Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Incentive for Ratification. The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, seemed all but dead until the "Credit for Early Reductions Act," (S. 547) was introduced in the Senate. Designed to make ratification of the treaty more politically enticing, the bill would give President Clinton the power to hand out billions in subsidies to companies willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the agreement is even implemented. The only catch is that companies cannot cash in the subsidies until the Kyoto Protocol is ratified, making a vote for S.

03/10/1999
Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Incentive for Ratification. The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, seemed all but dead until the "Credit for Early Reductions Act," (S. 547) was introduced in the Senate. Designed to make ratification of the treaty more politically enticing, the bill would give President Clinton the power to hand out billions in subsidies to companies willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the agreement is even implemented. The only catch is that companies cannot cash in the subsidies until the Kyoto Protocol is ratified, making a vote for S.

03/10/1999
Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?

Dr. James Hansen — the same scientist who alarmed Americans in 1988 with claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases — has declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible.1 Hansen’s pronouncement shakes the foundation of the climate policy debate, because without reliable climate model projections and almost no evidence of a warming trend, there is little reason to anticipate catastrophic global warming.

03/03/1999
Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?

Dr. James Hansen — the same scientist who alarmed Americans in 1988 with claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases — has declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible.1 Hansen’s pronouncement shakes the foundation of the climate policy debate, because without reliable climate model projections and almost no evidence of a warming trend, there is little reason to anticipate catastrophic global warming.

03/03/1999
Capitol Comment 225 - Rails and Wires: What’s the Difference?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 225 - Rails and Wires: What’s the Difference?

As Congress takes up reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board, lawmakers will surely hear from rail shippers who want expanded "competitive access" for railroads. The basic idea is to treat railroad tracks the same way the 1996 Telecommunications Act treats local telephone wires – as facilities open for use by all competitors at a regulated rate. Under this concept, a shipper served by only one railroad could expand its options by forcing that railroad to let competing railroads use its track.

02/22/1999
Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol

Estimating the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, the international global warming treaty, has produced disagreement among the government’s energy analysts. President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) put the cost of the treaty at $12 billion annually.1 Energy experts at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) put the yearly impact as high as $397 billion.2 Who’s right? Judging by the continued failure of international negotiators to create alleged cost-saving implementation measures, such as global emissions trading, the dire projections by EIA may be all too real.

02/10/1999
Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol

Estimating the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, the international global warming treaty, has produced disagreement among the government’s energy analysts. President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) put the cost of the treaty at $12 billion annually.1 Energy experts at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) put the yearly impact as high as $397 billion.2 Who’s right? Judging by the continued failure of international negotiators to create alleged cost-saving implementation measures, such as global emissions trading, the dire projections by EIA may be all too real.

02/10/1999
Capitol Comment 219 - Governors and State Legislators are Shooting Consumers in the Foot With Health Insurance Regulations
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 219 - Governors and State Legislators are Shooting Consumers in the Foot With Health Insurance Regulations

As states look for ways to improve health care quality and affordability, many are turning to increased regulation — which does the opposite. Whether intended to expand access to particular types of coverage (health benefit mandates), require health insurers to take all comers (guaranteed issue), or make coverage affordable through price controls (community rating), health insurance regulations actually increase costs and restrict access to coverage. Health insurance regulation is growing at an explosive rate.

12/17/1998
Capitol Comment 217 - Microsoft and Monopoly
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 217 - Microsoft and Monopoly

Over the past year, Microsoft has made headlines across the country, and not just for its new and innovative products. The software giant has been the target of an antitrust case by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The government claims that Microsoft is acting anti-competitively by using its operating system, Windows, as leverage to dominate the market for Internet browsers. Before intervening in one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy, the DOJ must demonstrate that Microsoft is a monopolist rather than a successful company in a fiercely competitive market.

12/14/1998
Capitol Comment 215 - Do Rail Mergers Mean Higher Rates?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 215 - Do Rail Mergers Mean Higher Rates?

The railroad industry has undergone a large number of mergers since 1981, which has raised fears of monopolization. Some economists and most politicians equate the number of competitors or degree of industry concentration with the robustness of competition. They reason that, as mergers leave more shippers served by only one railroad, surely higher rail rates must follow.

11/20/1998

Pages