Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Georgetown University Law Center

Series

2005

Environmental protection

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Nepa: Lessons Learned And Next Steps: Hearing Before The Task Force On Updating The National Environmental Policy Act Of The H. Comm. On Resources, 109th Cong., Nov. 17, 2005 (Statement Of Professor Robert G. Dreher, Geo. U. L. Center), Robert G. Dreher Nov 2005

Nepa: Lessons Learned And Next Steps: Hearing Before The Task Force On Updating The National Environmental Policy Act Of The H. Comm. On Resources, 109th Cong., Nov. 17, 2005 (Statement Of Professor Robert G. Dreher, Geo. U. L. Center), Robert G. Dreher

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.


Human Nature, The Laws Of Nature, And The Nature Of Environmental Law, Richard J. Lazarus Jan 2005

Human Nature, The Laws Of Nature, And The Nature Of Environmental Law, Richard J. Lazarus

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The essay is divided into three parts. Part I considers the ways in which the need for environmental law derives from the tendency of human nature to cause adverse environmental consequences and the ways in which the laws of nature make it more difficult to prevent those consequences absent the imposition of external legal rules. Part II describes how our nation's lawmaking institutions are similarly challenged by the laws of nature. This includes a discussion of how the kinds of laws necessary to bridge the gap between human nature and the laws of nature are systematically difficult for our lawmaking …


Applying Cost-Benefit To Past Decisions: Was Environmental Protection Ever A Good Idea?, Lisa Heinzerling, Frank Ackerman, Rachel Massey Jan 2005

Applying Cost-Benefit To Past Decisions: Was Environmental Protection Ever A Good Idea?, Lisa Heinzerling, Frank Ackerman, Rachel Massey

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this Article, however, we do not mount a critique from outside the technique of cost-benefit analysis. Instead, we examine an argument that proponents of cost-benefit analysis have offered as a linchpin of the case for cost-benefit: that this technique is neither anti- nor pro-regulatory, but rather a neutral tool for evaluating public policy. In making this argument, these proponents have often invoked the use of cost-benefit analysis to support previous regulatory decisions (their favorite example involves the phase down of lead in gasoline, which we shall shortly discuss) as a sign that this technique can be used to support …