Policies to promote biofuels are extensive. The political rhetoric justifying them typically takes one of three forms. The first is to support farmer wealth.  The second is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And the third is to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rebuffed environmentalists in their bid to get the judiciary to intervene in the global-warming controversy by invoking the old common law of nuisance, as though global warming could be solved through an injunction.

Can improved technologies help developing countriesreduce energy use per unit of economic output to produce greater wealth, health, and environmental quality?

The greenhouse effect is real--without it none of us would be alive.

In the latest setback for global warming activists, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last Friday that the Clean Air Act does not require theEPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The United Nations conference in Copenhagen will follow in the hypocritical footsteps of Kyoto, with countries declaring their resolution to curb GHG emissions while at the same time either refusing to pay the costs or claiming exemption from controls.

America's entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are passing up a chance to earn billions of dollars by investing in technologies to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions.

Waxman-Markey is a bundle of contradictions.