Blog

On October 22, millions of Americans watched the final presidential debate, taking in each candidate's plan for oft-discussed issues like health care, the economy, and foreign policy. Toward the end, the moderator asked the candidates how they would address the disproportionate and harmful impacts of the oil and chemical industries on people of color. President Trump largely ignored the question. But former Vice President Joe Biden addressed it head on, sharing his own experience growing up near oil refineries and calling for restrictions on "fenceline emissions" -- the pollution levels observed at the boundary of a facility's property, which too often abuts a residential neighborhood. Less than three weeks later, Biden was elected president of the United States, making it possible for him to turn his campaign promises into action.

At long last, we’ve reached “safe harbor” day, when states must resolve election-related disputes. Under federal law, Congress must count votes from states that meet today’s deadline. Donald Trump is essentially out of time to steal a second term; our democracy, it appears, will survive, at least for now. The last four years have been an urgent call to action to reclaim our democracy, to fix it, to reimagine it. The good news is we can use the tools of democracy to do so. The Center for Progressive Reform is launching Policy for a Just America, a major new initiative to repair and reimagine government. We’re developing a series of policy recommendations and other resources to advance justice and equity and create a sustainable future. We’re also using advocacy and media engagement tools to inform the public about the urgent need for reform and how to achieve it across all levels of government.

Everyone who has studied what agencies in fact have done have concluded that agencies have largely failed in complying with varying retrospective review requirements. What is to be done? The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a proposed answer: absent a retrospective review within a designated period, sunset the regulation.

It's clear that EPA has a central role to play in climate policy, but EPA does not stand alone. Other agencies also have important roles to play. Fortunately, the Biden transition team seems to have come to this realization.

After taking their oaths of office in January, newly minted President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will face a number of daunting challenges: the ongoing pandemic and economic downturn; structural racial and ethnic injustice; widening economic inequality; inadequate access to affordable health care; and climate change. And Congress, facing the prospect of divided control, is unlikely to respond with robust legislative solutions that the American people expect and deserve. The good news is that Biden and Harris will be able to meet these challenges head on by revitalizing governance and making effective use of the federal regulatory system. Better still, they can do so in a way that delivers justice and equity for all Americans.

CPR is committed to meaningful public participation in all of America’s democratic institutions. We believe such participation is essential for ensuring more just and effective policies, but also for imbuing those policies with legitimacy and public confidence. Public participation is critical to empowering all Americans to have their say in our centuries-long project of forming a more perfect union.

With the climate and COVID crises at the fore, state and local environmental regulation and decision-making in has taken on greater weight in Virginia. As CPR Policy Analyst Katlyn Schmitt points out in a new paper, there is still some low-hanging fruit to be picked before Virginians can be equitably served by and participate in the Commonwealth’s environmental decision-making process.

After 17 years with CPR, media consultant Matt Freeman signs off.

This week, I’m posting a new web article documenting the arbitrariness and subjectivity that cost-benefit analysis injects into regulatory decision-making, the latest installment in CPR’s Beyond 12866 initiative. Specifically, the piece explains how cost-benefit analysis deploys a wide variety of methodological techniques that can be clumsy, unscientific, ethically dubious, and, too often, downright absurd.