cost-benefit analysis


Photo: sharply_done/iStockphoto

Put Them In, Coach: Why Sidelining the EPA’s Science Advisory Board Is a Disservice to Us All

, Lead science and policy analyst

The EPA’s key scientific sounding board, the Science Advisory Board (SAB), will be holding its first full public meeting of 2019 this week. And as Administrator Wheeler’s EPA continues to roll back policies that were informed by science or devise new strategies to restrict the way that science is used in agency rulemakings, the committee formed to help review the agency’s science should have a very long to-do list. Read more >

Photo: sharply_done/iStockphoto
Bookmark and Share

Lyntha Scott Eiler/Flickr Photo: Lyntha Scott Eiler/Flickr

Prodded by Coal Industry, the EPA Decides Mercury Is Fine, Just Fine. Remind Them: It’s Not.

, Senior Energy analyst

Under the direction of Andrew Wheeler, the EPA is proposing to find that mercury, a potent neurotoxin that can ruin a person’s fair shake at life before they’re ever born, is neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate from coal plants—by far mercury pollution’s largest source. You have until Wednesday, April 17 to submit a public comment and share your opinion on this toxic proposal. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Attendees at a December 2011 hearing on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. The EPA's Clean Air Act standards protect the health of all Americans, especially our children. Photo: USEPA/Flickr

A Comment Guide for Fighting the EPA’s Attacks on Mercury Standards and Cost-Benefit Analysis

, Policy Director and Lead Economist, Climate & Energy

EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler has issued a pernicious proposal to undermine a crucial clean air rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants. More insidiously, the proposal attacks long-standing legal, economic and regulatory precedent on cost-benefit analysis—and as a result could have far-reaching consequences for many other public health protections. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

A shell game

Competitive Enterprise Institute Counts Costs But Not Benefits of Safeguards—and Hopes You Won’t Notice

, Washington representative, Center for Science and Democracy

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released another misleading “study” about the “costs” of regulation (read: science-based safeguards, public protections) while virtually ignoring the benefits. They do this every year because some reporters fall for it and it confirms what some elected officials and editorial boards want to believe. Policymakers and the public would be best served by ignoring the latest edition of this report that is nothing more than propaganda to promote the rolling back of science-based safeguards that protect public health, safety, and environment. Read more >

Photo: emilykbecker/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (Flickr)
Bookmark and Share

How News Outlets Factchecked the U.S. Chamber’s Flawed Clean Power Plan Numbers

, former science communication officer

What should journalists do when powerful institutions and politicians mangle and manipulate information about climate and energy issues? One of our intrepid researchers took a look at a particularly notorious example: last year’s U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. His findings suggest some important lessons for critically examining claims around complex climate and energy policies, especially as states move forward with reducing emissions under the EPA plan. Read more >

Bookmark and Share