Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

A Turning Point on Climate — and for the Center for Progressive Reform

Our society has finally reached a turning point on climate.

I’m not referring to the “point of irreversibility” about which the United Nations warns us: In nine short years, the cascading impacts of climate change will trigger more and greater impacts to the point of no return.

Rather, we have reached the turning point of political will for climate action. There is no going back to climate passivity or denialism. Choosing to electrify and greenify is a progressive agenda, a mainstream agenda, and an industry agenda though all of these agendas differ.

Reconciling these interests, Congress will pass one, if not two, major spending bills this fall, which would invest as much as $750 billion in climate investments to decarbonize, electrify, and build resilient infrastructure. This achievement is not the Green New Deal, nor the full vision of the Sunrise Movement, but it borrows parts from them. Nor is it solely a market-driven approach, though markets and industry would have major roles to play. We have only crossed the first gate toward real change, but it’s a promising step.

Why the swing to action? One reason is that the effects of climate change are palpable in ways never felt before; it’s no longer just about the weather.

Indeed, one in three Americans were impacted by climate-related disasters this past summer. One in three. Count yourself and two Facebook friends: One of you was affected by a wildfire, a hurricane, or a blackout or faced power shortages because of it between June and August of this year.

People are demanding action on climate policy, and one in three is a big reason we’ve hit the turning point.

I sense that the level of excitement about climate action has replaced the sense of dread about our future. The first layers of our government our cities and states are our first responders. They’re already designing policies to combat climate change and responding to rising tides and temperatures. Fully 34 states have committed to curbing their emissions, investing in clean energy, and making their footprints more resilient.

States don’t have the power or the purse of our federal government, but they are laboratories for change and that’s cause for optimism.

I’m less optimistic that, as the broader public reaches its moment of truth on climate change, the communities most impacted and harmed by it will be made whole or even considered. Given that, I’m more committed than ever to fighting for climate justice.

Communities of color contribute the least to climate change but suffer its ravages the most. Low-income people and communities of color, such as those in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” are sacrifice zones for industrial pollution and extraction. High energy and transportation costs, public health impacts, and climate-induced disasters affect these communities first, hardest, and longest. Climate impacts everyone, but it doesn’t impact everyone equally. Pro-climate action legislation will force these communities to sacrifice further unless their voices and interests are paramount among competing interests.

Why Now? Why Us?

The Center for Progressive Reform has also reached a turning point on climate. While we have long researched and advocated on behalf of environmental and energy policy, it’s no exaggeration to say that this is our moment of reckoning.

Going forward, our top priority will be to push our government to take bold and equitable climate action. We will press Congress and the Biden administration to enact and implement a whole-of-government climate agenda and accelerate a just and equitable transition to clean and renewable energy. We will work to prevent and repair climate-induced harm to disenfranchised communities, redress societal inequities, and ensure that all people can fully participate in and benefit from our transition to a carbon-free economy.

With this new direction, I want to share our answers to the questions of “Why now?” and “Why us?”.

First, we all need to act to save our planet from climate change — in small ways, in every way. This is our generation’s response to the generational question of, “What did you do in the war, daddy?” Demanding climate action is the moral imperative of our time.

As a research and advocacy organization founded and backed by legal scholars, we offer expertise that is sorely needed in the climate policy formulation process. We use the power of the law and the force of public participation to create a responsive and inclusive government.

Policy-making is a messy business, muddied by money in politics, tribalism, and self-serving interests. Policy design and its implementation, which is our forté, are also complicated, filled with trade-offs, second-best solutions, technical challenges, and uncertainty in application.

Our staff of (largely) environmental lawyers and our network of legal scholars understand in detail how policy is formed, how governing agencies work, how regulations are written, and how climate policy will be applied.

Steeped in the law and legal analysis, our reports and advocacy inform policymakers and government agencies on how the market is regulated, how agencies monitor and enforce the rules over corporations and other actors, and how governments can invest, subsidize, and offer tax credits to shape a renewable future.

The ideas we advanced in Climate, Energy, Justice: The Policy Path to a Just Transition for an Energy Hungry America, the comprehensive report we released in the fall of 2020, helped shape the Biden administration’s climate agenda, and two of its authors now serve in the administration. We pay such close attention to the important details that we’ve been called “The Department of Fine Print.”

Our focus, too, is to support advocates for change. Climate law is an empty vessel without public participation to influence its direction, hold government accountable, and press for ever-stronger government policies and programs. Too often, public participation is viewed narrowly as an act of voting with the public pushed aside in the lawmaking, rulemaking, and enforcement functions of government.

For us, law and public participation are an alternating current that flows back and forth, with public participation shaping and being shaped by law, and the law being shaped by and shaping participation. Supporting allies, advocates, and coalitions with legal analysis and understanding of climate policy dimensions is sorely needed, particularly in such a dynamic and high-stakes moment.

We are committing every ounce of our energy to ensuring that the broader public has a say in shaping the broader functions of government. Regulatory procedures, for instance, should be democratized to eliminate potential barriers to meaningful participation, lived experience should count more than lobbyists’ dollars, and this has been a bedrock of CPR since our founding 20 years ago.

The greatest test for the fairness and the effectiveness of climate policy will be in how the law accedes to the justice demands of historically excluded communities. Their demands to redress past inequities, that the climate benefits flow to their communities, to have a voice in the process — those are the indicators of whether climate action equals climate justice. We are standing with these communities by deepening our collaborations and offering our services to the cause.

Turning points are often discovered by historians as they look back to the past to understand the swirling of events and confusion that people often experience at that moment in time. We have neither the luxury of time, nor do we require it to understand that for the plane and for people, it’s now or never.

Showing 2,822 results

Minor Sinclair | October 28, 2021

A Turning Point on Climate — and for the Center for Progressive Reform

Our society has finally reached a turning point on climate. I’m not referring to the “point of irreversibility” about which the United Nations warns us: In nine short years, the cascading impacts of climate change will trigger more and greater impacts -- to the point of no return. Rather, we have reached the turning point of political will for climate action. There is no going back to climate passivity or denialism. Choosing to electrify and greenify is a progressive agenda, a mainstream agenda, and an industry agenda -- though all of these agendas differ.

Daniel Farber | October 25, 2021

Cost-Benefit Analysis: FAQs

Cost-benefit analysis is required for all major regulations. It's also highly controversial, as well as being a mysterious procedure unless you're an economist. These FAQs will tell you what you need to know about how cost-benefit analysis (CBA) fits into the regulatory process, how it works, and why it's controversial.

Amy Sinden | October 19, 2021

The Shaky Legal and Policy Foundations of Cost-Benefit Orthodoxy in Environmental Law

In the actual work of crafting the regulatory safeguards that protect our environment and health, cost-benefit analysis has been largely ineffectual and irrelevant. Indeed, its ineffectiveness has been so profound as to prompt even its most ardent practitioners and proponents to question whether it has any impact on agency decisions at all. Meanwhile, it plays at best a minor role in the legal standards that actually govern agency decision-making. Despite all this, a certain cost-benefit orthodoxy has become remarkably entrenched in environmental policy circles. Especially in an era when so many progressive ideas are in ascendance, why does the idea of regulatory review based on cost-benefit analysis have such staying power?

James Goodwin | October 14, 2021

A Post-Neoliberal Regulatory Analysis for a Post-Neoliberal World

Over the last 40 years, the U.S. regulatory system has played an increasingly influential role in redefining our political and economic relationships in fundamentally neoliberal terms. A key but often overlooked institutional force behind this development is the peculiar form of cost-benefit analysis that now predominates in regulatory practice. Building a new regulatory system befitting our vision of a post-neoliberal America requires a formal rejection of prevailing cost-benefit analysis in favor of a radically different approach -- one that invites public participation, permits open and fair contestation of competing values at the heart of policy debates, and recognizes and honors our social interdependencies.

Jorge Roman-Romero, Melissa Lutrell | October 11, 2021

Modernizing Regulatory Review Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is inherently classist, racist, and ableist. Since these are foundational problems with CBA, and are not simply issues with its implementation, they can never be fixed by mere methodological improvements. Instead, the ongoing modernization of centralized regulatory analyses must focus on "moving beyond" CBA, and not on fixing it or improving it. Thus, in implementing President Biden's memorandum on Modernizing Regulatory Review (the Biden Memorandum), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should make explicit that regulatory review no longer requires CBA, even—as will be true in the typical case—when regulatory review does demand economic analysis as part of a holistic, multi-factor regulatory impact analysis.

Robin Kundis Craig | October 1, 2021

In Term-Opener, Justices Will Hear Mississippi’s Complaint that Tennessee Is Stealing Its Groundwater

Mississippi v. Tennessee is not only the Supreme Court’s first oral argument of the 2021-22 term, but it is also the first time that states have asked the court to weigh in on how they should share an interstate aquifer. The court’s decision could fundamentally restructure interstate groundwater law in the United States for decades -- or the case could be dismissed immediately on the grounds that Mississippi has failed to allege the proper cause of action.

Lisa Heinzerling | September 30, 2021

Climate Change, Racial Justice, and Cost-Benefit Analysis

President Biden has made climate change and racial justice central themes of his presidency. No doubt with these problems in mind, he has signaled a desire to rethink the process and substance of White House review of agencies' regulatory actions. On his very first day in office, Biden ordered administrative agencies to ensure that this review does not squelch regulatory initiatives nor brush aside "racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations." At the same time, however, Biden reaffirmed the "basic principles" of a Clinton-era executive order on White House regulatory review, subjecting agencies' major rules to a cost-benefit test. These twin inclinations -- toward acting boldly on climate change and racial justice, and toward judging regulation using cost-benefit analysis -- are trains racing toward each other on the same track. Two entrenched, perhaps even inherent, features of cost-benefit analysis practically ensure that the benefits of regulatory measures addressing climate change and racial injustice will be diminished and deformed in the process of "valuing" them.

Clarissa Libertelli | September 30, 2021

When It Rains, It Pours: Maryland Has a Growing Climate Justice Problem in Stormwater

Stormwater is growing problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, creating toxic runoff and flash flooding. The Maryland Department of Environment has the opportunity to protect people, but it hasn't yet.

Marcha Chaudry | September 29, 2021

Pushing for a Heat Stress Standard in Maryland and Beyond

A recent Maryland law requires the state's Commissioner of Labor and Industry, in consultation with its Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board, to develop and adopt regulations that require employers to protect employees from heat-related illness caused by heat stress. Those standards are due by October 2022. The law also requires the state to hold four public meetings to collect input from residents. This month, the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Division (MOSH) scheduled those meetings, and I testified at the September 20 session.