Three leading US economists are urging their peers around the world to push back against Donald Trump\u2019s attack on environmental laws.<\/p>\n
In what amounts to a call to action to economists, the trio say rollback of environmental regulations is \u201cinconsistent or antithetical\u201d to fundamental principles of economics over how to allocate the world\u2019s limited resources for the greatest possible value to society.<\/p>\n
The economists, Catherine L Kling, Stephen Polasky, and Kathleen Segerson, say the Trump administration, by focusing on tearing down environmental protections<\/a>, is likely to reduce rather than increase economic efficiency, and its policies are a threat to Americans and the rest of the world.<\/p>\n Writing in the journal Environmental and Resource Economics<\/a>, they urge economists to challenge from an economic perspective the administration\u2019s undermining of science on climate and the environment.<\/p>\n \u201cNow is a crucial time to push back against policy changes resulting in inefficient outcomes and the major reductions of funding for environmental research,\u201d they write. \u201cEconomists have a wealth of knowledge and expertise that can help to explain the importance of effective and efficient environmental policy and expose weaknesses in Trump administration<\/a> policies.<\/p>\n \u201cEconomists can use their voice to educate the wider public on what is happening and what is at stake.\u201d They urge economists to advise local and national NGOs on environment and climate, to make public statements, broadcast podcasts, and to inform the public.<\/p>\n They identify key reversals of climate and environmental laws by Trump including:<\/p>\n Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Eliminating consideration in federal policy of the well-established effects of climate breakdown on public welfare.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Executive orders to \u201cdrill baby drill\u201d giving priority to fossil fuel energy production.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Ending research funding on environment and climate and the collection of environmental data.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Reducing investments and regulations designed to tackle lead and forever chemicals in drinking water.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n \u201cBy being tireless advocates for rigorous science and providing unbiased information, economists can help to overcome the current undermining of sound environmental policy and science and improve the odds that governments adopt efficient and effective environmental policies that improve health and welfare,\u201d they say.<\/p>\n The economists argue the environmental policies Trump has discarded are all backed by economic principles around the efficient application of resources to ensure the greatest good.<\/p>\n Investment to remove lead in drinking water, for example, would generate benefits that far exceed costs, partly because economies of scale could be achieved by replacing entire water service lines in a neighbourhood, rather than individual households one at a time.<\/p>\n The promotion of fossil fuels, they say, ignores their damage to biodiversity, air and water quality and the climate, which are of public benefit. Their promotion flies in the face of evidence that wind and solar energy have become the cheapest sources of electricity production in the US.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n The planet’s most important stories. Get all the week’s environment news – the good, the bad and the essential<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n \u201cRather than being promoted as \u2018clean\u2019 and \u2018beautiful\u2019, coal should face a hefty tax for the damages associated with CO2 emissions and emissions of other air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, and mercury,\u201d they write.<\/p>\n The economists are taking on Trump at a time when the administration is attacking academics who speak out against the president\u2019s policies, including threatening the funding of Harvard and other institutions.<\/p>\n\n