
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
21102,110 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

32,005 Listeners

38,509 Listeners

6,784 Listeners

30,732 Listeners

25,785 Listeners

8,767 Listeners

9,190 Listeners

3,983 Listeners

5,094 Listeners

777 Listeners

111,970 Listeners

7,222 Listeners

16,357 Listeners

15,833 Listeners

619 Listeners