by Art Fraas, Randall Lutter, Susan E. Dudley, Ted Gayer, John Graham, Jason F. Shogren, W. Kip Viscusi
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.
Art Fraas is Visiting Fellow at Resources for the Future, Susan E. Dudley is Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, Ted Gayer is Vice-President and Director of the Economic Studies Program at Brookings Institution, John Graham is Dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Randall 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 Wyoming, W. Kip Viscusi is Co-Director of the Ph.D. Program in Law and Economics at Vanderbilt University Law School.