In the News

Tuesday’s announcement could be the last best chance, said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. “One granting programme obviously isn’t going to be a game changer in terms of advanced biofuels,” he said.

Cutting the $6bn subsidies for corn ethanol would be a far bigger boost. But Livermore added: “It’s kind of a reality test to ensure that there is genuine interest and this is not just a government boondoggle. If they don’t show interest, it is a real sign that maybe this isn’t such a good avenue in the future.”

President Obama’s recent announcement of new fuel economy standards will help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, save drivers money at the pump, and curb harmful emissions and pollutants.

But the effectiveness of the standards will depend on the details and implementation—too many loopholes and the benefits could be watered down. For example, overly generous credits for electric cars might be good for battery makers, but will reduce the environmental and consumer savings of the rule if it causes lower-cost efficiency technologies to sit on the shelf.

A.E.P. shuttering its attempt at carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology is a good example of the consequences of the lack of clear signals from the government on climate change policy. Potential innovations like these will continue to fall by the wayside unless there is a meaningful sign from Washington that clean energy requirements are on the horizon.

Without a penalty for carbon emissions, the return on investment for CCS projects is non-existent. Why would profit-seeking companies incur extra costs when they don’t have to? Unless businesses are not required to foot the bill for the environmental damage they cause, there is no reason to expect that one morning they will wake up and start spending shareholder money to contribute to the public good.

Michael Livermore, the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said that lifting environmental restrictions wouldn’t help the economy as proponents claimed.

“It’s just really not that big a deal that it would make sense for Congress to spend so much of its energy and so much of its time focusing on this if what they care about is the economy,” he said. “If what they care is making things easier for special industrial actors who are politically connected, then it makes a lot of sense.”

Scientists from around the globe, working with a variety of models and data sources, have identified a substantial risk that, unless we act quickly, human-induced climate change will lead to an increase in extreme weather.

Whether the most recent droughts, tornadoes and floods are a direct result of climate change is certainly an issue worthy of further scientific study. But we needn’t wait for the answers to begin moving forward on reducing our greenhouse gas output—the risks of a warming planet are already significant enough to warrant action now.

With U.S. EPA suddenly putting the brakes on several air regulations, what’s the impact on industry and the states? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, discusses EPA’s sudden shift on air regulations and the challenges to finalizing these rules.

From Michael Livermore of the Institute of Policy Integrity, a nonpartisan environmental policy think tank:

“At a time when the price of gasoline is causing pain at the pump, EPA’s decision to forego clear, letter-grade fuel efficiency labels is a missed opportunity.At no additional cost, the simplified labels would convey information in a way that consumers can easily understand, helping them save money over the life of their vehicle. The makers of gas-guzzlers may not like having their products graded for fuel efficiency performance, but consumers benefit from the clearer presentation.”

“At a time when the price of gasoline is causing pain at the pump, EPA’s decision to forego clear, letter-grade fuel efficiency labels is a missed opportunity,” said Michael Livermore, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, a nonpartisan think-tank on law, environment, and consumers. “At the next opportunity, the agency should correct this error, reflect the latest studies on consumer behavior and select the clearer, letter-grade label design,” he said in a statement.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law also criticized the lack of letter grades on the new labels, saying, “At no additional cost, the simplified labels would convey information in a way that consumers can easily understand, helping them save money over the life of their vehicle. The makers of gas-guzzlers may not like having their products graded for fuel efficiency performance, but consumers benefit from the clearer presentation.”

Of course, a simple letter grade would have been simpler, and there’s already some disappointment at the path not taken. Michael Livermore of the Institute of Policy Integrity, for one, isn’t happy with the decision to scrap the grades:

“At a time when the price of gasoline is causing pain at the pump, EPA’s decision to forego clear, letter-grade fuel efficiency labels is a missed opportunity. At no additional cost, the simplified labels would convey information in a way that consumers can easily understand, helping them save money over the life of their vehicle. The makers of gas-guzzlers may not like having their products graded for fuel efficiency performance, but consumers benefit from the clearer presentation.”