The current debate on jobs and environmental regulation too often relies on thinly-supported forecasts about jobs “killed” or “created” by public protections. In this debate, the larger costs and benefits of protections for clean air or water can get lost. Economics can be better used to evaluate the effects of environmental regulation on layoffs and hiring by looking more carefully at the models that are used to make predictions about the jobs impact of regulation. These modeling tools have important limitations that are rarely communicated, leading to misunderstanding and counterproductive political debates. Read more »
Climate change is expected to make wildfires more frequent and intense, raising U.S. wildfire damages by tens of billions of dollars a year by 2050. Working with EDF and NRDC, Policy Integrity recently authored a report that provides the first estimate of the future costs of climate change-induced wildfires Read more »
Economic analysis can be an advocate’s strongest tool. When done correctly, the numbers often support strong government protections for important values like the environment, health and safety, and consumer protection. But too often, cost-benefit analysis has been used in a biased fashion, leading to deregulation or watered down rules. Keep reading »
Policy Integrity partners with advocacy organizations to use economics and law to ensure that the benefits of better protections are properly counted, helping groups reach their goals and achieve tangible results. Learn more »
Science and Strategies to Curb Methane Emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a potent climate pollutant up to 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a 20-year timeframe. Currently the United States loses at least 1 to 3 percent of its total natural gas production each year when methane is leaked or vented to the atmosphere. Federal regulations could reduce methane emissions by up to 50 percent at little or no net cost, using available technologies.