In the News

The Institute for Policy Integrity and the New York University School of Law sought in a brief filed yesterday to rebut industry claims that EPA’s economic analysis of the rule’s costs and benefits was flawed.

“While EPA did not rely on cost-benefit analysis to justify the [rule], the Agency acted consistently with federal law and best economic practices by assessing all significant economic impacts — both direct and indirect, quantifiable and unquantifiable — in its regulatory impact analysis,” the group wrote in the brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But while Kerry discussed climate change briefly during his confirmation hearing last week, he spent much more time on issues of international conflict like Syria. And it is equally likely that they might take precedence after he is confirmed.

“He’s not going to be the climate secretary,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, in a recent interview.

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.