Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?

Palmer, Karen; Oates, Wallace E.; Portney, Paul R.

doi:10.1257/jep.9.4.119

This setting lets you change the way you view articles. You can choose to have articles open in a dialog window, a new tab, or directly in the same window.

Open in Dialog
Open in New Tab
Open in same window

Journal of Economic Perspectives: Vol. 9 No. 4 (Fall 1995)

JEP Volume. 9, Issue 4 | left

Previous Article Next Article right

Expand

Quick Tools:

Print Article Summary Email Link to this Article Export Citation
Sign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter

Explore:

JEP - All Issues

Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?

Article Citation

Palmer, Karen, Wallace E. Oates, and Paul R. Portney. 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4): 119-132.

DOI: 10.1257/jep.9.4.119

Abstract

This paper takes issue with the Porter-van der Linde claim that traditional benefit-cost analysis is a fundamental misrepresentation of the environmental problem. They contend that stringent environmental measures induce innovative efforts leading to improvements in abatement and production technologies that offset the costs of the regulations. Drawing both on basic economic theory and existing data on control costs, the authors argue that such offsets are special cases. The data indicate offsets are minuscule relative to control costs. There is no free lunch here: environmental programs must justify their costs by the benefits that improved environmental quality provides to society.

Article Full-Text Access

Full-text Article (Complimentary)

Authors

Palmer, Karen (Resources for the Future)
Oates, Wallace E. (U MD and Resources for the Future)
Portney, Paul R. (Resources for the Future)

JEL Classifications

Q28: Renewable Resources and Conservation: Government Policy

Comments

View Comments on This Article (0) | Login to post a comment