2,231 research outputs found
Closing Session
No full textJonathan Wiener, JD, William R. and Thomas L. Perkins Professor of Law at Duke Law School, Professor of Environmental Policy at the Nicholas School of the Environment, Professor of Public Policy Studies at the Sanford Institute of Public Polic
Panel 1: EPAs Past and Future
No full textModerator: Jonathan B. Wiener, Duke University
Gordon Binder, World Wildlife Fund and Aqua International Partners; former EPA Chief of Staff
Michael Vandenbergh, Vanderbilt University; former EPA Chief of Staff
Richard Pete Andrews, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil
A Pattern of Parity and Particularity, in Who’s Ahead in Environmental Protection: The United States or the European Union?
No full textA debate on the issue of who is ahead in environmental policy with contributions by Michael S. Caplan, Robert Donkers, Meaghan Purvis, Ernie Rosenberg and Jonathan B. Wiene
Well-Being Analysis vs. Cost-Benefit Analysis
No full textDuke Law Journal presents: 43rd Annual Administrative Law Symposium: A Happiness Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis which focuses on the role of well-being analysis in administrative law. The Symposium starts with Duke Law Professor Jonathan Wiener and his opening remarks. The panels begin with a presentation by Professors John Bronsteen (Loyola Univ. Chicago School of Law), Christopher Buccafusco (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law), and Jonathan Masur (University of Chicago Law), who coauthored an article titled Well-Being Analysis vs. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Reconstructing Climate Policy: Beyond Kyoto
No full textIn their comprehensive analysis of the Kyoto Protocol and climate policy, Richard B. Stewart and Jonathan B. Wiener examine the current impasse in climate policy and the potential steps nations can take to reduce greenhouse gases. They summarize the current state of information regarding the extent of global warming that would be caused by increasing uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. They explain why participation by all major greenhouse gas-emitting countries is essential to curb future greenhouse gas emissions and also note the significant obstacles to obtaining such participation.
Stewart and Wiener argue it is in the national interest of the United States to participate in such a regime, provided that it is well designed. They discuss the elements of sound climate regulatory design, including maximum use of economic incentives, the comprehensive approach, and other flexibility mechanisms; participation by all major emitting countries, including developing countries; regulatory targets based on longer-term emissions pathways set to maximize net social benefits; and effective arrangements to ensure compliance with regulatory obligations by nations and sources.
After evaluating the successes and failures of the Kyoto Protocol in light of those elements, the authors propose a series of U.S. initiatives at the international and domestic levels, with the aim of engaging the United States and major developing country emitters such as China in the global greenhouse gas regulatory effort and correcting the remaining defects in the design of the Kyoto Protocol. Although several alternatives to the current Kyoto Protocol regime have been proposed, Stewart and Wiener argue that the best approach for surmounting the current global climate policy impasse is a new strategy that would lead, sooner or later, to simultaneous accession by the United States and China (and other major developing country emitters) to a modified and improved version of the Kyoto Protocol agreement
Emerging Energy Issues
No full textDo current environmental regulations stifle energy industry innovation? Restrict output in energy markets? Does the current regulatory regime strike the right balance for the energy industry?
Appearing: Jonathan B. Wiener (Professor, Duke University School of Law), moderator; Suedeen G. Kelly (Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), R. Dobie Langenkamp (Professor, University of Tulsa College of Law), Christopher H. Schroeder (Professor, Duke University School of Law
Panel I: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No full textThe Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law hosted a symposium on the global impact of the local management of environmental resources. By looking at the property-related aspects of international environmental law, the Symposium explored development concerns and the impact of resource management systems on national economies.
Appearing: David M. Driesen (Syracuse College of Law), Annie Petsonk (Environmental Defense Fund), Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University School of Law), panelists ; moderated by Brian Murray (Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences)
Comparing Regulatory Oversight Bodies Across the Atlantic: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU
No full text‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ asked the Roman poet Juvenal – ‘who will watch the watchers, who will guard the guardians?’1 As legislative and regulatory processes around the globe progressively put greater emphasis on impact assessment and accountability, (Verschuuren and van Gestel 2009, Hahn and Tetlock 2007), we ask: who oversees the regulators? Although regulation can often be necessary and beneficial, it can also impose its own costs. As a result, many governments have embraced, or are considering embracing, regulatory oversight--frequently relying on economic analysis as a tool of evaluation.We are especially interested in the emergence over the last four decades of a new set of institutional actors, the Regulatory Oversight Bodies (ROBs). These bodies tend to be located in the executive (or sometimes the legislative) branch of government. They review the flow of new regulations using impact assessment and benefit-cost analysis, and they sometimes also appraise existing regulations to measure and reduce regulatory burdens. Through these procedures of regulatory review, ROBs have become an integral aspect not only of regulatory reform programs in many countries, but also of their respective administrative systems. Although most academic attention focuses on the analytical tools used to improve the quality of legislation, such as regulatory impact assessment (RIA) or benefit-cost analysis, this chapter instead identifies the key concepts and issues surrounding the establishment and operation of ROBs across governance systems. It does so by examining and comparing the oversight mechanisms that have been established in the United States and in the EU and by critically looking into their origins, rationales, mandates, institutional designs and scope of oversight.
Labeling Panel
No full textA panel discussion from Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum\u27s 25th Anniversary Symposium, Carrots and Sticks: Moving the US National Food System Toward a Sustainable Future.
The panel\u27s topic, food labeling, was discussed by the following speakers: Jonathan Wiener, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Mary Jane Angelo, Director, Environmental & Land Use Law Program, UF Levin College of Law Jason Czarnezki, Executive Director, Environmental Law Programs, Pace Law School
Managing the Iatrogenic Risks of Risk Management
No full textAnalogizing to concerns that led the practice of medicine to shift from a specialist to a team-based approach, Dr. Wiener suggests that public and environmental health objectives would be better served if, e.g., regulatory jurisdiction were less atomized
- …
