In the News

While it may be a while before the precise outlines of EPA’s upcoming methane rules are clear, legal experts are already noting that the Senate vote makes EPA’s task easier by essentially restoring the 2016 Obama era NSPS as a baseline for further action without the need for a fresh comment process to simply reverse the Trump rule. “You can imagine the whole process of getting this done through the comment-and-rule process could take the majority of Biden’s first term,” New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity Director Richard Revesz told the Wall Street Journal.

The US Senate has voted to effectively restore a federal clampdown on methane after it was abandoned by the Trump administration. “The period for introducing resolutions of disapproval has now passed, so this is probably going to be the only one that we will see disapproved,” said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “The main reason is that CRA resolutions of disapproval can take up to 10 hours of Senate debate time. And early in an administration, Senate debate time is a scarce resource.”

The Senate voted to restore regulations on methane gas that leaks into the air from U.S. oil and gas production. In a 52-42 vote Wednesday, the Senate invoked its power under the Congressional Review Act. The law’s power lies in its speed, said Richard Revesz, director of New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, who said that restoring methane regulations through the usual rule-making process could take two years and remain suspended for another year if challenged in court.

74%: that's the share of economists around the world who now say it’s necessary to take “immediate and drastic” action on climate change, up from 50% in 2015, a recent survey shows. The Ph.D. economists, polled by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity in February, came to an “overwhelming consensus that the costs of inaction on climate change are higher than the costs of action, and that immediate, aggressive emissions reductions are economically desirable,” the institute said in a report released last month.

For New York City’s next mayor, climate change presents a series of immense challenges — as well as several key opportunities for the city’s economy and improving conditions in historically neglected neighborhoods. “What I'm really encouraged to see is how much they all broadly agree on the things that need to be done,” said Justin Gundlach, a senior attorney with New York University law school’s Institute for Policy Integrity. What remains to be seen, he said, is how the candidates prioritize each of their ideas: “Not just priority among climate-related things, but priority given to climate-related issues as opposed to other issues.”

Climate change also threatens the economic wellbeing of western states. Recently, the Institute for Public Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law conducted a survey of 738 economists, Gauging Economic Consensus on Climate Change, which found that the benefits of taking action on climate change far outweigh the costs.

Recently, the Biden Administration called for a review and possible updating of the SCC to ensure that it reflects the latest science. Some observers, including two prominent economists, Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics and Political Science and Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, argue that the SCC is too flawed for use in policymaking. We think Stern and Stiglitz’s estimate is worth developing to indicate whether the SCC is compatible with reaching a two degrees Celsius goal, but not to supplant the SCC. 

According to a new survey from the Institute for Policy Integrity, 74% of economists agreed that “immediate and drastic action” is needed to curb emissions. That is compared to 50% who felt that way in 2015. Economists say climate change could lead to further inequality, trillions in economic damage and depressed economic growth.

The SEC's risk alert confirmed what a joint 11 February report by the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity uncovered, as well as a separate 19 February study by the Center for American Progress. Both reports pointed to the lack of consistency in reporting of climate and related environmental impact disclosures.

Government and investors are quickly moving to quantify the risks posed by climate change and make that part of their financial decision-making. But many companies remain unsure how to measure the threat of climate change to their business, and whether or how to report those risks to investors and the public. That task will be easier if the SEC provides more clarity about which, and how much, data a company needs to disclose on its risks, said Madison Condon, a professor of environmental law at Boston University who co-authored a Feb. report on the SEC’s climate oversight.