Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Resources for the Future

Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution founded in 1952 in , that applies economic analysis to environmental, , and issues to inform decisions. Established with initial funding from the following recommendations from President Truman's Materials Policy Commission to address postwar challenges, RFF became the first dedicated to these topics. Its mission centers on improving related decisions through impartial research and engagement, without direct lobbying, emphasizing market-based mechanisms such as pricing and . RFF has influenced U.S. by framing as an unpriced production cost and advocating economic incentives over command-and-control regulations. Under President and CEO Richard G. Newell since 2016, the organization with approximately 150 staff and an $18 million budget continues research on climate mitigation, transitions, and resource management. While self-described as nonpartisan, RFF's advocacy for measures like carbon taxes and critiques of —such as opposition to relaxed vehicle fuel efficiency standards—has led to characterizations of it as left-of-center, with funding from foundations, firms, and agencies that often align with regulatory approaches.

Founding and Early Development

Establishment and Initial Grants (1952)

Resources for the Future (RFF) was established in in direct response to post-World War II anxieties over scarcity, exacerbated by wartime rationing and the War's material demands, which raised fears of long-term depletion in key commodities like metals and energy sources. The President's Materials Policy Commission, chaired by , released its report Resources for Freedom on June 10, , which analyzed U.S. resource availability and warned that without improved conservation, exploration, and economic management, shortages could undermine and . The report explicitly recommended creating an independent, nonprofit research organization to conduct ongoing, impartial studies on resource use, statistics, and policy—marking RFF as the first U.S. dedicated solely to . RFF was incorporated as a nonprofit, corporation on October 7, 1952, with its charter emphasizing objective analysis free from government or industry influence. Initial operations were seeded by from the , which provided the foundational funding to launch research programs and assemble an early board of trustees drawn from academia, business, and policy circles to ensure balanced governance. These enabled RFF to prioritize empirical and economic modeling over , positioning it as a sentinel for resource challenges amid Cold War-era strategic imperatives. From , RFF's centered on applying rigorous economic principles to address and allocation dilemmas, grounded in the recognition of as a constraint on human prosperity and requiring trade-offs in resource distribution. Early efforts focused on quantifying domestic inventories, import dependencies, and technological substitutions, rather than alarmist predictions, to inform with causal insights into supply-demand . This approach contrasted with prevailing government responses, aiming instead for systematic, data-driven frameworks to sustain resource flows without stifling innovation or growth.

Pioneering Focus on Resource Economics

Resources for the Future (RFF) distinguished itself in the 1950s by advocating a shift from ad-hoc government planning toward systematic economic evaluation of natural resources, emphasizing empirical data and modeling over qualitative assessments prevalent in contemporaneous conservation efforts. Early research targeted key commodities such as timber, water, and minerals, applying quantitative methods to forecast supply, demand, and optimal allocation. For instance, analyses of timber and mineral resources incorporated projections of technological substitution and market dynamics to assess long-term scarcity risks, challenging pessimistic views of resource depletion with evidence-based alternatives. A cornerstone of this approach was the integration of cost-benefit analysis into resource decision-making, formalized in RFF's inaugural studies during the late 1950s. The 1958 publication Multiple Purpose River Development, co-authored by RFF researchers John Krutilla and Otto Eckstein, evaluated multipurpose dam projects like using benefit-cost frameworks to weigh hydroelectric power, , and emerging preservation values against development costs, thereby addressing externalities such as environmental opportunity costs. This methodology extended to mechanisms for and minerals, promoting efficient allocation by internalizing unpriced externalities like or overuse, in contrast to advocacy-driven policies that often prioritized expansion without rigorous quantification. By the early , RFF's Resources in America's Future () synthesized these tools into comprehensive projections of resource availabilities—covering products like timber, supplies, and nonfuel minerals—through econometric modeling of and substitution potentials up to 2000, influencing debates on . RFF's economic rigor informed U.S. policy deliberations, notably contributing analytical support to the (ORRRC), established by in 1958 to assess national recreation needs. RFF economists, including Marion Clawson, provided data on trends and formalized ORRRC-identified values like preservation into quantifiable economic terms, aiding the commission's 1962 recommendations for federal investment in outdoor resources. This work established cost-benefit analysis as a standard for evaluating and policies, differentiating RFF's , evidence-focused output from ideologically oriented groups and laying groundwork for subsequent environmental legislation without endorsing specific outcomes.

Mission, Approach, and Organizational Framework

Core Objectives and Empirical Methodology

Resources for the Future (RFF) maintains core objectives aimed at bolstering environmental, energy, and policymaking through impartial economic that elucidates causal mechanisms, structures, and quantifiable trade-offs. Established as a entity, RFF seeks to equip decision-makers with evidence on policy efficacy, emphasizing analyses that weigh environmental gains against economic costs without presupposing ideological outcomes. This mission prioritizes rigorous scrutiny of how policies alter behaviors via price signals and resource allocation, rather than endorsing prescriptive interventions detached from empirical validation. RFF's empirical methodology centers on economic modeling and data-intensive techniques to derive causal insights, including integrated models that integrate projections with economic variables to estimate impacts like the . These tools facilitate simulations of policy scenarios, enabling evaluations of long-term effects based on historical data, econometric estimation, and scenario analysis, while upholding standards of and to mitigate biases inherent in less rigorous advocacy-driven assessments. By focusing on verifiable metrics—such as abatement costs and emission trajectories—RFF contrasts with approaches that rely on untested assumptions or overlook confounding factors. In policy recommendations, RFF favors market-based incentives, exemplified by carbon pricing mechanisms that impose costs on emissions to harness decentralized for efficient reductions, over command-and-control regulations prone to inefficiencies from uniform mandates ignoring firm-specific contexts. This orientation stems from first-principles recognition that incentives drive behavioral change, with analyses routinely assessing net benefits by comparing regulatory burdens to environmental yields and flagging unintended effects like economic leakage or innovation suppression. Such distinctions from activist entities, which often advance normative agendas with limited regard for holistic costs, underscore RFF's dedication to causal realism in informing balanced, data-substantiated choices.

Governance Structure and Current Leadership

Resources for the Future (RFF) is governed by a consisting of 23 members, including economists such as R. Glenn Hubbard and Robert N. Stavins, business leaders like Vicky A. Bailey of Anderson Stratton Enterprises and Janet F. Clark, and academics including Richard Schmalensee and Catherine Wolfram. The board provides strategic oversight, with Susan F. Tierney, a senior advisor at , serving as chair and Vicky A. Bailey as co-vice chair. This composition draws from diverse professional backgrounds to guide RFF's focus on rigorous, evidence-based research in environmental and . Executive is headed by President and Chief Executive Officer William A. (Billy) Pizer, appointed on March 14, 2024, following a tenure at RFF that included roles in and policy engagement; Pizer holds expertise in from prior positions at and . His predecessor, Richard Newell, served as president from 2019 until the transition, having advanced frameworks for integrating economic modeling into during his . The team includes vice presidents overseeing and operations, ensuring alignment with RFF's empirical methodology. RFF maintains organizational independence through its nonprofit status and board diversity, which incorporates perspectives from , , and without formal affiliation to political entities, thereby prioritizing data-driven analysis over partisan influences. No public bylaws specify term limits for board members, though the structure's emphasis on selection by peers supports continuity in methodological rigor. This setup has historically shielded RFF from external capture, as evidenced by consistent nonpartisan output across administrations.

Funding Mechanisms and Independence

Primary Funding Sources and Transparency

Resources for the Future (RFF) obtains its primary funding from a diversified array of sources, including grants from private foundations, contracts and grants from government agencies, contributions from corporations and individuals, and income from investments and endowment earnings, with no single donor or category exerting dominance over its operations. Initial establishment in 1952 relied on seed grants from the , which continued providing substantial support in subsequent years, such as an additional $5.375 million grant announced in 1958 to expand research and educational activities on . Contemporary funding includes ongoing foundation grants from entities like the , federal government awards for projects, donations from energy and environmental firms, and individual gifts, supplemented by returns on a $57 million reserve fund as of fiscal year-end 2023. This funding mix supports RFF's claim of , as the absence of reliance on any predominant source reduces vulnerability to external pressures, though critics have scrutinized historical ties to with environmental advocacy leanings. funding, often in the form of competitive contracts from agencies like the Department of Energy, constitutes a notable portion but is project-specific and subject to processes. Corporate and individual contributions, while present, are disclosed to allow assessment of potential sector influences on priorities. RFF upholds transparency via mandatory IRS disclosures, publicly available audited , and detailed annual reports outlining revenue origins without aggregating donor-specific amounts beyond required thresholds. For 2023, total operating revenue reached approximately $17.5 million, with over 79 percent attributable to from foundations, entities, and other organizations, enabling public verification of funding patterns and from any singular ideological or commercial capture. These practices, including rejection of imposing undue restrictions on dissemination, facilitate scrutiny and bolster credibility in an environment where funding can invite bias allegations.

Budget Trends and Allocation Practices

Resources for the Future (RFF) began operations in the early with modest funding, primarily supported by an initial $1.5 million from the spanning 1952 to 1962, which funded foundational research in resource at a time when annual expenditures were likely under $200,000 adjusted for . By the , RFF's operating budget had expanded to approximately $18 million in fiscal year 2023, reflecting growth driven by an increased scope of empirical across environmental, , and domains, alongside diversified revenue streams including grants and endowments. This trajectory shows relative stability in recent decades, with total revenues fluctuating between $13 million and $15.5 million annually from 2019 to 2023, excluding one-time asset sales in 2013 that temporarily spiked figures to $37 million. Expenses have mirrored this, averaging $15-18 million yearly, indicating fiscal discipline amid broader institutional expansion in research output. Allocation practices prioritize , with 74% of 2023 expenses—roughly $13.3 million—dedicated to research programs and policy engagement, while 26% covered , administration, and . Revenue composition supports this, with over 76% derived from competitive grants from foundations, governments, and organizations, supplemented by individual contributions, corporate gifts, and modest earned income from assets like building operations. This structure aligns expenditures with mission-driven outputs, as evidenced by audited that demonstrate consistent program spending without disproportionate administrative bloat, though salaries and benefits constitute a significant portion of non-research costs (around 30-45% of total expenses in filings). To maintain alignment with causal mechanisms over , RFF employs internal processes including peer-reviewed project selection and annual audits by independent firms, ensuring funds target data-driven analyses rather than ideologically predetermined conclusions. Historical trends reveal no sharp deviations toward operational overhead, with allocation holding steady above 70% across recent years, underscoring efficiency in resource distribution for verifiable, economic modeling. Such practices mitigate risks of bias in fund use, prioritizing empirical validation in budget decisions.

Core Research Areas and Methodologies

Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis

Resources for the Future (RFF) utilizes econometric models and frameworks, such as the Goulder-Hafstead Energy-Environment-Economy (E3) model, to evaluate the economic impacts of pollution control policies, emphasizing cost-effective reductions through market-based instruments like . These analyses demonstrate that flexible mechanisms, such as cap-and-trade systems, achieve emissions targets at lower abatement costs compared to command-and-control mandates by allowing firms to select least-cost compliance options, as evidenced in RFF's assessments of programs in states like . RFF's early work, including the 2002 publication Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice, highlighted how trading schemes harness economic incentives to minimize compliance expenses while meeting environmental goals, drawing on real-world implementations like the U.S. program. In energy policy analysis, RFF quantifies trade-offs in transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables, using data-driven projections that account for generation costs, revenue implications, and abatement potentials. The organization's Global Energy Outlook 2025 projects renewables comprising over 50% of global electricity by 2050 under various scenarios, yet underscores persistent roles for and other fossils due to reliability and cost factors, with fossil revenues historically exceeding $1,000 annually in U.S. counties reliant on them—far outpacing renewables. Specific studies on from oil and gas operations reveal substantial low-cost abatement opportunities, with a 2025 synthesis estimating potential reductions at marginal costs below $10 per ton in many cases, though widespread negative-cost claims are overstated; policies like fees or performance standards can incentivize cuts without eroding 's emissions advantages over . RFF's climate policy evaluations incorporate uncertainty in projections by prioritizing of observable impacts, such as temperature-GDP correlations, over high-end speculative scenarios in integrated models. This approach informs updates to metrics like the , where RFF's 2022 efforts refined estimates by integrating probabilistic treatment of damages and discounting, yielding values around $50 per ton of CO2 in 2020 dollars under central assumptions, while cautioning against overreliance on uncertain tail risks that inflate policy costs without commensurate benefits. Such frameworks stress balancing emissions reductions with economic trade-offs, avoiding policies driven by alarmist projections that ignore adaptive capacities or substitution effects.

Natural Resources and Economic Modeling

Resources for the Future (RFF) researchers have developed dynamic optimization models for non-renewable resources like minerals, applying principles of to determine optimal extraction paths that maximize over time. These models typically incorporate , positing that resource rents rise at the rate of interest under competitive conditions, balancing immediate depletion against future scarcity values while using discount rates to weigh intergenerational trade-offs. For instance, early RFF-supported analyses, such as those in Scarcity and Growth, empirically tested depletion trends using price and cost data from 1870 to 1960, finding no evidence of accelerating scarcity in minerals like and , contrary to Malthusian predictions, due to technological substitutions and exploration. In renewable resources, RFF applies similar dynamic frameworks to fisheries and forests, modeling stock growth, harvest rates, and economic rents to avoid . For fisheries, models critique open-access common-pool regimes—where users ignore externalities leading to stock collapse—and advocate quota systems like individual transferable quotas (ITQs), which assign property rights to shares of total allowable catch. Empirical assessments of ITQ markets, including multispecies fisheries, show quota trading enhances by allowing and reducing discards, with data from and U.S. groundfish fisheries indicating sustained yields and higher vessel revenues post-implementation compared to pre-ITQ eras. Forest at RFF employs dynamic timber supply models to simulate decisions under , integrating regeneration functions, discount rates, and land-use . These models reveal that ownership incentivizes sustained-yield , yielding higher timber volumes per than lands; for example, U.S. forests, covering about 20% of in the , demonstrated growth rates exceeding counterparts by 15-20% due to market-driven investments in . Critiques of common-pool tragedies in forests underscore evidence-based shifts toward or secure tenure, where verifiable data on reduced waste and improved emerge from property reforms, outperforming collectivist open-access or communal systems prone to rent dissipation. Applications to land use contrast public and private management efficiency, with RFF models quantifying opportunity costs and productivity differentials. Private lands allocated to timber or minerals exhibit superior yields—such as 1.5-2 times higher annual growth in managed forests versus —attributable to owners' incentives to internalize long-term values, supported by on U.S. inventories showing lower conversion rates to non-productive uses under private control. These findings reinforce causal mechanisms where well-defined property rights mitigate tragedy-of-the-commons effects, evidenced by quota or interventions yielding measurable gains in resource rents and metrics over decades.

Key Outputs and Historical Projects

Seminal Publications and Studies (1950s–1990s)

In the and , Resources for the Future (RFF) established its reputation through empirical assessments of availability and economic valuation, emphasizing data-driven projections over speculative narratives. A key early contribution was the 1958 study Multiple Purpose River Development: Studies in Applied Economic Analysis by John V. Krutilla and Otto Eckstein, which applied benefit-cost frameworks to evaluate federal water projects for , , and power generation, demonstrating how economic modeling could optimize multi-objective resource use amid post-World War II infrastructure expansion. This work influenced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers practices by quantifying trade-offs in public investments, with river basin developments yielding returns estimated at 10-15% on capital costs in select cases. The 1963 publication Resources in America's Future: Patterns of Requirements and Availabilities, 1960-2000 by Hans H. Landsberg, Leonard L. Fischman, and Joseph L. Fisher represented a inventory of minerals, , timber, and , projecting U.S. at 3-4% annually while assessing supply elasticities and economic from . Drawing on econometric models, it forecasted adequacy of domestic supplies under technological progress, informing policies like the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 by underscoring sustained-yield principles for forests and rangelands to balance timber output (projected at 12-15 billion board feet annually) with and protection without dissipation. These studies prioritized causal factors such as and , countering alarmist views with evidence that constraints were manageable through market signals rather than rigid allocations. During the 1970s and 1980s, RFF shifted toward environmental regulation economics, producing analyses that quantified costs and benefits of Clean Air Act implementations amid rising implementation expenses estimated at $20-30 billion annually by 1980. Researchers like developed hedonic pricing methods to value air quality improvements, estimating marginal health benefits from particulate reductions at $5-10 per ton abated in urban areas, which helped calibrate standards under the 1977 amendments by revealing overregulation risks in non-attainment zones. Empirical work highlighted that command-and-control measures often exceeded marginal abatement costs by 20-50% compared to incentives, advocating efficiency gains from tradable permits prototyped in leaded gasoline phasing (reducing emissions 90% by 1985 at costs below $0.01 per gallon). In the , RFF's precursor climate studies explored market-based mechanisms like carbon es to address emerging concerns, favoring them over bans for their ability to achieve emissions cuts at lower GDP impacts (projected 0.5-1% annual loss versus 1-2% for standards). Early papers analyzed designs internalizing CO2 externalities at $10-20 per , with recycling to offset distortionary es yielding double dividends through reduced deadweight losses estimated at 10-20% of . These efforts, building on econometric simulations, emphasized empirical gains from over mandates, informing international negotiations by demonstrating how uniform pricing could stabilize atmospheric concentrations at 500-550 without prohibitive rents on fossil fuels.

Influential Policy-Relevant Research (2000s–2010s)

In the 2000s, Resources for the Future (RFF) produced analyses affirming the causal effectiveness of cap-and-trade mechanisms in reducing (SO₂) emissions under the U.S. Program, established by of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. A 2003 RFF discussion paper by Dallas Burtraw and Erin evaluated the program's early performance, finding that allowance trading allowed electric utilities to cut emissions by reallocating abatement efforts to lower-cost sources, achieving a 31% reduction in SO₂ from 1995 baseline levels by 2002 at costs 15–50% below initial projections without trading. This , drawn from utility compliance data and econometric modeling, demonstrated how market incentives minimized abatement expenses—estimated at $1.2 billion annually versus $6 billion under uniform standards—while avoiding localized "hot spots" through flexible compliance. RFF's work highlighted the program's role in halving precursors nationwide by the decade's end, providing policymakers with causal insights into scalable emissions control. Shifting to the , RFF assessments of mandates under the Renewable Fuel (RFS) used longitudinal to quantify economic costs and environmental trade-offs, revealing mandates drove up global through cropland competition. A 2008 cross-sector review by RFF scholars, including Aaron Smith and others, identified policy interactions amplifying land-use changes, with U.S. production correlating to a 2–3% rise in corn prices by amid and export demand. By 2015, Ujjayant Chakravorty and colleagues' modeling projected that sustained RFS volumes could elevate long-run by 1–2% globally, factoring in yield improvements but offsetting gains via biofuel-induced and fertilizer runoff exceeding direct savings in some scenarios. These findings underscored causal links between volume mandates and distortions, informing debates on mandate waivers during blend wall constraints. RFF's 2010s research on hydraulic fracturing () for similarly balanced economic gains against environmental risks, employing site-specific to evaluate trade-offs. In a 2014 discussion paper, Joshua Linn and Lucija Muehlenbachs analyzed Marcellus , estimating that fracking boosted regional GDP by 1–2% via job creation and energy prices but imposed externalities like equivalent to 1–3% of produced gas volume and localized water contamination risks from disposal. Longitudinal well revealed cost reductions—rig efficiencies improved 40% from 2008–2013—yet causal econometric evidence linked operations to declines in high-density areas, prompting recommendations for targeted regulations over bans to capture net benefits estimated at $100–200 billion in consumer surplus from lower . Complementing these studies, RFF's Resources magazine in the 2000s and 2010s synthesized peer-reviewed findings into accessible policy briefs, such as 2005 issues on innovations and 2010s features on energy market transitions, distilling causal evidence from RFF models for congressional and agency audiences. These publications emphasized data-driven regulatory design, avoiding overreliance on mandates prone to unintended distortions observed in biofuels and advocating flexible instruments akin to proven cap-and-trade successes.

Recent and Ongoing Initiatives

Climate and Energy Transition Projects (2020s)

In the early , Resources for the Future (RFF) produced economic analyses evaluating the feasibility and costs of shifting to lower-emission energy systems, incorporating empirical data on investment needs, emission abatement options, and infrastructure constraints. The organization's Global Energy Outlook series, updated annually, models global energy pathways under varying decarbonization scenarios, projecting that achieving by mid-century would necessitate annual investments exceeding $4 trillion globally from 2024 onward, driven by scaling renewables, , and amid supply chain vulnerabilities for critical minerals. These reports highlight headwinds such as persistent demand in developing economies and tailwinds from falling costs, but emphasize that transitions risk stalling without policy support for dispatchable capacity to address intermittency. RFF's 2023–2025 working papers delved into targeted abatement strategies, including a 2025 synthesis of emission reduction costs in the oil and gas sector, estimating marginal abatement costs ranging from $10 to $500 per ton of equivalent based on surveyed industry data and technology deployment barriers. This work underscores 's short-term warming potency while quantifying economic trade-offs, such as investments yielding negative costs in some operations but higher expenses for remote flaring reductions. Complementary efforts modeled local fiscal impacts of renewable expansions, revealing potential revenue shortfalls for municipalities reliant on property taxes from fossil infrastructure, with simulations showing up to 20% declines in affected U.S. counties without compensatory mechanisms. Amid debates on clean mandates, RFF analyses in 2023–2024 questioned heavy dependence on variable renewables without adequate firm or , citing grid reliability risks from mismatched supply-demand timing and bottlenecks. A 2024 report on energy infrastructure obstacles used optimization models to demonstrate that intermittent sources like and require overbuild factors of 2–3 times to match baseload reliability, factoring in historical outage data and geographic constraints that limit effective siting. Workshop-derived recommendations advocated reforming resource adequacy frameworks to incorporate probabilistic risk metrics, enabling transitions that maintain probabilities below 1-in-10-year levels while integrating up to 80% non-hydro renewables by 2040. These findings informed congressional discussions on permitting reforms, prioritizing empirical stability over accelerated deployment timelines that could exacerbate curtailment rates observed in high-renewable regions like and .

Public Land and Resource Management Efforts

Resources for the Future (RFF) has conducted ongoing analyses of federal policies, emphasizing economic evaluations of resource extraction versus preservation options. In July 2025, RFF hosted the webinar "Shifting Ground: Changes in Policies," which examined recent federal shifts in timber harvesting, oil and gas leasing, and designations amid evolving and budget reconciliations. Scholars including Brian C. Prest and Margaret A. Walls discussed implications for multiple-use mandates, highlighting how policy changes affect staffing, funding, and access for activities like leasing and harvesting on and U.S. Forest Service lands. RFF's empirical work applies frameworks to assess trade-offs between economic outputs and ecological preservation. A July 2025 report analyzed 14225 (issued March 1, 2025), which directed a 25% increase in timber harvests over four to five years to mitigate risks; it found that selective harvesting of trees up to 21 inches in could reduce hazards but faces economic constraints, as timber constitutes only 4% of national production and viable markets are limited to regions like the northern Rockies covering about one-third of priority landscapes. Historical showed harvests declining from an annual average of 2 billion cubic feet (1960–1990) to 485 million cubic feet in the past decade, with opportunity costs including workforce shortages (e.g., 58% drop in U.S. Service foresters since 1998) that divert resources from non-commercial of smaller trees (<12 inches ), which maximizes ecological benefits but yields low merchantable value. Similar economic modeling evaluates and gas leasing, where RFF simulations indicate that royalty rate cuts proposed in 2025 budget measures could reduce federal revenues by approximately $6 billion over a by lowering incentives for on lands. These assessments underscore trade-offs, such as foregone leasing revenues and jobs against preservation goals, while advocating for balanced policies that avoid blanket exclusions. On designations, RFF research counters absolutist preservation views by quantifying net benefits; for instance, analyses of western U.S. monuments show that designations can enhance local economies through without fully precluding adjacent resource uses, though conflicts arise from legal challenges and boundary effects constraining over 6 million acres of "stranded" lands surrounded by private holdings. RFF engages administrations across partisan shifts by promoting data-driven multiple-use strategies that integrate revenues with targeted conservation, as evidenced in scholar contributions to policy debates on federal land access.

Policy Influence and Empirical Impact

Contributions to Cost-Benefit Frameworks

Resources for the Future (RFF) has advanced frameworks by developing empirical methods to quantify regulatory costs and benefits, often revealing discrepancies in agency assessments that suggest inefficient policy design. From the onward, RFF researchers critiqued federal practices, such as in their 1999 discussion paper advocating standardized discount rates to capture opportunity costs more accurately, aligning with proposals for a 7% default rate over agency-specific lower figures that undervalue future economic trade-offs. This work supported OMB's regulatory review processes, including updates to Circular A-4, by emphasizing rigorous valuation of non-market environmental goods and compliance burdens to prevent unbalanced rule-making. RFF's integration of into OMB guidelines has highlighted undervalued costs in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, where initial analyses frequently underestimated long-term economic impacts. Retrospective evaluations by RFF, including analyses of air quality and pollution controls, demonstrated that predicted compliance costs often aligned with or exceeded ex post realizations, prompting refinements in forecasting models to address over-optimistic assumptions about technological offsets and behavioral responses. These findings underscored regulatory overreach in rules where benefits were overstated relative to verifiable costs, influencing more disciplined application of in subsequent EPA impact assessments. In the context of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), RFF contributed quantified risk assessments that informed 1982 amendments permitting economic analysis for critical habitat designations, shifting from absolute protections to balanced evaluations. RFF studies, such as those examining land market distortions from listings, calculated property value declines of up to 20% in affected areas, providing that unmitigated ESA enforcement imposed disproportionate costs without commensurate species recovery gains, thus justifying cost-inclusive amendments. RFF has also applied principles to debunk environmental policies neglecting time preferences, particularly in versus debates. Their 2012 discussion paper prescribed net benefits at society's , revealing that zero- or near-zero rates—common in some advocacy—inflate distant future benefits by factors exceeding 10-fold over centuries, leading to over-allocation of resources to uncertain long-term reductions rather than nearer-term with higher net present values. This approach exposed causal flaws in undiscounted models, promoting frameworks that prioritize policies with positive returns under realistic rates of 3-7%.

Engagement with Governments and Stakeholders

Resources for the Future (RFF) conducts outreach to governments and stakeholders by delivering testimonies, hosting workshops, and facilitating dialogues that translate economic and empirical analyses into policy-relevant insights without endorsing specific positions. RFF s have testified before U.S. congressional committees on and , including a March 29, 2017, appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy to outline principles for reform based on and fiscal responsibility. Additional testimonies include discussions on the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 17, 2012, evaluating its impacts on electricity prices and CO2 emissions, and input on (CAFE) program reforms in 2006. RFF engages federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy (DOE) through workshops and technical comments that provide modeling and evaluation frameworks. For example, in May 2023, RFF convened a workshop to identify best practices for tracking and evaluating DOE's research, development, and demonstration programs, drawing on experiences from government and external experts. Similarly, RFF has hosted sessions on EPA-related topics, including a 2012 workshop reviewing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to assess its utility for analyzing climate initiatives. These engagements extend to international bodies, where RFF contributes economic modeling to inform global discussions, though primary focus remains on U.S. policy applications. Through collaborations with industry representatives and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), RFF fosters neutral platforms to address polarized environmental debates, such as via the Business Leadership Council, which since 2014 has gathered corporations and NGOs to exchange data-driven lessons on internal carbon pricing implementations. These partnerships emphasize evidence-based strategies over ideological stances, as seen in joint explorations of Endangered Species Act implementation involving business, NGOs, and federal agencies to enhance scientific coordination. In early 2025, amid U.S. administration transitions following the 2024 election, RFF hosted the "Big Decisions 2025" event on January 29, convening policymakers, business leaders, philanthropists, and media to examine resilient policy options for , energy, and environmental priorities, including state-level adaptations to federal shifts. This initiative underscored RFF's role in promoting durable, data-informed approaches across diverse stakeholder viewpoints.

Criticisms, Debates, and Viewpoints

Allegations of Bias in Funding and Outputs

Conservative commentators have alleged that Resources for the Future (RFF) exhibits a pro-regulation in its recommendations, such as for carbon pricing mechanisms, despite its emphasis on market-based approaches, attributing this to substantial funding from left-leaning foundations including the , , and Fund. These critiques portray RFF as advancing a left-of-center environmental agenda that favors government interventions on , potentially overlooking economic burdens on low-income households as acknowledged in some RFF analyses of carbon taxes. From the political left, RFF has faced scrutiny for outputs perceived as insufficiently alarmist on risks, with studies employing economic modeling to downplay scenarios in favor of cost-benefit frameworks that incorporate and moderate , leading to claims of undue corporate given from energy firms such as , , and , each contributing over $50,000 annually. Environmental advocates have specifically criticized RFF-endorsed research supporting expanded as a transitional fuel, viewing it as softening opposition to expansion. RFF maintains independence through rigorous transparency practices, disclosing funders in annual reports—for instance, its 2023 operating budget of $17.5 million derived 79% from grants by , governments, and , with no demonstrated between specific funding sources and outputs. The positions itself as non-advocatory, producing impartial economic analyses to inform policy without institutional endorsement of specific positions.

Methodological Critiques from Ideological Perspectives

Left-leaning and critiques of Resources for the Future's (RFF) methodologies center on the organization's heavy reliance on economic tools like and hedonic pricing to assign monetary values to services, which detractors argue reduces complex ecological and ethical considerations to commodified metrics, overlooking nature's intrinsic worth beyond human utility. These critics, including ecological economists, contend that such approaches prioritize anthropocentric revealed preferences—derived from observed behaviors like travel costs or property premiums near natural amenities—over qualitative assessments of biodiversity's non-substitutable roles in planetary stability. In response, RFF scholars defend these methods as empirically grounded, citing data from market analogs and stated preference surveys that reflect real trade-offs individuals make, arguing that ignoring quantifiable values leads to inefficient . A related flashpoint is RFF's application of positive discount rates in cost-benefit analyses of long-term environmental policies, such as , where left-leaning voices assert that rates around 3% (aligned with guidelines as of ) systematically undervalue future damages to distant generations and non-human , effectively biasing against aggressive intervention. Environmental advocates have highlighted this in debates over the , claiming it conflates private impatience with societal ethics, potentially justifying inaction on irreversible harms like . RFF counters that discount rates incorporate opportunity costs of —evidenced by historical returns on investments averaging 4-7% annually—and ethical frameworks like declining rates for across generations, with peer-reviewed models showing robustness to sensitivity tests. From right-leaning ideological standpoints, RFF's economic realism garners endorsement for rigorously quantifying regulatory costs—such as compliance burdens estimated in billions for Clean Air Act expansions—thereby countering unsubstantiated claims of negligible economic impact and promoting market-oriented reforms like tradable permits over command-and-control mandates. However, some conservative analysts critique RFF models for static assumptions that underplay endogenous , arguing that integrated frameworks often fixate on abatement costs without fully capturing adaptive breakthroughs, as evidenced by historical gains outpacing predictions by 20-50% in sectors like . RFF's empirical defenses emphasize replicable peer-reviewed outputs, with methodologies validated through third-party reviews in federal rulemakings, contrasting sharply with qualitative advocacy from ideological groups that lacks falsifiable metrics.

References

  1. [1]
    About Us - Resources for the Future
    RFF's mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement.Missing: overview | Show results with:overview
  2. [2]
    Resources for the Future (RFF) - InfluenceWatch
    RFF released a report critical of the Trump administration's decision to ease fuel efficiency regulations for new vehicles. The report claimed that while ...
  3. [3]
    Resources for the Future (RFF) | Research Starters - EBSCO
    Resources for the Future (RFF) is a prominent think tank established in 1952, focusing on environmental and resource issues.
  4. [4]
    “Resources for Freedom” in Retrospect
    Jan 1, 1988 · The founding of Resources for the Future was a direct consequence of the report. To commemorate its recent 35th anniversary, RFF reprinted a ...Missing: initial grants
  5. [5]
    https://www.nytimes.com/1963/08/27/archives/ford-foundation-grants-7-million-to-resource-fund.html
  6. [6]
    [PDF] To Strengthen and Sustain - Resources for the Future
    RFF was established in 1952 to address a national concern that we might soon run out of some of our natural resources. Over the years, the question "Is there ...
  7. [7]
    Resource Evaluation at the Crossroads
    Jan 1, 1988 · Resources for the Future was founded in 1952. The decade of its beginning was also the decade during which benefit-cost analysis began to ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] The Environmental Turn in Natural Resource Economics
    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) but went to Resources for the Future (RFF) in 1955, where ... that was a milestone in the history of natural resource economics.
  9. [9]
    Issue 13: Resources in America's Future - Resources Magazine
    June 1963 / Magazine Issues. Issue 13: Resources in America's Future. Download issue. Some findings and conjectures from recent research into resource ...
  10. [10]
    A Short History of Water Resources Research at Resources for the ...
    May 16, 2019 · Scholars at Resources for the Future (RFF) have provided policymakers with rigorous economic analysis of water issues since the very inception ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] The Policy Path to the Great Outdoors - Resources for the Future
    The first review was a legislatively established effort, the Outdoor. Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC), which operated from 1958 to 1962. The.
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Race, Recreation, and the National Parks - Rockefeller Archive Center
    Jun 9, 2022 · On June 1, 1959, Marion Clawson of Resources for the Future sent Outdoor. Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) advisor Luther Gulick a.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] The State of the Great Outdoors - Resources for the Future
    Sep 8, 2009 · The work undertaken in this study builds on RFF's legacy of work on land use, conservation, and recreation pioneered in the 1950s and. 1960s by ...
  14. [14]
    Data and Decision Tools - Resources for the Future
    RFF scholars have created a series of data tools that allow users to explore our research data in a variety of novel ways.Missing: overview | Show results with:overview
  15. [15]
    Carbon Pricing - Resources for the Future
    RFF experts are informing the design and examining the impacts of carbon pricing to help leaders better understand the fiscal and environmental costs and ...
  16. [16]
    Board of Directors - Resources for the Future
    Board of Directors Leaders providing strategic direction for the organization. Filters Loading... 1616 P St NW, Suite 600 Washington DC, 20036 202.328.5000Missing: governance | Show results with:governance
  17. [17]
    Leadership and Governance - Resources for the Future
    RFF's leadership team is led by Billy Pizer, President and CEO. View the leadership team.
  18. [18]
    Dr. William A. Pizer Selected as Resources for the Future's Next ...
    Mar 14, 2024 · “On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am thrilled that Billy Pizer will be RFF's next president and CEO,” said Susan F. Tierney, chair of ...
  19. [19]
    Billy Pizer - President and CEO at Resources for the Future | LinkedIn
    Billy Pizer. President and CEO at Resources for the Future. Resources for the Future Harvard University. Washington, District of Columbia, United ...
  20. [20]
    Resources for the Future Announces CEO Transition Plans
    Resources for the Future Announces CEO Transition Plans. Dr. Richard Newell plans to depart within a year after exceptional tenure as RFF President and CEO.Missing: current | Show results with:current
  21. [21]
    Resources for the Future—Healthy Environment, Thriving Economy
    RFF is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Our mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions ...Careers · About · People · Contact Us
  22. [22]
    RESOURCES UNIT AIDED; Gets a Grant of $5,375,000 From Ford ...
    The Ford Foundation announced the grant of $5,375,000 more yesterday to Resources for the Future, Inc., for expanded research and education in the proper ...Missing: funding | Show results with:funding
  23. [23]
    Resources for the Future - MacArthur Foundation
    Resources for the Future (RFF) seeks to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement.
  24. [24]
    Financial Reporting - Resources for the Future
    354.0 KB · Download. 2023 990. PDF — 351.5 KB · Download. 2022 990. PDF — 587.4 KB · Download. 2021 990. PDF — 666.4 KB.
  25. [25]
    Our Supporters - Resources for the Future
    A diverse group of individual and organizational donors, as well as revenue raised through grants from governmental agencies and earned from our investments.Missing: contracts | Show results with:contracts
  26. [26]
    2023 Annual Report - Resources for the Future
    In fiscal year 2023, RFF's operating budget was $17.5 million, over 79 percent of which came from grants from foundations, government, and other organizations, ...
  27. [27]
    Resources For The Future Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
    Tax Filings and Audits by Year​​ Form 990 is an information return that most organizations claiming federal tax-exempt status must file yearly with the IRS. ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] EMISSIONS TRADING - Principles and Practice
    Founded in 1952, RFF pioneered the application of economics as a tool for developing more effective policy about the use and conservation of natural resources.
  29. [29]
    Global Energy Outlook 2025: Headwinds and Tailwinds in the ...
    Apr 7, 2025 · Under all scenarios, renewable energy sources, led by wind and solar, are more than 50 percent of electricity generated in 2050. Fossil fuel ...
  30. [30]
    The Energy Transition and Local Government Finance: New Data ...
    Revenues from fossil fuels far outweigh renewables in aggregate terms, providing more than $1,000 per capita annually in dozens of counties. However, wind and ...
  31. [31]
    Methane Abatement Costs in the Oil and Gas Industry: Survey and ...
    This paper reviews and synthesizes academic and gray literature on the costs of methane emissions abatement in the US oil and gas sector.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Methane Abatement Costs in the Oil and Gas Industry
    RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
  33. [33]
    Methane Fees' Effects on Natural Gas Prices and Methane Leakage
    Sep 9, 2021 · This issue brief examines the economic effects of a range of methane fees, finding that incentivizing natural gas companies to reduce methane ...
  34. [34]
    The GDP Temperature Relationship: Implications for Climate ...
    Oct 20, 2020 · Brian Prest is an economist and fellow at Resources for the Future specializing in climate change, oil and gas, and energy economics. Steven ...
  35. [35]
    Climate Scenario Analysis 101 - Resources for the Future
    Apr 10, 2023 · There are several areas of uncertainty to consider when modeling ... Salata Institute and Resources for the Future Launch the Climate-related ...
  36. [36]
    The Social Cost of Carbon: Reaching a New Estimate
    Sep 1, 2022 · Since 2017, Resources for the Future (RFF) has been working toward updating the scientific basis that underlies the social cost of carbon (SCC).
  37. [37]
    Policy Design and Evaluation - Resources for the Future
    RFF experts evaluate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of those instruments, and often identify novel approaches for policy design and implementation.
  38. [38]
    Depletable Resources-- Theory and Evidence
    Barnett, Harold J. and Chandler Morse (1963) Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability John Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future ...
  39. [39]
    Resourceship: Expanding 'Depletable' Resources - Econlib
    May 7, 2012 · 14 And at Resources for the Future, once a bastion of resource optimism, depletionism was de rigueur.15. Government Barriers. Resources grow ...
  40. [40]
    Fishing Quota Markets - Resources for the Future
    Aug 1, 2002 · Authors ; Richard Newell Square-cropped High-Res. Richard G. Newell. Senior Advisor; Former President and CEO, Resources for the Future.
  41. [41]
    Can Catch Shares Save Fisheries? - Resources Magazine
    May 18, 2009 · The most common form of catch shares in the developed world is the individual transferable ... Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Weitzman, ...
  42. [42]
    Individual transferable quotas in multispecies fisheries - ScienceDirect
    Resources for the Future. 64. R. Townsend. Bankable individual transferable quotas. Marine Policy, 16 (1992), pp. 345-348. View PDFView articleView in Scopus ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Resources for the Future
    RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE. INC. SEPTEMBER, 1962. PRIVATE FORESTS AND THE PUBLIC. LARGE PRIVATE AND INDUSTRIAL forest. ,,holdings in the United States cover ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] An Analysis of Global Timber Markets - Resources for the Future
    "A Dynamic Model of Timber Markets," Forest. Science, 36, pp. ... The Long Term Adequacy of the World Timber Supply. (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future).
  45. [45]
    A behavioral model of timber supply - ScienceDirect.com
    9. M Clawson. Economics of U.S. Non-industrial Private Forests. Resources for the Future Research Paper R-14 ... Department of Economics and Department of Forest ...
  46. [46]
    BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES ...
    BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES AFFECTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND ... Resources For the Future Press. Sohngen, B. and M. Taylor. Developing ...
  47. [47]
    Effects of Wood Products Markets and Forest Policies on Land Use ...
    May 22, 2024 · In this paper, I model interactions between wood product demands, timber ... © 2025 Resources for the Future. Privacy Policy. Site by Torchbox ...
  48. [48]
    Resources in America's Future
    Feb 25, 2022 · Natural resources—land and its products like timber, crops, and livestock; water; the mineral fuels; and metals and other nonfuel minerals—are ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  49. [49]
    [PDF] In Appreciation - Hans Landsberg - Resources for the Future
    He gained national recognition for his groundbreaking 1963 RFF study,. Resources in America's Future, an economic and technological blueprint for projecting.
  50. [50]
    Looking Back at 50 Years of the Clean Air Act of 1970
    Jun 15, 2020 · A major retrospective analysis of the Clean Air Act reveals its many public health benefits, along with its associated costs.
  51. [51]
    [PDF] Fiscal Interactions and the Case for Carbon Taxes over ...
    In the early 1990s, economists grappling with ways to combat the emerging possibility of global warming began to emphasize that large welfare gains could be ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United ...
    © 2003 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this ... Allowance Trading and SO2 Hot Spots—Good News from the Acid Rain. Program.
  53. [53]
    The US sulphur dioxide cap and trade programme and lessons for ...
    Aug 12, 2012 · Eight years into the programme, in 1998, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an industry organisation, and Resources for the Future ...
  54. [54]
    The US Environmental Protection Agency's Acid Rain Program
    Nov 28, 2012 · Congress established the world's first cap-and-trade system by creating the Acid ... © 2025 Resources for the Future. Privacy Policy. Site by ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] A Cross-Sector Review of U.S. Biofuels Policies and Their Interactions
    © 2008 Resources for the Future. All rights ... potent and under analyzed effects of biofuels mandates, there are still many policies outside of ... are held ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] The Long-Run Impact of Biofuels on Food Prices
    9 Additional biofuel mandates imposed by China and India also have a surprisingly small effect on food prices. Page 7. Resources for the Future. Chakravorty et ...Missing: evaluation | Show results with:evaluation
  57. [57]
    [PDF] The Economics of Shale Gas Development - Resources for the Future
    Oct 15, 2014 · Mason: University of Wyoming; London School of Economics (Graham Institute); and Resources for the Future, ... Quantifying Environmental Benefits ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United ...
    7 Some other countries (e.g., France) have banned the use of hydraulic fracturing to drill shale gas. Page 5. Resources for the Future. Wang and Krupnick. 2.
  59. [59]
    [PDF] RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE --- FALL 2005 • ISSUE NUMBER ...
    RESOURCES. FALL 2005 • ISSUE NUMBER 1 5 9. RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE. 1616 P Street, NW. Washington, DC 20036-1400. 202-328-5000. Fax: 202-939-3460. Editorial: ...
  60. [60]
    A Transition to Net-Zero Will Require Unprecedented Investments in ...
    Apr 2, 2024 · The Global Energy Outlook, an annual analysis from Resources for the Future (RFF), charts a wide range of pathways for the world's energy future ...<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    Global Energy Outlook 2025: Headwinds and Tailwinds in the ...
    On Wednesday, April 9, Resources for the Future (RFF) hosted “Global Energy Outlook 2025: Headwinds and Tailwinds in the Energy Transition,” a webinar which ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Modeling Obstacles to Energy Infrastructure for Improved Policy ...
    Sep 5, 2024 · Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in ... Developers cannot optimize the location of intermittent ...
  63. [63]
    Reforming Resource Adequacy for Clean Energy Transition and ...
    May 31, 2023 · It synthesizes insights from a Resources for the Future (RFF) workshop, highlighting the need for adapting RA practices to maintain reliability ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  64. [64]
    Expanding the Possibilities: When and Where Can Grid-Enhancing ...
    Sep 21, 2023 · Karen Palmer is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future and an expert on the economics of environmental, climate and public utility ...
  65. [65]
    Shifting Ground: Changes in Public Land Policies
    ... public lands are managed in the United States. Resources for the Future (RFF) scholars gathered on Wednesday, July 30, and discussed federal lands and the ...
  66. [66]
    Will Increased Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands Reduce ...
    Jul 21, 2025 · The need to address public demands beyond timber production gave rise to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act in 1960. Public concerns about ...
  67. [67]
    If/Then: New Cuts to Oil and Gas Royalty Rates in Budget ...
    May 9, 2025 · I modeled the impacts of these changes to royalties in the Senate bill using the Resources for the Future Dynamic Oil and Gas Market ...
  68. [68]
    Public Land Conflicts and Controversies: The Designation of ...
    I conclude with a discussion of the future outlook for national monuments and public lands in the United States. ... © 2025 Resources for the Future.<|separator|>
  69. [69]
    Stranded Land Constrains Public Land Management and ...
    Over six million acres of public lands are surrounded by private land and lack ... Resources for the Future is investing in research that explores the ...
  70. [70]
    On the Issues: Public Lands for Sale?, Environmental Nonprofit ...
    Apr 25, 2025 · ... public land access, and whether developing public lands would ... Resources for the Future (RFF) scholars Margaret Walls and Alexandra ...
  71. [71]
    [PDF] Using Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis to Improve Government ...
    In its new guidelines for economic assessment of regulations, OMB proposes a "default" rate of seven percent, while allowing for other rates if agencies can ...
  72. [72]
    Modernizing Regulatory Review: Exploring OMB's Updated Benefit ...
    An RFF Live event exploring the US Office of Management and Budget's new guidelines on valuating the costs and benefits of federal regulations. Watch Now (Opens ...Missing: frameworks | Show results with:frameworks<|separator|>
  73. [73]
    A Review of Retrospective Cost Analyses of EPA Regulations
    Oct 4, 2019 · Accuracy of Policymaker Predictions of Compliance Costs. Resources for the Future• ... Regulation from Studies of the Clean Air Act?Missing: undervalued | Show results with:undervalued
  74. [74]
    Benefit-Cost Analysis - Resources for the Future
    Experts at RFF have produced a rich body of work on the measuring of both benefits and costs, as well evaluating how such analyses are conducted in practice.
  75. [75]
    The Cost of Species Protection: The Land Market Impacts of the ...
    This working paper explores the economic consequences of the US Endangered Species Act, bringing together comprehensive data on species conservation efforts ...
  76. [76]
    [PDF] THE LAND MARKET IMPACTS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ...
    We study the economic consequences of the most extensive and controversial piece of such environmental legislation in US history—the Endangered Species Act (ESA) ...
  77. [77]
    [PDF] How Should Benefits and Costs Be Discounted in an ...
    In cost-benefit analysis, the net benefits of a project in year t (in consumption units) are to be discounted to the present at the rate at which society would ...
  78. [78]
    [PDF] The Choice of Discount Rate for Climate Change Policy Evaluation
    Under either approach, it calls for using lower rates when discounting over longer time horizons, which tends to imply more aggressive climate policy.
  79. [79]
    Congressional Testimony: Principles for Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform
    Mar 29, 2017 · In my testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Energy) today, I apply these principles to the tax expenditures ...
  80. [80]
    [PDF] The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 - Resources for the Future
    May 17, 2012 · This testimony discusses the effects of the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 on electricity prices and on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions ...
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Testimony on CAFE Program Reforms - Resources for the Future
    CONGRESSIONAL. TESTIMONY. Testimony on. CAFE Program. Reforms. Statement of Philip Sharp,. President, Resources for the Future. Prepared for the United States ...
  82. [82]
    Tracking and Evaluation of Research, Development, and ...
    Nov 16, 2023 · This report builds on a May 2023 RFF workshop that sourced experiences with and proposed best practices for developing the US Department of Energy's research, ...
  83. [83]
    Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Opportunities for Research ...
    Oct 12, 2012 · This workshop will review EPA's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting ... Does the reporting data make it easier to analyze and evaluate climate programs ...
  84. [84]
    The Future of the Endangered Species Act - Resources Magazine
    Dec 19, 2014 · There was also widespread agreement that scientific collaboration among the business sector, NGOs, and government is currently low, and that ...
  85. [85]
    Big Decisions 2025 - Resources for the Future
    On January 29, 2025, Resources for the Future (RFF) and leaders from across government, business, philanthropy, and media gathered to discuss the big decisions ...
  86. [86]
    In Focus: Climate Policy Stories to Watch in 2025
    Jan 28, 2025 · Hear more perspectives about developments in climate policy in 2025 at “Big Decisions 2025” on January 29, a panel discussion hosted by RFF with ...
  87. [87]
    Beyond Denialism: Think Tank Approaches to Climate Change
    Apr 4, 2016 · 4 Another corporate-connected “green” think tank, Resources for the Future, is developing tools to manage coastal retreat in the face of rising ...
  88. [88]
    The Washington Post Greens Fracking | Truthout
    They do, however, approvingly cite research from a group called Resources for the Future, touting an energy future based on increased fracking. Readers ...
  89. [89]
    RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE INC - GuideStar Profile
    RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE INC. Board of directors as of 3/13/2025. SOURCE: Self-reported by organization. Barbara Kates-Garnick. Tufts University. Catherine ...Missing: structure | Show results with:structure
  90. [90]
    Environmental Valuation and Its Economic Critics
    Climate and energy policy has been changing more dramatically and rapidly than ever before. Will you join RFF in our effort to use impartial economic research ...
  91. [91]
    Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative ...
    Valuation methods have been used for five main purposes in environmental decision-making. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of projects, CBA of new regulat.
  92. [92]
    Valuation - Resources for the Future
    Valuation is the putting of a monetary price on non-market factors, such as health outcomes and ecosystem services. Research by RFF experts on this topic ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Discounting and Relative Prices - Resources for the Future
    © 2006 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this ... Environmentalists are often upset at the effect of discounting costs of future ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
  94. [94]
    Discounting for Public Benefit-Cost Analysis - Resources for the Future
    Jun 14, 2021 · Discounting for Public Benefit-Cost Analysis. An examination of how the ... Billy Pizer is President and CEO of Resources for the Future.Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  95. [95]
    [PDF] Conservative Principles for Environmental Reform
    May 19, 2013 · environmental regulation was a “failing paradigm.”4 At the same time, analysts at Resources for the Future concluded that America's.Missing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
  96. [96]
    The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness
    Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. First citation in article. Google Scholar. Henderson, D. J., and D. L. Millimet. 2005. Environmental ...
  97. [97]
    Challenges and innovations in the economic evaluation of the risks ...
    To make sound policy decisions about the management of climate-related risks, including cost-benefit assessments of adaptation and mitigation actions, estimates ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  98. [98]
    Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon
    ... methodology for estimating the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) across a ... Panel 1 Q&A. 28:24•6 views. Kevin Rennert, Resources for the Future. 21:16•13 ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques