In the News

Michael Livermore, the executive director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, said it would be a mistake to give that up just because critics would raise the specter of cap and trade.

“If we ever want to get serious about greenhouse gas reductions, it will include these kinds of things,” Livermore said in a recent interview. “We’re not going to, as a society, impose double costs completely unnecessarily because of some silly rhetorical issue. I think it will get figured out.”

An upcoming review of federal air pollution rules for nitric acid plants could be an early chance, his group said in a recent report.

WIGGLE ROOM — A report out today from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity says the EPA has some leeway for flexibility — and can probably allow trading within industry sectors — when it sets new industry-specific climate rules.

If someone offered you an investment that would pay out $25 for every $1 you paid you would probably take it.

It turns out that investing in clean air generates exactly those returns in health benefits to the American public. The rules that keep our air safe to breathe raked in annual benefits of $1.3 trillion compared to costs of only $53 billion in 2010. Things like avoided doctors’ visits, increased property values, and pollution-related deaths postponed add up to major money in the pockets of families around the country.

Michael Livermore, the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said that lifting environmental restrictions wouldn’t help the economy as proponents claimed.

“It’s just really not that big a deal that it would make sense for Congress to spend so much of its energy and so much of its time focusing on this if what they care about is the economy,” he said. “If what they care is making things easier for special industrial actors who are politically connected, then it makes a lot of sense.”

President Obama’s new Executive Order has the potential to trim unnecessary rules while boosting needed protections. Adequate protection for the environment, public health, and consumers is essential, but periodic review can help ensure they stay up to date.

Independent agencies are charged with regulating some of the most important issues facing the country like Internet policy and consumer safety. Today’s move will help improve those regulatory programs by setting up a process of periodic review, while respecting the discretion of these agencies.

Scientists from around the globe, working with a variety of models and data sources, have identified a substantial risk that, unless we act quickly, human-induced climate change will lead to an increase in extreme weather.

Whether the most recent droughts, tornadoes and floods are a direct result of climate change is certainly an issue worthy of further scientific study. But we needn’t wait for the answers to begin moving forward on reducing our greenhouse gas output—the risks of a warming planet are already significant enough to warrant action now.

Anyone who’s shopped for health insurance knows what a headache the process can be. The disorienting maze of features, benefits, and coverage options can leave consumers under-protected even when they’ve overpaid.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is trying to create a clearer, better menu for policy holders to order from. Their idea is “Transparency Reporting,” a move aimed at streamlining the health insurance purchasing process by asking companies to summarize their policies in easier-to-understand ways.

In January, President Obama issued a call for all federal agencies to review their existing regulations, looking for rules that had grown outdated, ineffective, or insufficient over time. Back then, there was much discussion over whether the move was a gift to business or a robust defense of strong protections even in a downturned economy.

Repealing direct ethanol subsidies would help reduce government support of an energy source with many potentially large drawbacks, while making room in the market for emerging, cleaner energy sources.

In the past, investment dollars flowed into ethanol plants in part because protective government policies and subsidies stacked the deck in their favor. It’s harder for promising alternative energy and efficiency technologies to compete for the same investment capital when government is throwing its weight behind more politically favored sectors.

According to some, the housing bubble came crashing down in the fall of 2008 partially due to the predatory lending practices of mortgage banks. Part of the problem may have been consumer confusion when it came to the fine print of complex financing arrangements. Unknowingly, homebuyers might have signed on for more than they could manage — a situation that consumer education could have ameliorated.