In the News

A study released in January by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law suggested net neutrality rules would preserve the investments of Web content producers such as newspapers and bloggers.

“You have to look at everything, and no one looks at everything,” said Michael Livermore, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School. Livermore recently co-authored a study on the economic impact of one of the environmental bills pending in the US Senate.

“Some people think it’s going to be terrible, some think it’s going to be really good,” he said. “You look at the different sectors and do as a good a job as you can.” Of course some might argue that the issue ultimately is not job creation, but saving our civilization from massive environmental turmoil.

The cost of federal flood insurance, including the program’s $20 billion deficit, is “likely dwarfed” by its harmful impacts on natural areas vulnerable to construction, according to a new report. The program, launched 42 years ago as a financial safeguard for threatened homes, is clashing with adaptation policies being prepared for the impacts of climate change, cautions the paper by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law.

A policy research group study has found that the National Flood Insurance Program, a division of FEMA, primarily benefits wealthy homeowners who build in high-risk coastal areas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis, “Flooding the Market”, the flood insurance program’s subsidies help wealthy Americans with large beachfront properties or vacation homes in a typical year, and low-income individuals only during severe catastrophes.

As the Senate prepares for the release of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate bill, how would alternative approaches affect the economy? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, discusses new research on the economic impacts of the Cantwell-Collins “CLEAR Act.” Livermore explains why the “CLEAR Act” will reduce emissions in an economically viable way and also compares it to other policy options.

There is no doubt that “cap-and-trade” has joined “liberal” on the list of terms conservatives have effectively tar-and-feathered. It’s also clear that a market-based system is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The term needs political rehabilitation, for the planet’s sake. But how? A recent study by NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity shows how a different take on cap-and-trade, known as “cap-and-rebate” or “cap-and-dividend,” could be the answer.

The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act, sponsored by Sens. Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Collins (R-Maine), would help to employ workers hit hardest by the housing bubble burst—generating jobs through increased consumer spending and green technology investment. These are some of the findings of an analysis released April 12 by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School contends in an analysis that the “CLEAR Act” sponsored by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) could help businesses diminish greenhouse gas emissions more affordably by establishing a nationwide price on carbon. (Subscription required.)

The cap-and-dividend law drafted by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) will spur green energy investment while avoiding regional disparities, according to a new study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

A new study by the Institute for Policy Integrity praises climate legislation sponsored by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — a bill that has received less attention than the upcoming proposal by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).