In the News

Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said the public accepted that higher fuel economy standards would save them at the pump. “They have a lot of environmental benefits, but they also generate a lot of savings for consumers,” he said. “And that’s different from what you’re talking about with greenhouse gases” from power plants.

While the greenhouse gas rules are economically justified, especially when considering the cost of adapting to climate change, “it’s not like putting money in consumers’ pockets,” Livermore said.

“She definitely was willing to go and take criticism,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “She wanted to use her position to achieve results for the American public.”

Livermore says there are steps government and individuals can can take now to slow the rate of increased warming and the damage that would follow.

For the government he suggests cap and trade legislation, development of cleaner renewable fuels and infrastructure projects including sea walls in New York City to protect against flooding and other consequences of more extreme weather.

He recommends that individual insulate homes, drive more fuel-efficient autos and use other fuel efficient products like compact fluorescent light bulbs and Energy Star refrigerators, and support politicians who are focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The costs for all of these moves “is nowhere near the costs we face if we don’t act,” says Livermore.

Environmentalists on Monday are set to file a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s plans to sell offshore drilling leases over the next five years, with a novel argument: that the government overlooked the value of waiting to harvest oil and gas from those coastal waters.

The economic-driven approach is a new one for offshore drilling critics, who have separately accused the government of moving too swiftly to approve new oil and natural gas exploration after the Deepwater Horizon disaster and ignoring the environmental effects of the work.

Michael Livermore of the Center for Policy Integrity, which is helping to represent CSE, said the plan should be re-done because Interior failed to consider the economic value of not going ahead with leasing in some cases.

He noted that when leasing for development of publicly-owned resources is delayed, there is more time to learn about environmental sensitivities and development technology improves, among other considerations.

“When you don’t take into account the value of delay, you end up subjecting too much of the outer continental shelf to leasing,” Livermore told The Hill.

“That option value is owned by the American public and ought to be considered by the agency,” said Livermore, the executive director of the Institute, which is based at New York University’s law school.

The Institute for Policy Integrity is suing EPA over this, arguing that the agency should impose a declining cap on carbon emissions from the vehicle sector — a cap-and-trade system for transportation, effectively, established under Sections 211 and 231 of the Clean Air Act.

Batten down the proverbial hatches and prepare for more Hurricane Sandy-type events unless governments get serious about reducing GHG emissions. The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School clearly understands this reality as it submitted a notice of intent last week to sue the EPA to force the organization to put a cap on carbon emissions from fuels used in vehicles, boats and planes.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School has notified the US EPA that it will file a lawsuit against the agency unless a cap on greenhouse gas from cars, boats and airplanes is enacted, under the authority of the Clean Air Act.

The move comes just as President Obama signed a bill requiring US airlines to be excluded from the EU airline emissions trading program, now on hold.

“For the kind of efficiency standards EPA has been setting, the statute only lets EPA cover new models of cars and trucks,” said Jason Schwartz, the group’s legal director. “But compared to the 10 million new cars and trucks sold every year, there are over 250 million total vehicles on the road. A cap on vehicle fuels is the best way to cover emissions from those older, less efficient models.”

Efficiency standards alone, Schwartz said, also risk generating a rebound effect. “As cars can drive further on a tank of gas, each vehicle mile travelled becomes cheaper,” he said, “and consumers respond by driving more, and so emitting more. That eats into the benefits of the efficiency standard in the first place. By comparison, a market-based mechanism like a cap builds a price of emissions into the cost of vehicle fuel, which stays the same no matter how many miles the consumer can travel on that gallon of gas. So there’s no rebound effect.”

Executive Director Michael Livermore said in an interview yesterday that requiring refineries and fuel importers to limit the carbon content of their fuels is the best way to reduce emissions from the transportation sector while limiting cost. The cap would ultimately apply to fuels for all motor vehicles and aircraft.

“So far, the EPA has been more oriented toward more traditional regulatory approaches,” Livermore said, “but ultimately, if we’re ever going to really control emissions, we have to do it through a cap or some kind of pricing mechanism.”