In the News

Michael Livermore, executive director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said in a statement Monday that the Clean Air Act gives Obama plenty of running room.

He said Section 111 of the law, which addresses stationary pollution sources, “easily gives the President the power to use market mechanisms (like a cap) to drive down carbon emissions from power plants.”

What are the global trends for cost-benefit analysis, and how is this policy tool affecting environmental regulations? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity and co-editor of the new book “The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy,” discusses the growing global use of cost-benefit analysis and its impact on environmental policy. He explains why he believes cost-benefit analysis is effective and highlights a recent case, relating to EPA’s mercury rule, where cost-benefit analysis was called into question.

But while Kerry discussed climate change briefly during his confirmation hearing last week, he spent much more time on issues of international conflict like Syria. And it is equally likely that they might take precedence after he is confirmed.

“He’s not going to be the climate secretary,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, in a recent interview.

Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said the public accepted that higher fuel economy standards would save them at the pump. “They have a lot of environmental benefits, but they also generate a lot of savings for consumers,” he said. “And that’s different from what you’re talking about with greenhouse gases” from power plants.

While the greenhouse gas rules are economically justified, especially when considering the cost of adapting to climate change, “it’s not like putting money in consumers’ pockets,” Livermore said.

“She definitely was willing to go and take criticism,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “She wanted to use her position to achieve results for the American public.”

Livermore says there are steps government and individuals can can take now to slow the rate of increased warming and the damage that would follow.

For the government he suggests cap and trade legislation, development of cleaner renewable fuels and infrastructure projects including sea walls in New York City to protect against flooding and other consequences of more extreme weather.

He recommends that individual insulate homes, drive more fuel-efficient autos and use other fuel efficient products like compact fluorescent light bulbs and Energy Star refrigerators, and support politicians who are focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The costs for all of these moves “is nowhere near the costs we face if we don’t act,” says Livermore.

The Institute for Policy Integrity is suing EPA over this, arguing that the agency should impose a declining cap on carbon emissions from the vehicle sector — a cap-and-trade system for transportation, effectively, established under Sections 211 and 231 of the Clean Air Act.

Batten down the proverbial hatches and prepare for more Hurricane Sandy-type events unless governments get serious about reducing GHG emissions. The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School clearly understands this reality as it submitted a notice of intent last week to sue the EPA to force the organization to put a cap on carbon emissions from fuels used in vehicles, boats and planes.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School has notified the US EPA that it will file a lawsuit against the agency unless a cap on greenhouse gas from cars, boats and airplanes is enacted, under the authority of the Clean Air Act.

The move comes just as President Obama signed a bill requiring US airlines to be excluded from the EU airline emissions trading program, now on hold.

“For the kind of efficiency standards EPA has been setting, the statute only lets EPA cover new models of cars and trucks,” said Jason Schwartz, the group’s legal director. “But compared to the 10 million new cars and trucks sold every year, there are over 250 million total vehicles on the road. A cap on vehicle fuels is the best way to cover emissions from those older, less efficient models.”

Efficiency standards alone, Schwartz said, also risk generating a rebound effect. “As cars can drive further on a tank of gas, each vehicle mile travelled becomes cheaper,” he said, “and consumers respond by driving more, and so emitting more. That eats into the benefits of the efficiency standard in the first place. By comparison, a market-based mechanism like a cap builds a price of emissions into the cost of vehicle fuel, which stays the same no matter how many miles the consumer can travel on that gallon of gas. So there’s no rebound effect.”