|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ENDANGERED SPECIES | | | Publications | | | Land Use Policies in the United States for Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services | | Margaret Walls and Anne Riddle | | Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics, Vol. 3 | J.F. Shogren, ed. | Amsterdam: Elsevier | 2013 | | | | | | Climate Change Regulatory Authority beyond the Clean Air Act | | Peter Anderson, Nathan Richardson | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-39 | July 2012 | | Abstract: While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority, Congress has considered several different bills that would preempt CAA regulation of GHGs and replace it with a comprehensive national climate policy. Policymakers should be aware that there are other existing federal statutes granting GHG regulatory authority, and new legislation would likely preempt them as well. This paper surveys these other statutes in order to highlight existing federal authority that might be given up with the passage of a new comprehensive bill. It explores the possibility of direct regulation of GHGs under the Clean Water Act (CWA), along with federal authority to block projects that contribute to climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conservation statutes such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Newer statutes like the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) mandate narrower regulation, but they are also considered here. | | | | Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use: Comparing Three Federal Policies | | Margaret A. Walls, Anne Riddle | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-08 | February 2012 | | Abstract: Natural ecosystems provide a variety of benefits to society, known as “ecosystem services.” Fundamental to the provision of ecosystem services in a region is its underlying biodiversity, i.e., the wealth and variety of plants, animals, and microorganisms. Because the benefits from ecosystem services and biodiversity are not valued in market exchanges, private landowners tend to undersupply them. We compare and contrast the different approaches taken to providing ecosystem services on private land in three federal programs—the Endangered Species Act, the Conservation Reserve Program, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) places restrictions on land uses for private landowners if endangered species, or critical habitats for endangered species, are found on their properties. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) compensates farmers for removing valuable property from agricultural production to preserve wildlife habitat, water and soil quality, and other ecosystem values. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits destruction or damage to wetlands, unless individuals buy credits for equivalent wetlands created by third parties—so-called “wetlands mitigation banks.” These three policies run the gamut from a command-and-control regulatory approach to a “payment for ecosystem services” option. We summarize the economics literature on key findings from these programs. | | | | View All Related Publications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|