This week, I wanted to look into the government failings regarding climate change. I located an articles on The Hill entitled, “Pork-barrel Politics at the EPA,” which examined the motives behind the EPA’s regulation of climate change.
The article was focused on the fact that the EPA used the “co-benefits” of recent carbon emission regulations. The author, concerned that these antics will make Americans skeptical that there are any benefits to the carbon regulation itself. He wrote that, “This strategy may bring on board as supporters people who doubt the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but it begs the question: If climate change is truly insurmountable and raises the possibility of truly catastrophic harm, why are the direct benefits of climate change regulation much smaller than the co-benefits?”
As I was very intrigued by this post, I responded to the article. Here is a lin