In the News

Pro-choice organizations and women’s groups have rightly been vocal about a recent proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand protections for medical professionals who refuse to provide health care services that they object to on moral grounds.

Despite a short 30-day comment period, dozens of interested individuals and organizations provided comments to Asst. Secretary Leon Sequeira about his proposed so-called risk assessment policy. I’ve pulled some of my favorite excerpts for your consideration:

Michael Livermore, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity on a new program to curb greenhouse gas emissions: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

The cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction program, which aims to hold carbon dioxide emissions steady through 2014 and then gradually reduce them, is widely viewed as a model for future programs around the globe.

“With the leadership vacuum in Washington, it has fallen to the states to take the lead on combating climate change,” said Richard Revesz, dean of the New York University School of Law and an expert on environmental law.

On September 12, Congress will vote on a new energy package that addresses the offshore drilling moratorium among other issues. Given the large divisions among and between the parties, it’s unlikely a final solution will be enacted. That might not be a bad thing. A breather before the new Congress would give us some time to really flesh out the pros and cons of this decision. Questions, heated opinions and conflicting information have been bandied about for months. With so much confusion, we need to do a better job of figuring out the costs and benefits of this major choice.

In other words, what are the real costs and benefits of opening up America’s coast to more oil exploration? That’s just what a couple of NYU academics want Congress to figure out as it regroups this week to tackle the energy crisis. Richard Revesz and Michael Livermore sent a letter today to House speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republican leader John Boehner urging Congress to put economic—not political—concerns at the forefront of the energy debate for a change.

“Environmentalists applauded and industry lobbyists fretted as the state moved ahead Monday with plans to fight climate change, starting with greenhouse gases coming from electric power plants. . . . ‘With the leadership vacuum in Washington, it has fallen to the states to take the lead on combating climate change,’ said Richard L. Revesz, dean of New York University School of Law.”

[Environmentalists] face the daunting challenge of convincing the next president and Congress to take significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To do so, they must show the American public that they are not zealots on a fool’s errand, but rather responsible voices working to address very real threats with real economic consequences.

Cost-benefit analysis, correctly applied to many environmental problems, will show that strong environmental regulation is often economically efficient. Although some environmentalists, including Lisa Heinzerling in a recent post, have expressed reservations about the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate environmental rules, rejecting cost-benefit analysis instead of seeking to reform it would be a major strategic error for the environmental movement.

“Without cost-benefit analysis, we are essentially regulating in the dark, a bad idea when regulations can cost billions of dollars, and smart regulation can save lives,” Revesz said. “By fighting to mend, rather than end, cost-benefit analysis, environmentalists can retake the high ground and win the fight for strong regulation.”