Should Federal Regulatory Agencies Report Benefits to Americans from Mandated Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Globe
by Art Fraas, Randall Lutter, Susan E. Dudley, Ted Gayer, John Graham, Jason F. Shogren, W. Kip Viscusi
February 09, 2016

In a letter to the National Academy of Sciences on its project, "Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon," a group of prominent regulatory economists argues that federal regulatory analysis should compare domestic regulatory benefits to domestic costs. The current government approach of reporting only the global benefits of reducing carbon emissions neglects that duty. The letter recommends that the panel adopt a dual approach that refocuses regulatory impact analysis of climate regulations on domestic benefits, while providing for separate reporting of estimated global benefits.

Read the full letter


Art Fraas is Visiting Fellow at Resources for the FutureSusan E. Dudley is Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies CenterTed Gayer is Vice-President and Director of the Economic Studies Program at Brookings InstitutionJohn Graham is Dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana UniversityRandall Lutter is Professor of Public Policy at the Frank Batten School of Public Policy at the University of Virginia and Visiting Fellow at Resources for the Future, Jason F. Shogren is Stroock Professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management, Professor of Economics at the University of WyomingW. Kip Viscusi is Co-Director of the Ph.D. Program in Law and Economics at Vanderbilt University Law School.


See also:

Forbes OpinionHow Much Will Climate Change Rules Benefit Americans?

Science Magazine Letter to the Editor, Social cost of carbon: Domestic duty