A new "state of the climate" report from 13 Federal agencies says Americans may already be experiencing the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, President Trump is doubling down in defense of his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. This may have been a prudent decision, but Trump's reasons for ignoring the accord's emissions reductions goals are based on the same flawed logic that he's used to promote protectionist trade policy. Namely, the President says he stands for "Pittsburgh, not Paris" – suggesting that what’s good for one (environmentally or economically) is bad for the other. In June, Professor Richard Epstein corrected Trump’s zero-sum mindset on trade. The Professor returns to the show with an economic analysis of why the Paris agreement is a bad deal. Bob will pose a thought experiment to highlight the core principles (or lack thereof) behind typical environmental regulations. What are our obligations to future generations when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions? Can we analyze environmental externalities within the framework of the libertarian non-aggression principle, or is the cause-and-effect too flimsy to inflict damages on the biggest emitters? Tune in for another edition of Advanced Topics in Libertarianism with "The Libertarian” himself.
- @RichardAEpstein | Twitter
- “Defining Ideas” - Column by Richard A. Epstein | Hoover Institution
- AUDIO - Forget The Paris Accords | Hoover Institution - The Libertarian Podcast – May 30, 2017
- Containing Climate Change Hysteria | Hoover Institution, June 5, 2017