Radiative Forcing: Climate Policy to Break the Logjam in Environmental Law

This article recommends the key design elements of US climate law. Much past environmental law has suffered from four design problems: fragmentation, insensitivity to tradeoffs, rigid prescriptive commands, and mismatched scale. These are problems with the design of regulatory systems, not a rejection of the overall objective of environmental law to protect ecosystems and human health. These four design defects raised the costs, reduced the benefits, and increased the countervailing risks of many past environmental laws. The principal environmental laws successfully enacted since the 1990s, such as the acid rain trading program in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, were consciously designed to overcome the prior design defects. New law for climate change should improve on the design of past environmental law, fostering four counterpart solutions to the prior design defects: cross-cutting integration instead of fragmentation, attention to tradeoffs instead of their neglect, flexible incentive-based policy instruments such as emissions trading in place of rigid prescriptive commands, and optimal instead of mismatched scale. This article advocates a design for U.S. climate policy that embodies these four design solutions. It proposes a policy that is comprehensive in its coverage of multiple pollutants (all GHGs), their sources and sinks; multiple sectors (indeed economy-wide); and multiple issues currently divided among separate agencies. It advocates explicit attention to tradeoffs, both benefit-cost and risk-risk (including both ancillary harms and ancillary benefits), in setting the goals and boundaries of climate policy. It advocates the use of flexible market-based incentives through an efficient cap-and-trade system, with most allowances auctioned along multi-year emissions reduction schedules that are reviewed periodically in light of new information. And it advocates matching the legal regime to the environmental and economic scale of the climate problem, starting at the global level, engaging all the major emitting countries (including the U.S. and China), and then implementing at the national and sub-national levels rather than a patchwork bottom-up approach. In so doing it addresses the roles of EPA regulation under the current CAA and of new legislation. It argues that among environmental issues, climate change is ideally suited to adopt these improved policy design features

Better Regulation in Europe

Better Regulation is afoot in Europe. After several transatlantic conflicts over regulatory topics such as the precautionary principle, genetically modified foods, and climate change, Europe and America now appear to be converging on the analytic basis for regulation. In a process of hybridization, European institutions are borrowing Better Regulation reforms from both the US approach to regulatory review using benefit-cost analysis and from European member states\u27 initiatives on administrative costs and simplification; in turn the European Commission is helping to spread these reforms among the member states. In many respects, the Better Regulation initiative promises salutary reforms, such as wider use of regulatory impact assessments and a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy. In other respects, the European initiative speaks more of Procrustean deregulation than of better regulation. Meanwhile the European Commission still needs to establish the institutional infrastructure needed to succeed. This paper argues that the European program of Better Regulation is well-founded but could be even better if it adopted several strategies: enlarging the scope of impact assessment and benefit-cost analysis toward a broader, warmer and more evenhanded application of these tools, with greater attention to multiple risks; moving beyond a narrow focus on cutting administrative costs or simplification for their own sake, toward criteria that address benefits as well as costs; centralizing expert oversight so that impact assessments actually influence decisions, both to say no to bad ideas and yes to good ideas; and undertaking ex post evaluation of policies for adaptive policy revision and for improvement of ex ante assessment methods. These reforms would help Better Regulation achieve its true objective: better, not less or more. In turn, the US could study these European innovations and borrow from them where they prove successful

Better Regulation in Europe

Better Regulation is afoot in Europe. After several transatlantic conflicts over regulatory topics such as the precautionary principle, genetically modified foods, and climate change, Europe and America now appear to be converging on the analytic basis for regulation. In a process of hybridization, European institutions are borrowing Better Regulation reforms from both the US approach to regulatory review using benefit-cost analysis and from European member states\u27 initiatives on administrative costs and simplification; in turn the European Commission is helping to spread these reforms among the member states. In many respects, the Better Regulation initiative promises salutary reforms, such as wider use of regulatory impact assessments and a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy. In other respects, the European initiative speaks more of Procrustean deregulation than of better regulation. Meanwhile the European Commission still needs to establish the institutional infrastructure needed to succeed. This paper argues that the European program of Better Regulation is well-founded but could be even better if it adopted several strategies: enlarging the scope of impact assessment and benefit-cost analysis toward a broader, warmer and more evenhanded application of these tools, with greater attention to multiple risks; moving beyond a narrow focus on cutting administrative costs or simplification for their own sake, toward criteria that address benefits as well as costs; centralizing expert oversight so that impact assessments actually influence decisions, both to say no to bad ideas and yes to good ideas; and undertaking ex post evaluation of policies for adaptive policy revision and for improvement of ex ante assessment methods. These reforms would help Better Regulation achieve its true objective: better, not less or more. In turn, the US could study these European innovations and borrow from them where they prove successful

Integrated payload and mission planning, phase 3. Volume 1: Integrated payload and mission planning process evaluation

The integrated payload and mission planning process for STS payloads was defined, and discrete tasks which evaluate performance and support initial implementation of this process were conducted. The scope of activity was limited to NASA and NASA-related payload missions only. The integrated payload and mission planning process was defined in detail, including all related interfaces and scheduling requirements. Related to the payload mission planning process, a methodology for assessing early Spacelab mission manager assignment schedules was defined

A Development Model for Identifying the Uncertainty Sources and Their Impacts on Bridge Construction Projects

Bridge construction projects are rife with uncertainty because of their unique features, from execution of the work, time estimation, inspection and assessment to fund allocation. Therefore, a critical step is recognise and categorise the uncertainties associated in bridge building in order to meet project objectives in terms of quality, cost, schedule, environmental, safety, and technical indicators. Various models, however, have been created to detect and prioritise the uncertainty. One of the most commonly used approaches for dealing with uncertainty is the spherical fuzzy set. To formulate an issue, this technique uses a mathematical procedure. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), on the other hand, is a computer technique that solves a complicated problem by breaking it down into numerous basic problems. A hybrid model based on spherical fuzzy sets and AHP (SAHP) can benefit from both approaches. This study proposes a SAHP based on group decision making (GSAHP) to prioritise the sources of uncertainty in bridge construction projects. Likewise, a modified algorithm is proposed for checking the consistency of the spherical fuzzy matrices. To show the model potential, a real case study is illustrated and evaluated. The model demonstrates its capabilities in modelling uncertainty under an environment with a number of unknown components. The findings reveal that the “delays” factor is of the highest, and the “project team conflicts” parameter is of the least importance. The research findings could be used by decision makers and managers to develop preventive measures

Navigation and guidance requirements for commercial VTOL operations

The NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) has undertaken a research program to develop the navigation, guidance, control, and flight management technology base needed by Government and industry in establishing systems design concepts and operating procedures for VTOL short-haul transportation systems in the 1980s time period. The VALT (VTOL Automatic Landing Technology) Program encompasses the investigation of operating systems and piloting techniques associated with VTOL operations under all-weather conditions from downtown vertiports; the definition of terminal air traffic and airspace requirements; and the development of avionics including navigation, guidance, controls, and displays for automated takeoff, cruise, and landing operations. The program includes requirements analyses, design studies, systems development, ground simulation, and flight validation efforts