As frequent readers know, I am a big fan of cost-benefit analysis. The basic idea is that, when we make a decision to regulate at a certain level, we are by definition deciding that regulating to that level is “worth” the costs that the regulation will impose. We might as well make such calculations explicitly. 
More Posts
Might the WOTUS Saga Drag On For a While Longer?
Bloomberg Targets Petrochemicals — How About Investing in Their Replacements?
The Senate Ratifies the Kigali Amendment: Is Bipartisan Climate Action Possible?
It’s Good to Be a Brownfield Site — As Long As It’s Not Too Brown
EPA Proposes to List PFOA and PFOS as Hazardous Substances: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
NEPA Is Indeed Posing a Really Big Obstacle to Coal Mining On Public Lands
NEPA Is Still Going to Pose an Obstacle to Leasing Public Lands for Fossil Fuel Extraction
The Battle Over PFAS Continues to Heat Up. The Assessment of Costs and Benefits Remains Undone.
Is Momentum Building To Change the Way We Manage Plastic?
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org