Institute for Policy Integrity

Twitter @policyintegrity

News & Events

In the News

Viewing all news in Climate Change and Energy Policy
  • “This Is Nowhere Near Over”: Trump Has an Entirely Different Repeal-and-Replace Problem

    August 4, 2017 – Mother Jones

    In several news stories this summer, administration officials have floated various strategies for how they would justify repealing the Clean Power Plan without a replacement. One strategy is to say the EPA can’t regulate carbon from existing power plants. Another approach may be arguing that the EPA can only require small tweaks to efficiency inside the plants. “I expect the first thing we’ll see when it gets published is a straight repeal,” says Richard Revesz, a Clean Air Act expert at the New York University School of Law. “Both of [these arguments] are legally weak and neither will ultimately get upheld by the courts.”

  • How Pruitt’s Hustle to Deregulate the EPA May Bite Him

    August 1, 2017 – The Washington Post

    “Pruitt’s willingness to play fast and loose has helped his anti-regulatory reputation soar,” Davis Noll and Revesz write in Slate. “But the brazen deficiencies in the agency’s work exposing the hollowness of Pruitt’s ‘rule of law’ rhetoric should give Pruitt’s supporters pause. Once the judicial challenges run their course, Pruitt may be striking out a lot more.”

  • Federal Court Kneecaps EPA’s Plan to Slash Regulations

    August 1, 2017 – VICE

    “The methane rule was justified based on enormous benefits to the public,” Bethany A. Davis Noll, Senior Attorney at the Center for Policy Integrity, told VICE News, “It will be difficult to roll it back.”

  • Pruitt’s Deregulation Spree Has Cut Corners

    August 1, 2017 – Slate

    Pruitt claims that his regulatory rollbacks represent a return to the “rule of law,” but he has pursued them in a lawless fashion, cutting corners and ignoring fundamental legal requirements. Now, failing to follow the rules of the game is catching up with him.

  • 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.