Regulatory Policy
Which Effects Count?
Conservatives argue that only the effects that they care about should matter.
Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of the skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.
CONTINUE READINGThe Woeful Economics of a Misguided Rollback
The costs of Trump’s rollback of key climate rules far outweigh any benefits.
Trump’s rollback of regulations limiting emissions from power plants is an economic disaster. According to economists, health damages far exceed savings from lower compliance costs. Just considering health impacts alone, the net cost of the rollback will be $129 billion through 2050. Climate damages add another $148 billion in costs.
CONTINUE READINGHow Trump’s War on Research Hurts the US Economy
NSF Logo
The economic evidence confirms the huge benefits of government support for research.
One of the victims of the Trump Administration has been scientific research, notably including research on the environment, clean technologies, and even public wealth. The government’s own research capacity is under attack from agencies from EPA to NIH, grants to universities have been cancelled, and future funding from agencies like NIH and NSF is in peril. Yet the Administration has given little though about how this effects competitiveness in a high-tech world.
CONTINUE READINGListing Trump’s Environment and Energy Executive Orders
I’m counting 35 so far. But I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that I’d missed something.
I’ve put together a list of all the Trump 2.0 executive orders that I could identify dealing with environment or energy. Just to keep you reading, I should tell you that the most important ones are near the end. Whatever you might say about Trump, no one can question his zeal for eliminating environmental protections.
CONTINUE READINGWhy Repeal the Endangerment Finding?
The aims may be overturning Mass v. EPA and avoiding new rulemakings.
Much will be said about the weakness of the various justifications EPA and the Department of Energy offered yesterday about why greenhouse gases do not endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. Those justifications are, indeed, remarkably weak. For example, DOE’s argument that economic damages appear to be lower than economists estimate …
Continue reading “Why Repeal the Endangerment Finding?”
CONTINUE READINGShortchanging the Environment While Making NEPA More Chaotic
Trump replaced a coherent set of rules governing the executive branch with a welter of agency-specific regulations.
In one of Trump’s first executive orders, he eliminated a centralized system that Jimmy Carter initially set up to issue regulations governing environmental impact statements. Instead, he called on each agency to issue its own regulations, which seems to have caused the predictable amount of confusion. There seems to be little rhyme or reason in the variations
CONTINUE READINGDoes the Law Require Cost-Benefit Analysis?
According to the D.C. Circuit, the answer is no.
Putting aside the particulars of the case, it seems wrong to apply the same standard (monetized cost-benefit analysis) to every provision in environmental law. These provisions have different language, reflecting differences in congressional priorities. Some provisions, for instance, may be designed push industry to find innovative solutions; others may reflect Congress’s value judgments or a desire to limit EPA’s discretion. We shouldn’t assume that the myriad differences in statutory language are irrelevant and that Congress wanted agencies to adopt the same method of making decisions in every case.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Wrap-Up)
Trump’s EPA says carbon emissions from U.S. power plants are too insignificant to regulate.
U.S. power plants emit 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, a little less than the entire country of Russia. The Trump Administration is proposing to end all regulation of carbon emissions by power plants, on the theory that these emissions should be considered insignificant. They have some complicated legal arguments , but the arguments break down the more closely you look at them.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part III)
How did EPA get to the absurd conclusion that 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions aren’t significant? Well might you ask.
There is a very good chance that a court would strike down a EPA’s current finding that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector are too insignificant to regulate. EPA’s effort to explain its ultimate conclusion rests on a hodgepodge of poorly analyzed considerations, which obviously have been reverse engineered to lead to EPA’s preferred conclusion.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part I)
EPA says the electricity sector’s climate impacts aren’t significant. Really??
EPA has proposed a novel reading of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would foreclose any regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants. EPA’s core argument is that the statute requires it to determine whether an industry’s emissions “cause or contribute significantly” to climate change and that the industry’s carbon emissions don’t meet that standard. …
Continue reading “The Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part I)”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
