
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
21062,106 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

32,148 Listeners

30,652 Listeners

5,103 Listeners

782 Listeners

2,436 Listeners

1,511 Listeners

902 Listeners

794 Listeners

7,077 Listeners

728 Listeners

31 Listeners

545 Listeners

825 Listeners

16,076 Listeners

8,784 Listeners