The war with Iran has sent oil prices, and then gasoline prices, sharply higher. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the main U.S. oil benchmark, rose from the mid-$60s per barrel in late February to around $100 on March 19. U.S. gasoline prices have followed suit, with the average price increasing from a pre-war level of under $3.00 per gallon to over $3.70 by mid-March.
For the past two decades, U.S. climate policy has been driven more by legal and administrative maneuvering than by legislative consensus. The result has been regulatory inefficiency, policy whiplash between administrations, and little progress toward a durable, politically sustainable framework for managing climate risk.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent decision to temporarily stop assigning dollar values to the projected health benefits of reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone has sparked renewed controversy over air pollution regulation. As I discussed last week, the agency framed the move as a response to persistent uncertainty in estimating PM2.5 health effects, not as a withdrawal from regulating air pollution or considering public health impacts.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recent decision to stop monetizing the health benefits of reducing fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, has refocused attention on a long-running debate over air pollution regulation.
Last week, the Trump Administration announced its intention to withdraw the United States from several landmark international climate institutions, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In practical terms, the move is largely symbolic: U.S. participation or non-participation in these bodies has relatively little direct effect on domestic climate policy or near-term global emissions outcomes.
Last year, in one of his first actions on inauguration day, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to stop using the social cost of carbon (SCC) when weighing the costs and benefits of regulations. The decision prompted predictable outrage from many environmental activists, climate scientists, and economists, who argued that abandoning the SCC would strip climate regulations of their scientific grounding.
A new climate change lawsuit filed last week in Washington State takes a novel approach by arguing that the fossil-fuel industry is responsible for rising homeowners’ insurance premiums. The plaintiffs, two Washington residents, claim their costs have increased because of a growing number of climate-related natural disasters.
As politicians and philanthropists shift their attention to other global issues, many journalists and scientists continue to sound the alarm about climate change. There is a tendency, however, to highlight only the most negative interpretations of new research in order to amplify public concern and emphasize urgency. As a result, press releases and news stories far too often overstate or misrepresent the scientific findings they cite.
New York State recently approved construction of a controversial natural-gas pipeline in an effort to ease rising energy prices and prevent future supply shortages. The decision drew criticism from Democratic politicians and environmental groups, who argue that the underwater pipeline will compromise water quality and further entrench reliance on fossil fuels.
That alarmist messaging has never been particularly helpful. It creates an all-or-nothing perspective on climate change, where one side pushes for aggressive mitigation efforts at the expense of all other considerations, while the other dismisses climate risks altogether. It’s time to drop that framing and instead adopt a perspective that puts climate risks in context.
Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.
Thank you for signing up