What, exactly, had I said that was so dangerous as to lead Democrats to engage in character assassination and undermine liberal democratic norms? Nothing I hadn’t already said last January when I testified before Congress about climate change and energy.
The Congo has a way of putting first-world prophecies of climate apocalypse into perspective.
To call SARS-CoV-2 the “pandemic of the century” is a figure of speech, and an optimistic one at that.
Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.
A consensus has grown in the UK among Conservatives and much of Labour that it needs nuclear not just for climate change but also to reduce its dependence on imported natural gas.
Protection at the cost of a planned economy and a surveillance state would be no protection at all.
Even prior to the pandemic, Barclays was predicting that the alternative-meat industry could grow ten-fold by the end of the next decade.
Technological knowledge, fueled by capital, has allowed us to do many things categorically unlike the achievements of other species as far as we know.
To plan for problems ahead, such as droughts, was a better survival strategy than expecting an eternity of bountiful harvests.
Progressive environmentalists should welcome the addition of young conservatives to the broader environmentalist movement, but they must check some of their legislative ambitions at the door in order to pass meaningful, effective environmentalist policies.
The prospect of stagnating incomes amidst ruinous pension and other costs comprise a toxic cocktail with potentially profound de-stabilizing effects.
The right way to look at anthropogenic climate change is as an unexpected side-effect of something that, by and large, proved an immense blessing to humanity.
