Institute for Policy Integrity

Twitter @policyintegrity

News & Events

In the News

Viewing all news in Climate Change and Energy Policy
  • Showing the Cost Side of the Climate Equation in a New Light

    June 16, 2017 – Carbon Tax Center

    I’m tempted to call it the decade’s most important paper on the costs of climate damage. The paper, just published in Environmental and Resource Economics, by Peter Howard, economics director at NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity; and Thomas Sterner, professor of environmental economics at the University of Gothenburg, upends the long-prevailing approach for estimating the social cost of carbon, potentially laying the ground for putting the SCC into triple digits.

  • What Counts As Climate Consensus?

    June 12, 2017 – The National Review

    Oren Cass’s article “Who’s the Denier Now?” (May 1) condemns the misuse of scientific data in climate-change policy debates, but to support his position Cass misrepresents the findings in our survey of economists and cherry-picks survey data to suggest that “economists hold widely varying views” on the costs of climate change.

  • Why Coal Can’t Compete on a True Level Playing Field

    May 26, 2017 – The Wall Street Journal

    The Trump administration has diagnosed a legitimate problem with distorted energy markets, but an honest attempt to stop picking winners would require eliminating all subsidies, many of which favor coal.

  • Experts Reject Bjørn Lomborg’s View on 2C Warming Target

    May 20, 2017 – The Guardian

    Climate economist Peter Howard, the economics director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, said the assessment paper provided “insufficient reasons for abandoning a 2°C limit”.

  • Walking Away from Paris: Trump’s Choice Between Impulsive Versus Savvy Climate Sabotage

    May 19, 2017 – Medium (Opinion)

    Trump’s final decision on Paris will still tell us a great deal about how the administration plans to go about the business of undermining climate progress, and how successful it is ultimately likely to be.

  • State Experimentation and the Clean Power Plan

    May 16, 2017 – Medium

    State climate policy efforts not only help reduce emissions, but provide a means of political experimentation that offers data on what might work to escape the climate policy gridlock. There are many contexts in which well-organized and well-networked interest groups will be in a better position to learn from experimentation than public interest groups. Thus the “peril” associated with experimentation: the bad guys may often be able to translate political information into policy advantage.

  • Cutting SCC Too Costly

    May 13, 2017 – Times Union (Opinion)

    New York, as a leader in energy policy, has embraced the Social Cost of Carbon in many recent landmark regulatory decisions. But now the state Public Service Commission is being wrongly attacked for using the SCC in its zero-emission credits (ZECs) program. If the Legislature halts this program, it would be a massive setback for climate change action in New York and around the country.

  • Court Challenges to Trump Policies May Multiply

    May 4, 2017 – USA Today

    “My guess is that the bulk of the litigation is ahead of us,” said Richard Revesz, an environmental and regulatory law expert at New York University School of Law. “All this litigation is going to consume the full four years.”

  • Litigation’s Fate Still Uncertain as Enviros Chart Options

    May 1, 2017 – Energywire

    Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said a D.C. Circuit ruling resolving that uncertainty would head off further courtroom wrangling over the issue. “There is no compelling reason for the D.C. Circuit to delay facing those issues for years, with the serious negative consequences that would entail, when it is likely to already have decided them,” he said.

  • Trump’s Alternative Economics of Climate Change

    April 24, 2017 – The Regulatory Review (Opinion)

    What President Trump’s environmental executive order fails to acknowledge is that the Obama Administration’s estimate of the social cost of carbon is consistent with the guidance from Circular A-4. Asking each agency to develop its own metric will waste agency resources and open rules up to needless and risky legal challenges.