One of the lessons of the recent government shutdown (and expected near miss on a second one) is that there … More
Whether regulation generally—and environmental regulation, in particular—imposes significant burdens on property owners and other regulated parties is sharply contested. The … More
Counterintuitively, human prosperity is the engine of environmental improvement. As people grow richer, they care more about the environment around … More
This week, briefing began in WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case of critical importance to anyone concerned about … More
Last week, the Supreme Court heard argument in the case challenging the WOTUS rule—the controversial rule defining the scope of … More
The Supreme Court is considering an important Takings Clause case on the government’s obligation to pay when it regulates away … More
Climate change challenges conservative and libertarian instincts in a way that makes it harder to believe the evidence, no matter how strong it is. Climate evangelists likewise tend to embrace science and evidence when it confirms their prior political views and reject it otherwise. For progressives and big-government liberals, climate change is easy to accept to the extent it seems to call out for a big-government solution. But even among climate evangelicals, where science and their prior political commitments conflict, politics usually win.
In congressional testimony, I explain how the Endangered Species Act’s consultation process delays infrastructure upgrades and can harm species.
The federal government should transfer permitting authority to states under the Clean Water Act 404 program.
An Endangered Species Act regulation undermines incentives to conserve and recover species, while also harming property owners and the economy.