Summary
We support:
- Environmental protection as a legitimate function of government
- Policies that are justified based on cost-benefit analysis
- Market-based mechanisms, such as taxes on pollutants, as the preferred approach to environmental policy
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
Environmental protection should be guided by practical outcomes rather than symbolic measures. When the costs of environmental regulation exceed the benefits, we as a society need to accept a less-than-perfect outcome. This is particularly true in those areas where we are not likely to be able to have a positive impact given the multinational or global nature of the problem. Efforts to protect the ozone layer were effective because international cooperation was achieved. Efforts to control global carbon emissions by giving the U.S. EPA the power to regulate U.S. carbon emissions are unlikely to be effective unless they are part of a global solution. We are much better served by the carbon tax and tariff proposal laid out in the section on climate change.
We recognize that it will not always be possible to structure environmental control through taxes and that, in some cases, regulation will be necessary.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Next Policy Position
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.