In the News

A sleeper bill by Senators Cantwell and Collins that places a cap on carbon, auctions permits, and put a check into every American’s pocket has been picking up steam (see positive editorials in the Economist, Washington Post, and Denver Post). It might just strike the right balance of job creation, simplicity, and populism to take off.

Fogarty pointed to a paper by Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, which argues for charging companies that emit carbon dioxide. Livermore claims laws making greenhouse emissions more expensive are the best tools for spurring innovation in renewable energy. “When prices of a commodity are low, there is less incentive to invest in innovation to reduce use of that commodity,” Livermore states.

The majority of 144 economists polled by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, or 84 percent, agree that global warming’s effects “create significant risks” to the economy, and 94 percent agree that the United States should join climate agreements to limit global warming. The Securities Exchange Commission said for the first time that companies should disclose to investors the risks that climate change poses to their businesses. The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that failing to deal with climate change will cost our economy an average of $27 million to $375 million every day from now until 2050. This does not include environmental costs or costs to public health.

In the months leading up to President Obama’s inauguration, the Bush administration rushed through a raft of controversial regulations. These “midnight regulations,” like the one that would allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams in West Virginia, caused a major stir at the time—but whatever happened to them? After a year in office, has the new president been able to clean up his predecessor’s last minute mess? The answer is a mixed bag of attempts, delays, successes, and road blocks.

While government subsidies for “green technology” may be a piece of the total picture, the only way to efficiently generate the levels of investment needed to wean the economy from carbon-heavy sources of power is a price signal which could be generated as a tax or, more likely, as a cap-and-trade.

Heating buildings can be deadly. That’s according to a report released last week by NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity. The document, entitled “Residual Risks: The Unseen Costs of Using Dirty Oil in New York City Boilers,” finds that the low-grade heating oil used in many apartment buildings emits a dangerously large amount of particulate matter, which can cause respiratory problems, heart attacks and even death. The study estimates that more than 150 deaths could be avoided each year if the city’s buildings burned cleaner fuel.

Almost everyone agrees that legislative climate action is preferred over regulation—it is the simpler, more democratic and longer lasting way to bring down our carbon emissions. But the congressional process has stalled out and Senator Murkowski’s attempt to shut down EPA’s ability to regulate is not helping. Procedurally, a disapproval resolution is destined to fail—at best it is a waste of time, but more likely a political move designed to slow down progress on climate legislation.

What’s behind that black smoke pouring out of many city buildings? From the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity, Executive Director Michael Livermore and fellow Jason Schwartz discuss their recent study of the effects of oil boilers on the city’s air, and the larger efforts being made to clean up air pollution in the area.

Switching from cheap and dirty #6 fuel oil to cleaner #2 oil would save up to 56 lives a year, and switching to natural gas would save up to 188 people, according to scientific models from New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

“Without net neutrality rules, new technologies could lead to pricing practices that transfer wealth from content providers to ISPs,” warns the Institute for Policy Integrity, “a form of price discrimination that would reduce the return on investment for Internet content—meaning website owners, bloggers, newspapers, and businesses would have less incentive to expand their sites and applications.”