Beacon Hill Institute schools Natural Resources Defense Council on basic economics and the EPA.

[Author’s note: The environmentalist left has mounted a campaign to discredit any cost-benefit analysis conducted by state policy think tanks. The criticism of such studies turn out to be more than mere invective and devoid of any substance. Groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, the NRDC and Forecast the Facts rely not on economics but ad hominem attacks on research organizations such as BHI, partly because they are losing the debate on climate change mitigation. The following is a recent point-by-point response to the NRDC. It’s also a good introduction on how to apply economic analysis to a public policy issue.]

Laurie Johnson, an economist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently posted a blog entry that sharply criticizes recent BHI studies of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.  

It is important, in reading this blog, to understand that Dr. Johnson’s job is to defend tooth-and-nail an organization whose purpose is to promote what it deems to be environmental protection at any cost to economic activity at home and abroad.  

Now let’s see what Dr. Johnson has to say and how she is willing to mislead her readers and resort to her own brand of junk economics in order to defend her employer’s agenda. Read the entire BHI response here.

 

About Beacon Hill Institute

The Beacon Hill Institute engages in rigorous economic research and conducts educational programs for the purpose of producing and disseminating readable analyses of current public policy issues to voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers.