I'd argue the Economist generally doesn't stray too far from the neoclassical synthesis (i.e. what most would generally call 'mainstream' or 'textbook' economic

I'd argue the Economist generally doesn't stray too far from the neoclassical synthesis (i.e. what most would generally call 'mainstream' or 'textbook' economics). Just a small aside: if someone is sceptical that climate change is occurring, logically that should not indicate how they view environmental regulation in general (in cases where they agree some environmental harm is occurring). I realise this might not always be the case in reality. If someone tells you they don't believe climate change is occurring because they oppose environmental regulations, it's a pretty good indication that they're full of it.