
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

32,246 Listeners

30,609 Listeners

43,687 Listeners

5,130 Listeners

10,747 Listeners

781 Listeners

26,380 Listeners

4,270 Listeners

2,461 Listeners

1,110 Listeners

2,380 Listeners

7,244 Listeners

16,512 Listeners

32 Listeners

16,525 Listeners