Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

  • Taxpayers Get a Bad Deal with the Federal Coal Program. Let’s Fix It.

    The federal coal program is a quintessential bad deal for Americans. President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to end similar bad deals; his administration shouldn’t discard ongoing reform efforts that could add billions to the federal treasury and energy-producing states.

  • Scientists Have a New Way to Calculate Global Warming Costs. Trump’s Team Isn’t Going to Like It.

    “If the metric is revised, then the incoming administration would have an obligation to explain why it’s departing from the current approach,” Richard Revesz said. Any changes made without adequate scientific justification would likely be struck down in court.

  • The Coming Battle Between Economists and the Trump Team Over the True Cost of Climate Change

    The new administration almost certainly couldn’t make any major changes without providing adequate scientific and economic justification, said Richard Revesz, a law professor and dean emeritus of the New York University School of Law. Otherwise, the move would also likely be struck down in court as “arbitrary and capricious,” he argued.

  • Economists Agree: Economic Models Underestimate Climate Change

    Last year, the New York–based Institute for Policy Integrity tried to remedy that situation with just such a large-scale survey of economists who have published work on climate change.

  • No ‘Short Cut’ Seen For Trump Environmental Rollback

    There is no “short cut” for President-elect Donald Trump to roll back environmental regulations but the incoming administration still could target Obama era rules, a former Justice Department official said Nov. 15.

  • How Much Is This Land Worth?

    The situation in Standing Rock shows the difficulty of fighting for a right to use land in a way that does not yield short-term profits. “By using economics to show just how wasteful under-regulation can be,” Richard Revesz wrote in 2008, “cost-benefit environmentalism can be the key to creating the political coalition necessary to make America richer by regulating more wisely.”

  • Fact-checking opponents of the Clean Power Plan

    Over the course of the D.C. Circuit hearing, the Clean Power Plan’s opponents made several legal and factual assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Our research helps set the record straight.

  • Here’s Why Supporters of the Clean Power Plan Are Feeling Optimistic

    You probably thought that last week’s only notable debate was the one between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at Hofstra University, but, on Tuesday, supporters and opponents of EPA’s Clean Power Plan had a high-stakes showdown of their own in Washington, D.C.: a seven-hour oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The proceedings may not have spawned an SNL sketch, but in the wonky world of environmental law, they were a very big deal.

  • Donald Trump and the Climate Change Countdown

    The Clean Power Plan ruling was extremely unusual, especially as the Circuit Court had unanimously declined to issue a stay; as Richard Revesz, a professor at the New York University School of Law, recently told my colleague Jeffrey Toobin, “It was totally unprecedented for the Supreme Court to step in.” The 5–4 vote on the stay seemed, to put it mildly, to bode ill for the plan.

  • Oral Arguments in the Clean Power Plan Case

    Richard Revesz shares his take on yesterday’s Clean Power Plan oral arguments, and why the strength of EPA’s arguments came through clearly.