Each ton of carbon pollution from cars, planes, and power plants comes with costs. It harms our environment and threatens our health, it drives climate change, and it negatively impacts our economy. The White House has attempted to develop a standard estimate of these costs, called the “social cost of carbon,” for agencies to use in analyzing the benefits of rules designed to reduce carbon emissions. In an Aug. 25 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) validated that effort.

Nighttime satellite imagery makes it seem like a new metropolis has sprung up in the prairies of western North Dakota. But the large cluster of lights actually comes from natural gas flaring in the Bakken oil field. Flaring – or the burning of natural gas released in oil fracking – creates pollution and costs the state millions of dollars in lost taxes and royalties.

With the increased focus on removing toxic chemicals from consumer products, it’s logical to assume that alternative chemicals used in these products will be substantially less dangerous to our health and the environment. Unfortunately, due to the lack of safety information for the vast majority of chemicals currently used in manufacturing, these substitutes may not be any safer than the chemicals they replace. 

Not content with restricting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health and the environment (see http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/congresss-latest-assault-epa), anti-regulatory members of Congress have broadened their sights to encompass the entire scope of federal agencies that provide public protections and safeguard the American people.