\nthat, since President Obama took office, industry and trade associations have
\nheld many more meetings with OIRA than advocacy NGOs or unions-something like eight
\ntimes as many.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
If OIRA were turning down greens in favor of business
\ninterests, this would be a major cause for concern. But, according to the folks in that office,
\nthey take every meeting requested to discuss regulations under review. That means the reason for the lopsided
\nmeeting log is a lack of requests from groups working for stronger protections.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Some progressive groups<\/a> see OIRA as a major problem. Some even point<\/a> to the imbalanced meeting <\/p>\n But there are good reasons to think that under President <\/p>\n For many regulations, when economic analysis is applied <\/p>\n But this tool can’t achieve anything if environmentalists <\/p>\n Over the next months we will learn whether Congress as an <\/p>\n And that starts with setting up some meetings. <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Citizens gather in Washington to end ‘mountain bombing’ of Appalachia<\/a><\/p>\n Can EPA run a cap-and-trade program?<\/a><\/p>\n EPA stands by as polluters ignore the Clean Water Act<\/a><\/p>\n
\ndocket with suspicions of a biased OIRA.
\nAnd it is true that over the past thirty years, the office has been
\nknown to use cost-benefit analysis in a biased way. The book “Retaking
\nRationality<\/a>” outlines the ways the office has been used to unfairly slow
\ndown or block new rules, and push through deregulation.<\/p>\n
\nObama, and his OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein, OIRA is singing a different
\ntune. Recent evidence is here<\/a>,
\nhere<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nwithout bias, the numbers come out on the side of public interest. Used fairly, it is a powerful tool for
\nenvironmentalists.<\/p>\n
\nare afraid to use it. While it is
\nunderstandable for groups to feel discouraged by past misuse of cost-benefit
\nanalysis, they should make sure they are not giving industry a leg up in the
\nregulatory process with a new administration.
\nUnder President Clinton, green groups missed a major opportunity to
\nreshape how cost-benefit analysis is used by failing to engage in the process-a
\nlook at the past year shows that we are in danger of history repeating itself.<\/p>\n
\ninstitution is up to tackling climate change.
\nIf it is not, more energy will be channeled into the regulatory
\nprocess. That will mean that industry
\ninterests will continue to dump resources into pressuring the Administration,
\nincluding OIRA. If environmentalists
\nwant to have more success with regulation than they are currently having in
\nCongress, they cannot let good opportunities to influence the process pass them
\nby. Instead, greens should be taking an
\nopportunity to gain ground: they should work with OIRA to forge an unbiased
\ncost-benefit analysis while they can.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"