C3’s Nick Loris and R Street’s Philip Rossetti write on how federal climate regulations have historically been ineffective and even harmful to the very cause they try to fix.
Last month, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposed rule to overturn the 2009 endangerment finding. The finding, which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare, provided the legal backbone for the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide from cars, trucks, power plants, manufacturing facilities, and more.
Much of the discourse following Zeldin’s proposed repeal has been about whether the agency’s actions will pass legal muster. An equally important question is whether the federal government’s regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) over the last decade and a half has been an effective climate policy. Our recent research tells us the answer is no.
A Closer Look at Climate Regulations
In a new technical working paper, we analyzed federal climate regulations in the power, transportation, and industrial sectors. We used the government-produced official estimates of costs and benefits for each regulation to measure its cost-effectiveness to avoid any bias.
