Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Climate Change and Energy Policy
  • CBS’s Declan McCullagh promotes another fossil-fuel-funded, falsehood-filled CEI attack

    September 16, 2009 – Climate Progress

    Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the benefits of Waxman-Markey greatly outweigh the costs. The Journal highlights a new cost-benefit analysis of the House bill by the New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity. The NYU study finds that finds that the benefits outweigh the costs by 9:1 Based on a middle-of-the road estimate, potential benefits add up to about $1.5 trillion over the next 40 years.

  • The new road to lower emissions may have some potholes

    September 16, 2009 – ClimateWire

    Tucked into that estimate is a calculation that represents the first time the agency has put a dollar amount on the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, according to New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. Edna Ishayik, a spokeswoman for the institute, said EPA chose figures on the lower end of an already “conservative” range of $5 to $55 per ton of carbon. “These are very conservative estimates, which is problematic because the range will be applied to every significant regulation with a climate impact,” she said in an e-mail.

  • Waxman-Markey clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill creates $1.5 trillion in benefits

    September 14, 2009 – Climate Progress

    A new analysis of clean energy legislation finds that it will produce likely economic benefits of $1.5 trillion. The finding by the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity explains that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is “cost‐benefit justified under most reasonable assumptions about the likely ’social cost of carbon.’”

  • Counting the benefits of climate legislation

    September 11, 2009 – Grist

    While reducing greenhouse gases will have costs, so will the results of climate change. That may seem obvious, but up until now the debate over climate legislation has only focused on the costs, without looking at the benefits. Last week, a federal interagency taskforce released preliminary findings that began to set a dollar value for the negative effects of climate change. Often referred to as “the social cost of carbon,” this estimate is key to exposing the hidden costs of a high-carbon economy. If we only focus on the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we are seeing only half the story—inaction on global warming will lead to a greater economic hit than the price tag on the Waxman-Markey bill.

  • Coverage of The Other Side of the Coin (sub req).

    September 11, 2009 – Carbon Control News

    The Institute for Policy Integrity on Sept. 8, however, released The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation, an analysis that the group says uses EPA’s current cost estimates of the House climate bill and the interagency estimates to draw conclusions about the net benefit from the legislation. The analysis states that the break even point for the social cost of carbon—beyond which the legislation passes a cost-benefit test—ranges from $7.70 to $8.97 per ton of carbon dioxide.

  • 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.