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?
Source.
No comments:
Post a Comment