“… the biggest earthquake is the Donald Trump factor. If things play out the way they look like they will, he is going to get the nomination, and he is going to be utterly decimated in November…. He will not just be defeated, he will be slaughtered.”

– Jerry Taylor, February 23, 2016 [1]

“What we stand to lose [from the Paris withdrawal] is a seat at the table and trust in America’s ability to deal with big problems….  To see it undone for the purpose of satisfying craven nationalism is distressing…. The climate, national security, and economic implications of turning our backs on the world are hard to fathom, but they may run very deep.”

– Niskanen Center, May 31, 2017 (below)

The bizarre makeover of Jerry Taylor from trenchant foe of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation to Big Government bodyguard has been told elsewhere.…

[Editor Note: On June 1, 2017, President Trump provided one of the greatest political moments in the history of the sustainability debate between Malthusianism and free-market environmentalism with this decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. His statement (and that of EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt) are reprinted below.

“Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

“The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth…. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs.”

[Editor note: This is a repost from Marlo Lewis, Jr.’s piece from last year, published at the CEI blogsite. It is particularly relevant given the increasing isolation of R Street and the Niskanen Center in the climate-change debate.]

“… it is untrue that conservatives have been trying to beat something with nothing. Our “something” is climate realism and an energy sector free to power a growing economy because government eschews all forms of market favoritism.”

“The 2016 elections have given conservatives and free marketers an unexpected and rare opportunity to help a bold president change the direction of national policy. We squander that opportunity if we instead legitimize the progressive movement’s anti-fossil fuel crusade and promote an economically-destructive tax that would actually grow government under the pretense of streamlining it.”

“Substituting CO2 taxation for existing levies is not the tax debate from the conservative/free market side. The debate is about the flat tax versus a consumption tax as fundamental tax reform. And, hypothetically, if Malthusian decarbonization were to come about, what would be revenue-neutral?”

“In Neeley’s defense, he switched sides assuming that Obama energy policy would continue at the federal level. That way, he could argue [in his lucrative new position] that a CO2 tax was the least worst policy compared to cap-and-trade and existing command-and-control (still a weak argument). But Trump won, and the tide went out… [leaving] Neeley exposed an energy/climate progressive (statist).”

“The conservative/libertarian position is to not price or otherwise regulate carbon dioxide. Eliminate intervention, do not introduce it. Reject Mathusianism’s ultimately anti-humanistic, deep-ecology worldview.”

In “Confessions of a former Carbon Tax Skeptic,” Josiah Neeley of the pretend free-market R Street Institute, pens his latest case for supporting a federal tax on carbon dioxide (CO2).…