
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

32,245 Listeners

30,694 Listeners

43,534 Listeners

5,131 Listeners

10,697 Listeners

778 Listeners

26,391 Listeners

4,295 Listeners

2,470 Listeners

1,112 Listeners

2,372 Listeners

7,290 Listeners

16,493 Listeners

36 Listeners

16,362 Listeners