In the News

In the months leading up to President Obama’s inauguration, the Bush administration rushed through a raft of controversial regulations. These “midnight regulations,” like the one that would allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams in West Virginia, caused a major stir at the time—but whatever happened to them? After a year in office, has the new president been able to clean up his predecessor’s last minute mess? The answer is a mixed bag of attempts, delays, successes, and road blocks.

The debate over the economics of climate change boils down to that very calculation: how much are we willing to pay today to avoid climate risks in the future? The simple fact is that as we continue to use fuels that contribute to global warming today, we place major economic burdens on our kids and grandkids tomorrow.

In a survey of 144 top climate economists released November 4, 2009 by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, 84% agreed that “the environmental effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as described by leading scientific experts, create significant risks to important sectors of the United States and global economies.” A majority stated that sectors that will be negatively affected include agriculture, fishing, forestry, insurance, and health services.

A dissenting view comes from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which says in an “informal analysis” that the benefits of the House bill “could likely exceed the costs by as much as nine-to-one or more” — although the authors admit that any benefits would be global while the [sic] would be borne by Americans. One EPA estimate found a “$98 to $140 average annual cost per household.”

EPA should not grant the Chamber of Commerce’s request for an extraordinary on-the-record proceeding concerning the agency’s expected endangerment finding. Rather than engage in this time consuming process of little value, the agency should move forward with much needed regulatory action that was grossly delayed by the political calculation of the last administration, even as the science connecting greenhouse gas emissions to severe environmental consequences has continued to mount.

The climate-change bill that passed the House last month and is currently being considered by the Senate represents America’s last chance to seriously address its contributions to global warming before we head to the international climate talks in Copenhagen this December. But the current legislative debate also offers an opportunity to reshape the broader conversation over the costs and benefits of environmental regulation—and environmentalists should not let the opportunity pass them by.

The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at New York University, which generally supports expanded use of cost-benefit analysis, applauded the changes to the guidelines, and also pointed out that the SAB encouraged the use of cost-benefit analysis when looking at deregulatory or non-regulatory proposals. A source with the IPI says that, during the last administration, economic analysis was not conducted for many deregulatory actions, including changes to the new source review rules, which require new or modified sources to install strict pollution controls. The source says it is “important that the SAB realized the systemic problem about how cost-benefit analysis has been used in the past” by pointing out the need for analysis for deregulatory actions.

As I’ve mentioned before, Sunstein’s appointment is pivotal for environmental regulation and green advocates should be looking forward to his first official day on the job. His inbox is probably overflowing with tasks, but here are the top three that he should work on first.

The board also recommends that the agency better account for technological innovation when estimating the costs of compliance, according to Michael Livermore, executive director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, who read its draft. Typically, said Livermore, EPA inflates compliance costs, because it does not account for industries’ motivation to innovate once actually faced with costly restrictions.

Michael Livermore, executive director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, said he expects the Obama administration to ultimately adopt most, if not all, of the science advisory board’s recommendations. “I’d be surprised if they disagreed with the [Science Advisory Board],” he said. The full board is expected to consider the draft report in August before sending its final comments to EPA.