Separating Analysis From Politics:

Over the last twenty years, policy‐makers in Europe have attempted to solve the problem of acid rain using detailed analysis grounded in natural science and economics. The results are impressive, as Europeans have successfully implemented a number of international agreements to reduce pollution emissions, agreements that in theory achieve the greatest environmental benefit at the lowest aggregate cost across Europe. This article examines the analysis on which these policies were based. First, it finds a pattern of investigating the use of cost‐benefit analysis, together with a lack of usefulness associated with the actual results of such analysis. Second, it finds that the analytic framework that came to replace cost‐ benefit analysis—“critical loads”—contained many of the same uncertainties and political decisions that plagued cost‐benefit analysis. Nevertheless, “critical loads” analysis was seen as less value‐laden and more reliable, and contributed significantly to policy development. Desire for rapid action led policy‐makers to ignore or overlook the politics and uncertainties inherent in efforts at scientific assessment and modeling.