Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

Agenda: Best Management Practices And Adaptive Management In Oil And Gas Development, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Best Management Practices and Adaptive Management in Oil and Gas Development (May 12-13)

Agenda includes summaries of speakers' presentations

Workshop held May 12-13, 2004 at the University of Colorado School of Law and sponsored by the Natural Resources Law Center with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, BP America and Calpine Corporation

Government agencies, industry and others are beginning to apply the concepts of best management practices and adaptive management to oil and gas development. This free workshop will examine what is going on in the Rocky Mountain Region with these innovative management approaches. This timely workshop will be kicked off with a presentation on the Western Governors' Association Coalbed Methane …

Assessing The Options For Designing A Mandatory U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, Robert R. Nordhaus, Kyle W. Danish

ExpressO

The United States faces growing pressure – both from domestic and international sources – to adopt a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program to address the risk of global climate change. If policy-makers decide to establish such a program, they could end up creating an environmental regulatory regime of potentially unprecedented scope and impacts. A domestic greenhouse gas program could break ground in other ways too. Many policy-makers are considering innovative market-based approaches to regulation, including a multi-billion dollar economy-wide “cap-and-trade” program. In this paper, we: (1) set forth criteria for evaluating program options; (2) analyze the leading design options and …

Fear Assessment: Cost-Benefit Analysis And The Pricing Of Fear And Anxiety, Matthew D. Adler

All Faculty Scholarship

Risk assessment is now a common feature of regulatory practice, but fear assessment is not. In particular, environmental, health and safety agencies such as EPA, FDA, OSHA, NHTSA, and CPSC, commonly count death, illness and injury as costs for purposes of cost-benefit analysis, but almost never incorporate fear, anxiety or other welfare-reducing mental states into the analysis. This is puzzling, since fear and anxiety are welfare setbacks, and since the very hazards regulated by these agencies - air or water pollutants, toxic waste dumps, food additives and contaminants, workplace toxins and safety threats, automobiles, dangerous consumer products, radiation, and so …