Climate 

Change Ben,s answer 

Absolutely. The question isn’t whether to conserve the environment. It’s what the best way to
do so is while balancing the concerns of humanity. This requires answering two questions: how
much certainty is there about how much the climate is going to change? And what policies are
most conducive to preventing that climate change while preserving economic growth and
prosperity?

That means that we’re going to have to look beyond a lot of the virtue signaling associated with
the Kyoto Protocols and Paris Accord, e.g. And as Oren Cass has stated regarding IPCC
estimates, which are generally accepted by the left, “By averaging widely varying projections
and assuming no aggressive efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, they estimate an
increase of three to four degrees Celcius (five to seven degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100.
The associated rise in sea levels over the course of the twenty-first century, according to the
IPCC, is 0.6 meters (two feet).” But as Cass points out, economic growth will be hampered by
just $20 trillion out of a $510 trillion global GDP, if estimates hold; science will also progress,
so life expectancy and health standards will continue to rise. In other words, gradual and
steady change in the climate does not portend catastrophe per se.

The left’s chief tool here is redistributionism and regulation. But technological change through
the free market will be the best tool, in my opinion — so, for example, fracking has helped
dramatically decrease carbon emissions by reducing coal reliance. We need to put all solutions,
including free markets, on the table. My problem with the climate change debate is that there
seems to be no tolerance for actual debate, even if we accept the premise that climate change is
man made and the earth will warm by the IPCC estimate.