Industry’s concerns trump social concern. Economic activity trumps social concern. If you’d like a reason to be cynical about whether government favors you or favors an industry, look no further than a […]
I’ve been thinking about my values a lot since the election, and I’ve realized what my most fundamental value is – fairness.
Leasing solar panels and acquiring an electric vehicle helped clear a mental block that had kept me from writing much about industrial climate disruption for about two years.
It will take more than bad science, worse logic, and fanciful claims of climate expertise to convince the Supreme Court that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations are unconstitutional.
Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit is proceeding to the discovery phase and the easily disproved false claims in the National Review’s and Mark Steyn’s latest motions to dismiss are unconvincing.
Libertarians and engineers should both engage and work to address industrial climate disruption instead of fleeing to the illusory safety of science denial.
The recent appeals court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases will stand until the Republicans control the Presidency and have a filibuster- proof majority of the Senate, or until a liberal Supreme Court Justice is replaced by a conservative.
You know you’ve spectacularly lost the argument when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals quotes Schoolhouse Rock in its opinion against you.
The states and industry groups tried to argue that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations went against the Clean Air Act in multiple ways. But the DC appeals court strongly disagreed, finding in every instance that the EPA was “unambiguously correct.”
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding was exactly what the EPA said it was – based on sound scientific evidence and anchored firmly within the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act.
