In the News

Meanwhile, some great research came out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity today: A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.

So much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around the climate bill in Congress revolves around the costs of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. What about the benefits?…That got some folks thinking. “Climate change is arguably one of the most complex issues to face Congress in recent memory, and yet Congress is essentially conducting its deliberations after having reviewed barely half the data,” says a new brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, an outfit basically created to bring cost-benefit analysis back to the environmental arena. The upshot? As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.

EPA should not grant the Chamber of Commerce’s request for an extraordinary on-the-record proceeding concerning the agency’s expected endangerment finding. Rather than engage in this time consuming process of little value, the agency should move forward with much needed regulatory action that was grossly delayed by the political calculation of the last administration, even as the science connecting greenhouse gas emissions to severe environmental consequences has continued to mount.

Many scientists are worried about certain greenhouse gas “feedback loops” that could lead to rapid and irreversible climate change. But if the world delays on a climate change agreement it will be political feedback loops we should be nervous about. Only by creating a strong international agreement soon, while international cooperation is at a historic high, can we hope to avoid both the greenhouse gas feedback loops and the spiral that could stop us from doing anything about them.

A recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), a non-partisan think tank based in New York City, found the benefits of upgrading disposal sites would exceed the costs of tougher regulations by almost 10 to 1. And since beneficial use sites are not mandated to provide financial assurances that they can pay for possible contamination, the cost any clean up could eventually be passed on to taxpayers.

8.5.09 : Coverage of IPI’s vehicle fuels petition to EPA.

A US think-tank has called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce a cap-and-trade programme targeting transport emissions, rather than wait for Congress to overcome its internal disputes. New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) petitioned EPA administrator Lisa Jackson last week to “quickly” propose and adopt rules for a cap-and-trade programme, with an auction mechanism, to control emissions from fuels used in motor vehicles, non-road vehicles such as tractors, and aircraft.

The focus of the hearing was how the Senate can improve the allocation of the carbon allowances, which are likely to be worth more than $100 billion per year. Dallas Burtraw, a senior economist at Resources for the Future, testified on how Waxman-Markey will hit American’s pocketbooks. Through his research, Burtraw found that the bill does a pretty good job of protecting the poorest 20% and the richest 10% of Americans. But everyone in the middle ends up bearing the brunt of the costs.

A group sponsored by New York University Law School petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency July 29 to develop an emissions cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuels. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity, the petition it filed is the first to ask EPA to limit greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuels.

The Institute for Policy Integrity, a nonprofit advocacy arm of the New York University School of Law, filed a 29-page petition (pdf) to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson outlining the reasons why she already has the authority to set up a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gases from motor vehicle fuels, nonroad vehicles and aircraft. Michael Livermore, the group’s executive director, called the document a “friendly petition” designed to nudge the Obama administration into regulatory action on climate change, a move that could also spur action on Capitol Hill.

The climate-change bill that passed the House last month and is currently being considered by the Senate represents America’s last chance to seriously address its contributions to global warming before we head to the international climate talks in Copenhagen this December. But the current legislative debate also offers an opportunity to reshape the broader conversation over the costs and benefits of environmental regulation—and environmentalists should not let the opportunity pass them by.