The Environment

Despite the IMF’s claims to the contrary, the case of Sweden actually shows that a political “solution” to climate change is ineffective.

The standard Austrian approach to air pollution and regulation rejects the bean-counting of winners and losers, and instead embraces a property rights approach.

From the beginning, the “97% consensus” claim about climate change has been dubious, with supporters claiming that it represented much more than it really did.

Environmentalists rightly point out it is very difficult to manage a complex ecosystem. But they conveniently ignore the fact it's even more difficult to manage an economic system — especially one thrown into disarray by environmental regulations.

There are only two ways to solve environmental challenges: competition and technology. That requires capitalism, not the government.

It appears many Indians and Brazilians and Chinese are willing to risk the global warming for a chance at experiencing even a small piece of what wealthy first-world climate activists have been enjoying all their lives.

Europe is seeing the dangers of allowing demagogy to dictate energy policy. 

This should be shocking to naïve citizens and those who assumed that “the science” must all support the UN’s temperature goals.

Activists who genuinely believe the world faces catastrophe should give serious consideration to David Henderson’s reasons for thinking a carbon tax might be a false “solution."

Brazil — and its longtime disregard for property rights — has shown us how not to manage forest lands. Current calls for government solutions to forest fires do nothing to offer real solutions.