Targeted News Service

Resources for the Future: The Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on Nearby Property Values

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Resources for the Future issued the following working paper on AUgust 10, 2026, by Matthew Wibbenmeyer, Yanjun Liao, Hannah Drunkenmiller, Rich Iovanna, and Alexandra Thompson entitled "The Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on Nearby Property Values".

Here is the abstract:

* * *

Conservation programs are often viewed as competing with local economic activity, yet they may also generate environmental amenities for nearby communities. We estimate how land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)--the largest US payments-for-ecosystem-services ... Show Full Article

Resources for the Future: Adopting the Social Cost of Carbon for State Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Primer for Practitioners

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Resources for the Future issued the following report on August 13, 2026, by Brian Prest entitled "Adopting the Social Cost of Carbon for State Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Primer for Practitioners."

Here are excerpts:

* * *

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate, in dollars, of the economic damages to society caused by an incremental ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In 2023, EPA (US EPA 2023) produced updated, peer-reviewed SCC estimates, with a central value of $190 per metric ton of CO2 (in 2020 US dollars) for emissions occurring in 2020. EPA's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Resources for the Future issued the following report on August 13, 2026, by Brian Prest entitled "Adopting the Social Cost of Carbon for State Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Primer for Practitioners." Here are excerpts: * * * The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate, in dollars, of the economic damages to society caused by an incremental ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In 2023, EPA (US EPA 2023) produced updated, peer-reviewed SCC estimates, with a central value of $190 per metric ton of CO2 (in 2020 US dollars) for emissions occurring in 2020. EPA'supdated estimates also include estimates for other years beyond 2020 and other greenhouse gases of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are shown in Appendix Table A1. These estimates represent the most scientifically advanced, comprehensively documented, and peer reviewed set of SCC values available, and states are increasingly adopting EPA's estimates to inform policy.

As of early 2026, at least 15 US states had applied the social cost of greenhouse gases in one or more policy contexts. This report is intended for officials and analysts in states that are considering adopting the SCC as a policymaking and monitoring tool, refining how they already use it, or updating their preferred values in light of recent and ongoing scientific advances in methods and estimates. Section 2 provides background on the concept of the SCC and summarizes how US states have been using it. Section 3 provides a high-level summary of how the SCC is calculated, with particular attention to the four-module framework that underlies the SCC estimates from RFF and EPA. Finally, Section 4 summarizes considerations for jurisdictions designing their own guidance while providing detailed instructions on how states might apply it for their own policymaking purposes.

2. The Social Cost of Carbon and Its Uses

The SCC is the present discounted value of the future stream of effects caused around the world by an additional metric ton of CO2 emitted today.

These effects include the damages of climate change as harm to human health, net reductions in agricultural yields, increased energy expenditures, and property losses from extreme weather and sea-level rise, as well as certain beneficial effects such as reduced heating costs from milder winters. Other impacts of climate change like wildfires remain thus-far unaccounted for in modern SCC estimates, and adding in such additional impact categories remains an ongoing area of academic research that should be expected to lead to higher estimates in the future. The SCC is most commonly used to put dollar values on the climate-related benefits of reducing CO2 emissions in benefit-cost analyses of prospective government policies. Interest in formal adoption of the SCC in decisionmaking by US states has grown steadily over the past decade, and this report finds that at least 15 US states have applied SCC values in one or more policy contexts.

The more general umbrella term social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) encompasses not only the SCC but also the social costs of other greenhouse gases (SC-GHGs). The term "SCC" is used in this report and elsewhere as shorthand for the broader notion of SC-GHGs, but the term "SCC" is usually taken to refer to the social cost of carbon dioxide unless explicitly stated otherwise. These social cost values vary because gases vary in potency and atmospheric lifetimes. Although most analyses focus on the SCC because CO2 is the primary contributor to climate change, in certain contexts--for example, when considering natural gas infrastructure or refrigerants--methane and other gases may play a larger role.

* * *

View full report at: https://www.rff.org/documents/5399/Report_26-11_Final.pdf

[Category: ThinkTank]

Rand Report: Testing Large Language Model Agents on the Use of Biological Tools for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening Evasion

SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 11, 2026, entitled "Testing Large Language Model Agents on the Use of Biological Tools for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening Evasion."

Here are excerpts:

* * *

Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to accelerate progress across the biosciences, but they also introduce significant concerns about the accompanying potential for misuse.1 AI-enabled biological tools (BTs) are of particular interest: these are software tools that aid in sophisticated biodesign tasks, such ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 11, 2026, entitled "Testing Large Language Model Agents on the Use of Biological Tools for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening Evasion." Here are excerpts: * * * Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to accelerate progress across the biosciences, but they also introduce significant concerns about the accompanying potential for misuse.1 AI-enabled biological tools (BTs) are of particular interest: these are software tools that aid in sophisticated biodesign tasks, suchas modeling complex biomolecular interactions and designing novel proteins. Many of these biodesign capabilities could be useful to either a legitimate scientist or a malicious actor.

While BTs are often developed for specialists, large language models (LLMs) and AI Agents are becoming increasingly capable of working with complex, domain-specific code. To the extent that LLMs can reliably operate BTs, either autonomously or on behalf of a non-specialist actor, they could lower expertise barriers that today keep the pool of capable BT users relatively small. An expansion of access to powerful BTs may bring both benefits and risks. Thus, testing is needed to determine whether LLMs can truly unlock BT access for an expanded group of actors. This report describes a novel assessment of LLM Agent capabilities relevant to BT operation.

We tested autonomous Agents, driven by frontier LLMs, on their ability to use BTs for peptide and protein redesign tasks that could potentially enable evasion of nucleic acid screening measures. The Agents were provided with one of four tool configurations and prompted to redesign peptides or proteins so that they maintained structure and function without resembling the original sequence. The sequences produced by the Agents were then assessed across a set of in silico measures of quality. Sequences that scored highly on those metrics were evaluated by nucleic acid screening pipelines to determine whether the Agent had sufficiently obfuscated the sequence that encoded the desired biomolecule so that it could evade the screening measures in place at some major commercial nucleic acid synthesis providers.

* * *

View the full report here: file:///Users/moirasirois/Downloads/RAND_RRA4741-2.pdf

[Category: ThinkTank]

Rand Report: Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program

SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 12, 2026, entitled "Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program."

Here are excerpts:

* * *

Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program (WRCP) provides evidence that a utility can set up and run a direct compensation program that pays survivors of utility-caused wildfires more rapidly and with lower legal and other transaction costs than litigation typically allows. Roughly 8 months after program launch and 19 months after the January 2025 Eaton Fire, ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 12, 2026, entitled "Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program." Here are excerpts: * * * Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program (WRCP) provides evidence that a utility can set up and run a direct compensation program that pays survivors of utility-caused wildfires more rapidly and with lower legal and other transaction costs than litigation typically allows. Roughly 8 months after program launch and 19 months after the January 2025 Eaton Fire,the program had received 4,000 claims, extended 2,069 offers, recorded 1,598 accepted offers, and paid 960 claims. Substantial numbers of claims have been submitted by owners and tenants for total-loss properties as well as for properties with burn damage and smoke, soot, and ash damage.

SCE reports that offers have been issued in 35 days on average once a claim is substantially complete, well within the program's 90-day target. By contrast, in past utility-caused wildfire cases, organized mediation has often not begun until more than two years after the fire, and it then takes multiple years to work through the inventory of mediations.

The WRCP also appears to reduce legal transaction costs for at least some survivors.

Roughly two-thirds of submitted claims did not include attorney representation, indicating that many claimants are able to pursue compensation through the program without counsel. For represented claimants, the program has also reduced legal costs relative to litigation in many cases.

At the same time, participation to date has been modest relative to the scale of losses and the size of parallel litigation. We estimate that claims have been submitted for about 20 percent of properties with destroyed structures and that offers have been accepted for about 7 percent (with offers under consideration for an additional 3 percent). Meanwhile, nearly 30,000 litigants continue to pursue litigation through the courts. The WRCP has therefore become one part of the compensation landscape following the Eaton Fire, but not a substitute for the broader litigation process.

Stakeholders identified several program features that likely limit broader participation.

Concerns involved both compensation levels and program design. In particular, some interviewees pointed to a perceived gap between program offers and settlement amounts that could be expected through litigation. The Detailed Review track offered by the WRCP may address some of these perceived shortcomings, but not enough cases have completed Detailed Review to know. Stakeholders also identified the treatment of insurance offsets as a major sticking point: for some claim components, WRCP awards are reduced by the amount of insurance available rather than the amount actually paid, potentially leaving claimants to bear the risk of unresolved insurance disputes.

* * *

View the full report here: file:///Users/moirasirois/Downloads/RAND_RRA5185-1.pdf

[Category: ThinkTank]

Rand Report: Meeting the Needs of the RAF Community

SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 10, 2026, entitled "Meeting the Needs of the RAF Community."

Here are excerpts:

* * *

The Royal Air Force (RAF) Benevolent Fund and the wider RAF welfare sector provide support to a sizeable community of Serving and former-Serving RAF personnel and their families. To inform future strategic planning around the delivery of support to the community, the RAF Benevolent Fund commissioned RAND Europe to undertake research into the evolving size, demographics and support needs of the RAF community.

To ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 10, 2026, entitled "Meeting the Needs of the RAF Community." Here are excerpts: * * * The Royal Air Force (RAF) Benevolent Fund and the wider RAF welfare sector provide support to a sizeable community of Serving and former-Serving RAF personnel and their families. To inform future strategic planning around the delivery of support to the community, the RAF Benevolent Fund commissioned RAND Europe to undertake research into the evolving size, demographics and support needs of the RAF community. Toinform the RAF Benevolent Fund's welfare support and strategy development, we used a mixed methods research design, drawing on existing research and newly collected quantitative and qualitative data. Firstly, we used modelling and simulation approaches to forecast the size and demographics of the RAF community out to 2040. Secondly, we conducted a survey with Serving RAF personnel and partners to understand the prevalence of issues among a sample of the RAF Serving Community and identify relationships between support needs and respondents' demographic and Service characteristics. Thirdly, we conducted interviews with Serving as well as ex-Serving RAF personnel and partners to explore their experiences of Service, challenges experienced during and after Service and their understanding and experiences of the support available to them. Throughout the project, we engaged with stakeholders to inform our research design, validate findings and ensure the relevance of our recommendations.

Key Takeaways

Our research suggests that the size and demographics of the Regular RAF community may not change substantially out to 2040. The size of the Reserve RAF community is more uncertain, with recent declines in the size of the Volunteer Reserves and ambitions to increase the size of the Volunteer Reserves in the 2030s. The RAF former Serving community is shrinking and is expected to become smaller, younger, and more diverse by 2040. One important characteristic of the Veteran community will be its intergenerational makeup.

RAND's research with Serving Personnel and partners revealed a broad spectrum of experiences. Many expressed a strong sense of pride in their service, yet they also encountered difficulties due to frequent moves and separation from loved ones. The study found that financial concerns, employment opportunities for partners, and affordable childcare all play a role in shaping the wellbeing of the Serving community. Among partners, loneliness and mental health issues appear to be common, often connected to heavy workloads and the demands of childcare, which in turn affect overall wellbeing.

Among the former Serving community, the transition from military to civilian life remained a defining pressure point at which many former SP and their families may require additional support, particularly for those experiencing abrupt and unplanned departures. Existing data and responses from our interviewees highlighted heightened risk of mental health conditions, growing concerns around social isolation and loneliness and concerns around financial security.

* * *

View the full report here: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3100/RRA3197-1/RAND_RRA3197-1.pdf

[Category: ThinkTank]

Rand Report: Defense Requirements Planning in Comparative Organizations

SANTA MONICA, California, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- Rand Report issued the following report on August 11, 2026, entitled "Defense Requirements Planning in Comparative Organizations."

Here are excerpts:

* * *

U.S. leadership has directed sweeping acquisition reform to address the mismatch between the Department of War's (DOW's) requirements system and evolving technology, emerging threats, and the speed needed to provide capabilities to operational forces. U.S. allies and adversaries are facing similar pressures, and their experiences in formulating defense requirements may suggest useful approaches ... Show Full Article

Center for American Progress: The Trump Administration Is Interfering in the 2026 Midterm Elections To Entrench the Imperial Presidency

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following report on August 12, 2026, by Michael Sozan and Ben Olinsky entitled "The Trump Administration Is Interfering in the 2026 Midterm Elections To Entrench the Imperial Presidency."

Here are excerpts:

* * *

Introduction and summary

In the 18 months since Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump and his administration have seized unprecedented executive branch power to implement extremist and unpopular policies. Now, to lock in that power and escape accountability, the administration is waging an unconstitutional ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (TNSLrpt) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following report on August 12, 2026, by Michael Sozan and Ben Olinsky entitled "The Trump Administration Is Interfering in the 2026 Midterm Elections To Entrench the Imperial Presidency." Here are excerpts: * * * Introduction and summary In the 18 months since Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump and his administration have seized unprecedented executive branch power to implement extremist and unpopular policies. Now, to lock in that power and escape accountability, the administration is waging an unconstitutionaleffort to subvert voters' will in the November 2026 midterm elections. For decades, political scientists who study backsliding democracies around the world have identified a crucial tactic used by would-be authoritarians: Once they have dismantled traditional checks and balances and weaponized government against their perceived political enemies, they move to disrupt and control elections to ensure that they and their allies remain in office. The right to freely and fairly vote for elected leaders is the most fundamental feature of a democratic republic. It is the mechanism through which all other rights are ultimately protected and through which the government derives its legitimate authority. As the United States marks 250 years of democratic self-governance, that right--and the republic it sustains--faces the gravest threat from within.

This report is the third in a Center for American Progress series documenting how the Trump administration planned and then built an imperial presidency. This report revisits earlier analyses, which detailed the steps that the administration was taking to aggregate power, create a strongman presidency, and implement a far-right policy agenda. The report then documents how the administration, through a multipronged plan across 15 interlocking tactics, is working to subvert elections and manufacture victories in the midterms--all in service of consolidating the administration's unprecedented power. These tactics include, but are not limited to, weaponizing federal departments controlled by loyalists, erecting massive hurdles for eligible Americans to register to vote and to cast their ballots, triggering a mid-decade gerrymandering crisis that severely disadvantages Black and Latino voters, assailing state and local election administrators, and musing publicly about deploying National Guard troops and federal agents to polling places or demanding that state officials not certify elections. The stakes are stark: A sitting president and his administration have created a near-constitutional crisis involving the very elections that have sustained U.S. democracy.

How the Trump administration is aggregating and consolidating power to build an imperial presidency

With breathtaking speed, the Trump administration has seized unprecedented executive branch power and used it to impose an agenda that most Americans reject. To cement that power and escape accountability, the administration is actively attempting to subvert the will of the people in the November 2026 midterm elections. The engineering of election results is a hallmark of authoritarian consolidation in backsliding democracies around the world.

The administration has aggregated unprecedented power and assailed perceived political enemies

Over the past two years, the Center for American Progress has tracked and analyzed how the Trump administration planned for and constructed an imperial presidency that discards checks and balances and abuses the rule of law. In October 2024, the authors published the first report in this series, "Project 2025 Would Destroy the U.S. System of Checks and Balances and Create an Imperial Presidency." That report analyzed the far-right Project 2025 playbook, an audacious road map for an unconstrained president to establish political supremacy and force the implementation of a radical policy agenda. Many of the steps the Trump administration is now taking to subvert elections were recommended in the Project 2025 playbook.

In April 2025, the authors published the second report, "Trump's First 100 Days: Creating an Imperial Presidency That Harms Americans." That report detailed how the Trump administration in just 100 days was moving with alarming speed to seize and aggregate power, fulfilling nearly every prediction in the first report. The administration claimed sweeping constitutional authority under Article II and the so-called "unitary executive theory" to assert primacy over Congress, the courts, the federal bureaucracy, the media, universities, and civil society while incorporating elements of oligarchy and systemic corruption. Its tactics involved weaponizing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for political purposes, including assailing perceived political enemies on bogus charges; stripping the independence of independent federal agencies created by Congress; and replacing nonpartisan civil servants with loyalists, even at intelligence and security agencies--all steps that threaten Americans' safety, prosperity, and fundamental rights.

Now, 1 1/2 years into the presidential term, the Trump administration has gone even further to aggregate executive power, implement its far-right policy agenda, and evade accountability. Perhaps most notably, the administration has intensified its aggressive campaign to silence, punish, and neutralize a wide range of political adversaries, often at the direct instruction of the president, despite long-established bipartisan norms against doing so. The DOJ has twice indicted former FBI Director James Comey on baseless criminal allegations; a federal judge dismissed the first indictment. Furthermore, the second indictment appears predicated on Comey's use of the phrase "86 47," which neither explicitly states a threat of violence nor differs from others' use of the same phrase, which a federal judge ruled was not a real threat subject to criminal penalties. The DOJ also sought twice--unsuccessfully--to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James on unsupported bank fraud charges. Before the DOJ's failed prosecution, James investigated and sued Trump for fraud. Trump attempted to fire and the DOJ then investigated Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on mortgage fraud allegations after she opposed Trump's preferred monetary policies, prompting a rare rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that Trump failed to provide Cook with the required cause and process for removal. Beyond individual officials, the administration has also moved aggressively against universities, nonprofit organizations, media companies and journalists, and other pillars of civil society--a sweeping campaign to neuter institutional voices that might rally public resistance to its agenda, even though scores of federal courts have at least temporarily halted those unlawful attacks.

* * *

View the full article at:

[Category: ThinkTank]

Existing Customer Login

Think Tanks

Featured Stories