The New Republic on benefit-cost analysis (Should environmentalists fear Cass Sunstein):
But, as Professor Sunstein has argued (and I would agree), cost-benefit analysis, properly used, can be used to identify smart policy options, maximizing environmental and public-health benefits while minimizing economic costs. The technique enjoys broad bipartisan support because the American public is unwilling to pay infinite costs to reduce risks. Rationally, they want to ensure that government regulations don't impose greater costs than they're worth. If the Obama administration were to jettison cost-benefit analysis, in favor of something like the precautionary principle, it would make it harder, not easier, to convince a cash-strapped country that strong environmental and public-health protections make sense.
