Institute for Policy Integrity

Twitter @policyintegrity

News & Events

In the News

  • Economic Benefits of Climate Bill Outweigh Costs 9 to 1, Study Finds

    September 8, 2009 – Treehugger

    In what’s sure to be an important study at this crucial juncture of the future of climate legislation, researchers have discovered that the economic benefits of such a bill absolutely dwarf the costs—by a stunning margin of 9 to 1. Hopefully, the new findings will help silence persistent critics who claim climate action would devastate the US economy

  • Climate Bill’s Benefits Far Outweigh Costs, NYU Report Says

    September 8, 2009 – GreenTech Media

    What’s the cost of NOT cutting carbon emissions to curb global warming? That’s the calculation that NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity undertook in its new report on the benefits the American Clean Energy and Security Act could bring to America and the world – and the benefits far outweigh the costs, the report’s authors insist.

  • WSJ: “Waxman-Markey’s benefits far outweigh costs”

    September 8, 2009 – Change.org

    A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.

  • New Coalition Forms for Clean Energy and Climate

    September 8, 2009 – Sierra Club’s Compass Blog

    Meanwhile, some great research came out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity today: A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.

  • Waxman-Markey: Benefits Far Outweigh Costs, New Study Finds

    September 8, 2009 – The Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital Blog

    So much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around the climate bill in Congress revolves around the costs of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. What about the benefits?…That got some folks thinking. “Climate change is arguably one of the most complex issues to face Congress in recent memory, and yet Congress is essentially conducting its deliberations after having reviewed barely half the data,” says a new brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, an outfit basically created to bring cost-benefit analysis back to the environmental arena. The upshot? As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.

  • Should EPA Bow To Chamber’s Demand?

    September 1, 2009 – The National Journal’s Energy and Environment Experts Blog

    EPA should not grant the Chamber of Commerce’s request for an extraordinary on-the-record proceeding concerning the agency’s expected endangerment finding. Rather than engage in this time consuming process of little value, the agency should move forward with much needed regulatory action that was grossly delayed by the political calculation of the last administration, even as the science connecting greenhouse gas emissions to severe environmental consequences has continued to mount.

  • Political Feedback Loops and Climate Change

    September 1, 2009 – TreeHugger

    Many scientists are worried about certain greenhouse gas “feedback loops” that could lead to rapid and irreversible climate change. But if the world delays on a climate change agreement it will be political feedback loops we should be nervous about. Only by creating a strong international agreement soon, while international cooperation is at a historic high, can we hope to avoid both the greenhouse gas feedback loops and the spiral that could stop us from doing anything about them.

  • Iowa universities will not alter coal ash disposal practices

    August 6, 2009 – The Iowa Independent

    A recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), a non-partisan think tank based in New York City, found the benefits of upgrading disposal sites would exceed the costs of tougher regulations by almost 10 to 1. And since beneficial use sites are not mandated to provide financial assurances that they can pay for possible contamination, the cost any clean up could eventually be passed on to taxpayers.

  • Think-tank petitions EPA for cap-and-trade for transport emissions

    August 5, 2009 – Carbon Finance

    8.5.09 : Coverage of IPI’s vehicle fuels petition to EPA.

    A US think-tank has called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce a cap-and-trade programme targeting transport emissions, rather than wait for Congress to overcome its internal disputes. New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) petitioned EPA administrator Lisa Jackson last week to “quickly” propose and adopt rules for a cap-and-trade programme, with an auction mechanism, to control emissions from fuels used in motor vehicles, non-road vehicles such as tractors, and aircraft.

  • The senator from Montana and the middle class

    August 4, 2009 – Grist

    The focus of the hearing was how the Senate can improve the allocation of the carbon allowances, which are likely to be worth more than $100 billion per year. Dallas Burtraw, a senior economist at Resources for the Future, testified on how Waxman-Markey will hit American’s pocketbooks. Through his research, Burtraw found that the bill does a pretty good job of protecting the poorest 20% and the richest 10% of Americans. But everyone in the middle ends up bearing the brunt of the costs.