
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Reducing carbon emissions is clearly good for the environment but often imposes substantial costs. The costs are most obvious when coal companies go bankrupt, but can affect everyone indirectly through higher energy costs, slower economic growth, reduced employment, and lower business profits. Has the Environmental Protection Agency considered the costs and benefits of its regulatory mandates fairly and appropriately? Is its Clean Power Plan a bold initiative to reduce carbon pollution at power plants, or an unconstitutional usurpation of power?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
By Open to Debate4.6
21142,114 ratings
Reducing carbon emissions is clearly good for the environment but often imposes substantial costs. The costs are most obvious when coal companies go bankrupt, but can affect everyone indirectly through higher energy costs, slower economic growth, reduced employment, and lower business profits. Has the Environmental Protection Agency considered the costs and benefits of its regulatory mandates fairly and appropriately? Is its Clean Power Plan a bold initiative to reduce carbon pollution at power plants, or an unconstitutional usurpation of power?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

32,037 Listeners

30,723 Listeners

43,622 Listeners

5,111 Listeners

10,740 Listeners

773 Listeners

26,293 Listeners

4,279 Listeners

2,448 Listeners

1,106 Listeners

2,365 Listeners

7,256 Listeners

16,394 Listeners

30 Listeners

16,339 Listeners