>>> Click here for Nevada Policy’s blueprint for rebuilding Nevada’s economy<<< The COVID-19 pandemic, the statewide shutdown and the resulting economic consequences will have a lasting impact on Nevada. As we work to keep the coronavirus under control and rebuild the livelihoods of Nevadans, we have an… Read More
Government-imposed environmental regulations must constantly weigh the cost to the nation—economic effect—against the benefits to the environment—environmental effect. The Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory mandates tend to tip the scale in favor of the environmental effect at a high cost to the taxpayers, often with unproven environmental benefits. Superfund Cleanup sites are one example. The proposed Clean Air Act mandates could be another. The EPA’s new air quality standards have caused an uproar since they were proposed last November. President Clinton must decide on July 17 whether or not he will sign the regulations into law. He must weigh the economic effect against the environmental and, in this case, health benefits some say will be achieved. Following is a look at what recent studies show about the cost of these regulations and the expected effects.
Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa has joined 32 state attorneys general in filing suit against the tobacco industry. On May 21, Del Papa announced her lawsuit at a news conference in Las Vegas. But a new study by the Heartland Institute’s Michael E. DeBow exposes the shaky legal ground upon which such legal actions stand. DeBow’s analysis of the attorneys generals’ lawsuits is summarized below.
In recent years, numerous groups, including federal agencies, have offered advice on how Americans can be "good environmentalists." Through broadcast and print media, consumers, legislators and even children are told what products and what actions are environmentally "good" and "bad." Although frequently well-intentioned, the advice is all too often based on little more than the simple-minded application of such core beliefs as "recycling is good," "disposables are bad," "packaging is bad," "plastics are bad," etc. In many cases, the advice-givers focus on only one environmental concern (such as the volume of solid waste) while ignoring all others (such as air pollution, water pollution, energy use and the use of other scarce resources). From the perspective of the total environment, the advice is often wrong. Consumers who try to follow simple rules when they shop may end up harming the environment more than if they simply ignored the environmental consequences of their behavior. Listed here are 10 myths consumers are led to believe—followed by facts.