Midnight Changes to Cost-Benefit Analysis?
Much is being made of the outgoing Bush Administration’s “midnight regulations,” and with good reason, too. Many of them roll back crucial protections for public health, safety, and the environment. So far, they include relaxed requirements for building filthy coal plants near national parks and the elimination of a requirement mandating that federal agencies consult with independent scientists prior to taking actions that might impact endangered species.
The fact is, however, that the Bush Administration has been surreptitiously weakening regulations for the last eight years through the backdoor process of regulatory review. And, thanks to a proposed guidance recently released by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the process of regulatory review may be tilted even further in favor of weakening regulations.
The proposed guidance involves a new requirement for how the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) conducts cost-benefit analysis during its review of agency regulations. OIRA is a small and somewhat obscure bureau within OMB, but it has a broad portfolio. A series of Executive Orders dating back to the early days of the Reagan Administration has directed OIRA to review all major federal agency rules (those that have some specified large impact …
Halloween—a day on which not everything is as it seems—offers a fitting occasion to ponder the possible effects of globalization on the U.S. regulatory system and its ability to protect Americans.
Globalization is a complex subject, and, like the bandages of a reanimated mummy, its ramifications could probably be unwound indefinitely. Its proponents wax eloquently on the myriad ways that globalization might improve the capacity of U.S. regulators to protect Americans. They observe, for example, that increased interdependence among nations will expedite the transfer of pollution reduction technologies, developments that would undoubtedly redound to the benefit of U.S. citizens. Recent news reports, however, portend the horrors that globalization might inflict on the U.S. regulatory system. Most terrifyingly, these reports suggest how globalization can, like an ambidextrous Freddy Krueger, slice at the U.S. regulatory safety net from multiple directions.
To begin …
Imagine being told that the global economy had lost between $2 trillion and $5 trillion in the last year. Presented with this information, you would probably think immediately of the seemingly ever-worsening economic crisis now sweeping the globe. In fact, that number refers to the annual economic losses attributable to global deforestation. For the record: Wall Street’s losses to date from the current financial crisis are somewhere between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.
The numbers on the costs of deforestation come from The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, a recent report commissioned by the European Union. It says that the economic costs of deforestation are equal to about seven percent of the global GDP, and that the world economy has been taking that hit for a number of years running.
So how does chopping down trees result in economic losses? Wouldn’t it free up …
