Entrepreneurship has been the backbone of the United States economy since its inception. The good news is that Americans are still entrepreneurial and willing to take risks in search of greater rewards both financially and personally. But the U.S. must ensure that its laws and regulations do not stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.
CEI's Bill Frezza recounts the tale of Galileo as precedent for the attempt today by cuckolded scientists on the take to incarcerate anyone who disagrees with the theories that have made them rich.
Larry Bell recalls what Bush Administration officials said would happen if the Clean Air Act were extended to incorporate regulation of carbon dioxide -- and none of it was good. In the words of CEQ chair James Connaughton, the “case-by-case application of old regulations to an entirely new set of circumstances and parties foreshadows unrelenting confusion, conflicts over compliance, and decades-long litigation windfall for attorneys, consultants, and activists, as communities and the courts strive to sort it all out.”
When the lesser prairie chicken was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a threatened species, it was the last straw for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. The State of Oklahoma, and likely several other states, has filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department for collusion in violating federal law. Meanwhile, four separate bills have been filed in Congress to limit attorney fees for endangered species litigants and address three other ESA concerns.
Thanks to a grassroots outcry against injustice, Virginia lawmakers passed a new law, signed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, that protects family farmers from encroachment by local governments. Martha Boneta had been barred by her county government from selling produce, fined for hosting a birthday party, and threatened with the loss of her entire farm. Environmental groups and county governments provided the major opposition to the bill.
In 2007, Congress passed a law requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into gasoline. This so-called “ethanol mandate” wiped out millions of acres of conservation land and destroyed wildlife habitat.
With domestic oil and natural gas production soaring thanks to fracking, the nation is taking a harder look at subsidies and mandates for so-called "Green" energy. EPA for the first time proposed to reduce the amount of ethanol that has to be added to gasoline. An Arizona state agency just added a $5.00 monthly fee for solar customers to help pay for use and maintenance of the state's power grid. And 52 House members have signed a letter calling for the end of the wind production tax credit just as the sixth 20,000-pound turbine blade broke off in Illinois and sent shrapnel 1,500 feet away from the turbine hub -- two to three times the legal setbacks for homes and highways.
So a few cities in Colorado and far-left Oberlin, Ohio, have passed fracking bans -- but do they dare pass bans on the sale and use of gasoline made from fracked oil, or of natural gas recovered via this controversial process? Thank goodness existing law protects citizens of single towns from being hoodwinked by activists into at least some very bad policy decisions. Yeah, we once got people to sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide as a dangerous substance!
With China controlling 85% of the world's production of rare earth elements, the rest of the world -- and in particular, the U.S. economy -- is beholden to China for its own natioanl security and the future of its high-tech economy. This could change with a determined effort to overcome environmentalist objections and reinvigorate U.S. production of many of these valuable minerals. But will enough politicians decide that jobs and security are more valuable than keeping minerals-bearing domestic lands "pristine"?
If you want to know what a carbon tax on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to America you need only look at the destruction of industry and business in Australia, along with the soaring costs for energy use it imposes on anyone there.
Proponents of a proposed carbon tax claim it would be revenue neutral, but Ph.D. economist David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation disagrees...
Rep. Luetkemeyer's bill would prohibit future U.S. funding for the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and also for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a scam devoted to redistributing American wealth in penance for our unfair capitalist free market prosperity. The rationale is that the IPCC has compromised its credibility beyond repair --
Average planetary temperatures haven’t budged in 16 years. Hurricanes and strong tornadoes are at or near their lowest ebb in decades. Global sea ice is back to normal, Arctic ice is nearly normal, and the Antarctic icepack continues to grow. The rate of sea level rise remains what it was in 1900.
Those concerned about global warming have recently been pushing the idea of a new tax on carbon emissions. But according to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation, such a carbon tax would cause serious economic harm without even making a dent in global emissions.
Would a carbon tax, now proposed by Green enthusiasts and revenue-hungry politicians, be good for the economy? Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation says no, and here explains why: