Matt Yglesias seems unhappy that ships can now carry cargo across the Arctic Ocean. But climate change is not unambiguously bad and this is one of its many benefits--a new waterway through which to transport goods.
On a related note, he wonders just why the "business community" wants to stall climate change legislation:
Firms whose operations are more carbon intensive than the average firm would be put at a competitive disadvantage, but by the same token firms whose operations are less carbon intensive than the average firm would be given a leg up. And there should be half of each.But business isn't zero-sum like this. It's possible for something to be bad for all businesses. And charging for pollution would be. In fact, it's bad for pretty much everyone alive in the U.S. right now. The prime beneficiaries of reduced carbon emissions are people who live in developing countries and the people who will inhabit the Earth fifty or 100 years from now.
Despite this, I still think a carbon tax or cap-n-trade is the way to go (not a strategy focused on energy subsidies, like that advocated for in this Prospect piece.)