driving up costs. Democrats, meanwhile, claim rates are rising because the Trump administration rolled back clean-energy incentives. Both stories cannot be entirely accurate. Renewables cannot simultaneously be the cause and the cure for high prices.
President Trump’s comments drew quick condemnation, with California Governor Gavin Newsom arguing the US is “ceding our leadership to China.” But anyone seriously claiming that China is a global leader on climate policy has not been paying attention.
Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.
Thank you for signing up