Politics
Lawyerly Greenwashing from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
A few weeks ago, I argued that only wood and paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council really should be called a sustainable product. Much to my surprise, the post got a robo-comment from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the paper industry’s group, claiming that it, too, was a legitimate certification organization. Given SFI’s pretty shameful …
Continue reading “Lawyerly Greenwashing from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative”
CONTINUE READINGWhatever Happened to K Street?
Don’t be surprised if you find out that K Street, like other struggling American industries, is seeking a federal bailout!
CONTINUE READINGLisa Jackson Speech
Following up on Holly’s post, here is video of the speech. (And no, contrary to a rumor in the blogosphere, she didn’t call conservative critics “jack-booted thugs.” Instead, as you’ll see, she commented that they used this term about EPA.) [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcNeR6-EEGc]
CONTINUE READINGThe Case for Cap-and-Trade
Dan asked for a vote, and being a good Legal Planetary citizen, I responded — voting very reluctantly for cap-and-trade. The biggest difficulty, as is the case with most polls, lies in the phrasing of the question: “all things considered” what is “the best strategy” for controlling greenhouse gases. The problem with this locution — perhaps unavoidable …
Continue reading “The Case for Cap-and-Trade”
CONTINUE READINGMore On the Republican Anti-Fact Shield
So after I posted my tantrum about George Will the other day, I felt a little guilty. Maybe I had been too hard on The Tory Bowtie. After all, maybe his putting “facts” in scare quotes was just a slip. Then I saw this piece on the Washington Post editorial page by Republican pollster Ed Rogers, …
Continue reading “More On the Republican Anti-Fact Shield”
CONTINUE READINGA Completely Uninteresting Story
The Wall Street Journal editorial board claims that California’s new cap-and-trade regulations will cost each consumer $3,800 a year and calls it creeping Stalinism. As my UCLA (and UCLAW!) colleague Matt Kahn gently and genially points out, the Journal’s editors are engaging in cranial-rectal fusion. In other news, dog bites man, the sun rises in …
Continue reading “A Completely Uninteresting Story”
CONTINUE READINGTrolling for Anti-Environmental Plaintiffs
A reader sent me a an email from the Coalition of Energy Users trying to find plaintiffs for a challenge to AB 32 implementation. CEU claims to be a grassroots group that does not have a deep-pocket funding source, and that may be true. On the other hand, its interests are so precisely aligned with …
Continue reading “Trolling for Anti-Environmental Plaintiffs”
CONTINUE READING(What Remains Of) The Conservative Mind Melts Down
Once upon a time, George Will had a reputation as the thinking person’s conservative. No more. He’s not only a climate denier, but a couple of weeks ago he smeared Elizabeth Warren with a kind of red-baiting that I haven’t seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now he’s at it again, sort of. …
Continue reading “(What Remains Of) The Conservative Mind Melts Down”
CONTINUE READINGPeet’s Coffee Thinks You’re Stupid
…or at least not very important. Following up on my posts concerning Peet’s membership on the California Chamber of Commerce’s board of directors (here and here; Eric follows up with a left hook here), another one of our intrepid readers e-mailed Peet’s to get an explanation. Here’s what the reader got back: Peet’s is one of …
Continue reading “Peet’s Coffee Thinks You’re Stupid”
CONTINUE READINGIf Cost-Benefit Analysis is Good, Is More Cost-Benefit Analysis Always Better?
Presidential and congressional requirements for cost-benefit analysis should also recognize that
data availability may be an implementation issue, and that additional resources may be necessary
for the agencies conducting these analyses. In some cases, the data that agencies need to estimate
the costs and benefits of their rules may not exist, or may only be available from regulated
entities.128 Although there is no “typical” cost-benefit analysis (just as there is no “typical” rule),
the cost of conducting many individual regulatory analyses has been in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars.129 If more agencies are required to prepare more detailed analyses for more rules, it is
unclear how the agencies will be able to do so without more resources.130 As noted earlier in this
report, if agencies are required to prepare cost-benefit analyses for rules that are not expected to
Join Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
