Regulatory Policy
Jefferson, Adams, and the Environment
The Founding Fathers were more environmentally aware than we give them credit for. Woke, even.
These writings don’t prove that either Jefferson or Adams was an “environmentalist” in the modern sense. But they do show an attitude toward nature that modern environmentalists would recognize. It wasn’t until the end of the 19th Century that the Sierra Club was founded, and environmentalism didn’t become a national force until the 1960s. But we tend to overlook just how deep the roots of environmentalism go in American history. In that sense, environmentalism is as American as the Fourth of July. That’s one aspect of the Founding Fathers you won’t see on any government website this year.
CONTINUE READINGProject 2025 Was Awful. Trump Has Been Worse.
Trump disowned Project 2025. In retrospect, it seems like he considered it too moderate.
When the Heritage Foundation released Project 2025, there was a big hullabaloo, and Trump quickly disowned it. Bad as it was, however, it appears Project 2025 apparently failed to anticipate the full sweep of Trump’s second term. Many of Trump’s actions mirror Project 2025 recommendations, but in some key areas he’s gone much further. Here …
Continue reading “Project 2025 Was Awful. Trump Has Been Worse.”
CONTINUE READINGThe Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Bayer
Bayer gets the litigation relief it was looking for in the Monsanto Roundup case.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Monsanto in its ongoing effort to contain its vast and growing litigation exposure stemming from its best-selling product, Roundup—the most popular weed killer in the world. In a decision by Justice Kavanaugh (joined by six other justices), the Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts the state law …
Continue reading “The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Bayer”
CONTINUE READINGThe Environment Dies in Darkness
Suppressing the rights of free speech and association is deadly to environmental protection.
It’s not a coincidence that the title of this post is taken from what used to be the motto for the Washington Post until its billionaire owner decided that democracy was not, after all, a priority. Because of the inherently collective nature of environmental protection, democracy and environmental protection are inseparable. The government’s efforts to suppress opponents have a cumulative effect, creating a climate of repression. If we want to fight global warming, we also need to fight the chilling effects of repression on First Amendment freedoms.
The Latest Step in Trump’s War on Science
OMB’s proposed new rule seeks to politicize research funding across the entire federal government
Last week, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a sweeping new regulation of grants across the federal government. Here are two quick takeaways. First, OMB gives every sign of realizing it is on shaky legal ground. Second, the OMB rule seeks to continue Trump’s 2025 campaign to rip apart research funding. The goals of that campaign were to destabilize scientific research; squelch research on forbidden topics like climate change, clean energy, race, and gender; and inhibit academic criticism of the Administration. The legal basis for the 2025 campaign was dubious, resulting in serious litigation setbacks. OMB is now trying to create a foundation for making the war on science permanent.
CONTINUE READINGThe Compelling Case for Clean Energy Subsidies
There’s a solid economic case for government support
Tax credits and direct subsidies sound like handouts. That’s not true in the case of renewable energy and electric vehicles. No should feel bashful in advocating for these subsidies. They provide very real benefits to society, not just to the shareholders in a few firms. Tax credits and subsidies. like those that were contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, will help us avoid many billions of dollars a year of harm to our environment and health. They will also make America competitive in what are clearly the industries of the future, rather than abandoning the field to China.
CONTINUE READINGGas Pains
Higher gas prices are inflicting real pain on lower-income families.
Commentators seem bemused by the intense political reaction to gasoline prices, which are up by about a dollar a gallon due to the war. No doubt the reaction is accentuated because gas prices are highly visible. People buy gas frequently and even more frequently see signs posting the prices. But to a greater extent than many in the upper income distribution appreciate, the actual economic pain is very real. Current price increases presumably won’t be permanent, but the problem isn’t going to go away quickly and might well get worse.
CONTINUE READINGToo Cheap to Meter?
Unlimited energy abundance is more of a pipe dream than a realistic policy goal.
A recent post by Matt Yglesias on on “the case for clean energy abundance” disturbingly off pitch. One reason is that the post seems unduly dismissive of environmental harms. It pooh-poohs objections to a proposed ultra-large solar that would destroy what Yglesias describes as a “bunch of forest.” Maybe this would be warranted, but it’s not wrong to consider the environmental cost. Yglesias also opposes efforts to restrict fossil fuel production. This is partly on political grounds, because it makes it hard for Democrats to win in places like Louisiana, and partly because he doesn’t think those efforts accomplish much anyway. Yglesias could be right about the benefits of this hands-off approach, to regulating fossil fuels but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of the harm to public health and the environment. Instead, he describes the only problem with coal as being “smoggy,” which underplays coal’s serious public health and environmental harms.
CONTINUE READINGTrump versus Cost-Benefit Analysis
EPA’s disavowal of CBA is the culmination of a longer assault.
EPA recently said it would no longer try to quantify the harms done by the two most serious, widespread air pollutants. Given that these are the most fully understood of all environmental impacts, it’s not clear what future regulations, if any, might be still subject to cost benefit analysis. This didn’t come out of the blue. Rather, it is the culmination of a series of steps that began when Trump took office in 2017. By 2018, Trump’s executive orders and other administration actions had led me to write a post about “the rise of benefit-blind analysis.” Little did I know what was coming down the road.
CONTINUE READINGThe Other Half of Climate: Policy, Capital, and the Race to Scale Superpollutant Solutions
Learn how California is using satellite data to pull the emergency brake on global warming.
Methane and other short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are responsible for nearly half of today’s net global warming. Because they exit the atmosphere quickly, reducing them can serve as an ‘emergency brake’ on rising temperatures. At the San Francisco Climate Week, UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and the Institute for Governance …
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
