In the News

The White House on Friday announced a major change in how the federal government will calculate and weigh the cost of climate change in its permitting, investment and regulatory decisions with a move to restore the “social cost of greenhouse gases,” which had been slashed under the Trump administration. Richard Revesz, a professor at New York University School of Law, said restoring the previous calculation should provide a blueprint to calculate a new one that incorporates the latest "developments in science and economics."

Environmental experts hope Biden’s interim social cost of carbon is just an initial step toward a more aggressive policy next year. “The administration is taking a careful and legally sound approach in providing that a rigorous scientific process determine further updates,” said Richard Revesz. “A great deal of research suggests that these interim values are a lower bound for the damages of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Scientists have long used the social cost of carbon in their research, and several states have continued to use the Obama-era estimate in their policymaking. Richard Revesz said whatever comes out of the working group going forward will be reviewed by leading economists and other experts. "It sets forth a blueprint for the computation of final values, incorporating recent developments in science and economics and the input of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine," he said.

Many experts expect the subsequent updates could lead to estimates of climate damages well higher than $100 per ton. “A great deal of research suggests that these interim values are a lower bound for the damages of greenhouse gas emissions. The administration is taking a careful and legally sound approach in providing that a rigorous scientific process determine further updates,” argues Richard Revesz.

In addition to the federal centers of power, state and local governments play major roles in shaping U.S. climate policy, as do business interests and other stakeholders, including community and non-governmental organizations. We provide more detail on the workings of the three federal centers of power with respect to climate policy, followed by short discussions of influence wielded by states and other stakeholders.

The U.S. climate policy story has four important, interrelated dimensions: action at the federal level, action at the state level, policy innovation, and technical innovation. The federal story is one of legislative failure but some executive and innovation success, while the state story is one of variegated progress.

With the new Administration in Washington, many think tanks and advocacy groups are making their voices heard on crafting mandatory climate disclosure regulations. A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU and the Environmental Defense Fund advocates adoption by the SEC of a climate disclosure mandate.

Days before a Biden administration working group releases an “interim” value for the social cost of carbon used to estimate the benefits of greenhouse gas reduction measures, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, is urging a broad reform of the SCC and the associated “discount rate” of future impacts in order to bolster the value of new EPA GHG rules.

Some environmental groups are vowing to seek rigorous National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental reviews of planned transmission lines, even when they are built to facilitate low- or zero-carbon power, a strategy that may frustrate the Biden administration’s effort to accelerate reviews for such projects. “Unlike the Trump administration, which sought to prioritize environmentally undesirable projects and run roughshod on NEPA requirements in the process, the Biden administration is seeking to prioritize environmentally desirable projects but respect NEPA safeguards,” argues Ricky Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University.

President Biden’s day-one presidential memorandum on "modernizing regulatory review" reasserts the importance of evidence, analysis, and expertise in regulatory decision-making. After a four-year long experiment in abandoning these norms of good governance, the Biden memorandum should comfort anyone who cares about cultivating a regulatory system that can improve the well-being of people in the United States.