In the News

Because the political arena is often fraught with hyperbole, misinformation, and special interest pandering, facts and reason don’t count for as much as they should. Despite that, green advocates have smartly and effectively engaged in the political arena to help protect the environment and public health.

But to augment that advocacy, it is equally important for greens to engage in the regulatory process, which offers a refuge from the dysfunction of political discourse. Because of the legal structure that undergirds it, it is one of the few bastions in American government where truth can trump rhetoric.

A new report out today from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity – it says that the benefits of regulations governing the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks outweigh the costs. But the authors state that the scope and stringency of the regulations should be increased to achieve the maximum net benefits for society.

Or, some people argue, EPA could have done what most economists agree is the sensible thing and established a cap-and-trade program on its own. Think tanky groups like the Constitutional Accountability Center and the Institute for Policy Integrity argued that the Clean Air Act gives EPA that power. Of course, that would have been politically explosive too.

This fall, NOAA released a draft policy to change all that—to streamline, codify, and make more transparent the penalties and fee structures for fisheries violations. Trouble is, a report released Monday by NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity indicates that NOAA’s new rules may actually have the opposite effect: encouraging rather than deterring overfishing.

A new report from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity out this morning calls on NOAA to rethink its plans for overhauling enforcement of the nation’s laws on over-fishing. The authors say NOAA’s proposed revisions are too lenient on some violators and don’t create the right incentives to obey the law.

Over the last two weeks in Cancún, some Latin American countries have shown openness to exploring private funding sources and market mechanisms to address climate change, while a small number of others have staked an ideological opposition to market-based climate solutions with little interest in compromise.

Outside the auspices of COP16, a number of developing countries like India and Chile are starting to consider using market mechanisms like carbon caps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. That climate action is taking place at all is good news at a conference that doesn’t appear to be headed towards a breakthrough. In the time remaining in Cancun, negotiations should try to deal with these budding programs.

While the climate change negotiations in Cancun are unlikely to result in a global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, forward motion is possible in many key areas. Among them, forest preservation is the brightest spot for progress in what has now become a very dreary policy forecast.

Clouds of pessimism hang over Cancun, largely due to the absence of a domestic climate law in the United States. Certainly, it makes it more difficult for the developed world to ask the developing countries, like India or China, to move towards binding carbon reductions. But success is possible on smaller-bore issues that that require immediate attention, are relatively easier to address, and will have a major impact.

Currently our nation’s nascent alternative energy industry is being buoyed by a system of tax credits and energy grants that are set to expire at the end of the year. Absent a price on carbon, these incentives are needed to keep the new market’s pulse from stopping. It may be that extending these credits will be all the support for alternative energy that will come from a federal government heading for gridlock, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking we have done enough, or done the right thing.