Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


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

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Saturday, July 30, 2005

Cost-benefit has its limits: Ask Posner...
Be sure to check out the latest article by Professor Lisa Heinzerling, which reviews a recent book by Richard Posner:
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.

Download Lisa Heinzerling, The Accidental Environmentalist (Geo. Pub. L. Res. Paper No. 770326, July 2005), 94 Geo. L.J. (forthcoming 2006)


Posted by Robert Shull, 02:29:34 PM



Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Cheap gas, anyone?
The Department of Energy released its new outlook for fuel prices, and they again project that gasoline prices will remain in the neighborhood of $2.25/gallon. So file this under "wishful thinking": OMB's recent report on the costs and benefits of regulations uses a lowball figure of $1.10-$1.30, possibly to minimize the benefits from improvements to fuel economy regulations.

See OMB Watch's comments on OMB's report for more information.

Posted by Robert Shull, 02:30:11 PM



Saturday, July 09, 2005

The Going-Out-of-Business Myth
The public needs regulatory safeguards to protect our health, safety, environment, civil rights, and welfare. Corporate special interests, however, have an interest in avoiding spending a single dime to improve their destructive behavior. Again and again, when new regulatory protections have been proposed, corporate lobbyists have argued that business would be bankrupted and forced to go out of business. Again and again, they have been proven wrong.

Download our fact sheet "The Going-Out-of-Business Myth" to learn just how wrong they have been time and time again.

Posted by Robert Shull, 03:54:58 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

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