HOME
ABOUT US
OUR ISSUES
Federal Budget
Information & Access
Nonprofit Advocacy
Regulatory Policy
DudleyWatch
Unmet Needs
Paralysis by Analysis
White House Interventions
Special Interests v. Public Interest
National Solutions for National Needs
In Congress
In the Courts
Public Participation
The Bush Record
Reports & Analyses
RegWatch
Resource Center
PRESS ROOM
ACTION CENTER
PUBLICATIONS
THE WATCHER
OUR BLOGS
SIGN UP
Receive news, updates, and alerts!
DONATE
Help support our work
OTHER SITES
FedSpending.org
RTK NET
NPAction
Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
Citizens for Sensible Safeguards
Open the Government
"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR
News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Saturday, July 30, 2005
In Catastrophe: Risk and Response, Judge Posner makes a plea for greater attention to catastrophic events - events that, as he defines them, pose a small but plausible risk of extinction for the entire human race. Asteroids, particle accelerators, abrupt global warming, and bioterrorism all make his list of potentially catastrophic hazards. With respect to global warming, Posner ultimately downplays the claims of industry-funded "climate skeptics" and urges action now - now - to speed the development and diffusion of climate-friendly technologies. He remains committed, in principle, to using cost-benefit analysis to help us figure out how to deal with these threats, but he recognizes that unknowable probabilities, incalculable benefits, and controversy over the importance of the future make conventional cost-benefit analysis a highly dicey proposition in this context. Each of these views places Posner comfortably within the mainstream of current environmentalist thought. These views also share common ground with the latest critiques of cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, Posner's observations about the limits of cost-benefit analysis apply to many environmental problems that do not make his rather narrow list of catastrophes. If one wanted to urge greater government attention to, and to purge cost-benefit thinking from, problems of radioactive waste, toxic chemicals, and even conventional air and water pollution, one could cite to substantial portions of Posner's book in doing so. Yet in a contest between Posner's appreciation of scientific and ethical uncertainty and his longstanding commitment to economic analysis, it is clear which would win. Indeed, Posner unfortunately mars what could have been a good, humble, important book with his continued insistence on the central role of cost-benefit analysis and with futile efforts to patch up the holes in the analysis he favors. One could split this book into two, and one would have a very fine book on catastrophic risks and the limits of currently fashionable analytical methods for dealing with them, and a very disappointing book clinging to the very analytical methods the "other" book so convincingly undermines.
Each of these views places Posner comfortably within the mainstream of current environmentalist thought. These views also share common ground with the latest critiques of cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, Posner's observations about the limits of cost-benefit analysis apply to many environmental problems that do not make his rather narrow list of catastrophes. If one wanted to urge greater government attention to, and to purge cost-benefit thinking from, problems of radioactive waste, toxic chemicals, and even conventional air and water pollution, one could cite to substantial portions of Posner's book in doing so.
Yet in a contest between Posner's appreciation of scientific and ethical uncertainty and his longstanding commitment to economic analysis, it is clear which would win. Indeed, Posner unfortunately mars what could have been a good, humble, important book with his continued insistence on the central role of cost-benefit analysis and with futile efforts to patch up the holes in the analysis he favors. One could split this book into two, and one would have a very fine book on catastrophic risks and the limits of currently fashionable analytical methods for dealing with them, and a very disappointing book clinging to the very analytical methods the "other" book so convincingly undermines.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
See OMB Watch's comments on OMB's report for more information.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Download our fact sheet "The Going-Out-of-Business Myth" to learn just how wrong they have been time and time again.
Latest Entries by Theme
All Themes
Enforcement
About This Blog
Rollbacks
Safety
Industry Influence
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Publications
Consumer Issues
Environment
Public Health
Oversight
In the White House
Most Recent Entries for RegWatch
Industry Ties Bind FDA Advisors
Right Whale Protection Rule Finally Here
Industry Pressuring EPA to Weaken Lead Rule
EPA Won't Keep Rocket Fuel out of Water
Roof Strength Rule Delayed Again
Bush Taking Credit for Whale Rule He Delayed
What Should the U.S. Do about China's Bad Milk?
Did OMB Block Asbestos Cleanup in Montana Town?
Whale Protection Rule Clears White House, 573 Days Later
EPA Just Kidding Around on Children's Health
Archived Entries for Cost-Benefit Analysis
July
June
March
February
January
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
August, 2007
July, 2007
June, 2007
May, 2007
April, 2007
March, 2007
February, 2007
January, 2007
September, 2006
August, 2006
June, 2006
April, 2006
March, 2006
February, 2006
January, 2006
December, 2005
November, 2005
September, 2005
August, 2005
July, 2005
March, 2005
November, 2004
September, 2004