In the News

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.”

In a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee climate hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) jokingly asked if some of his fellow colleagues were going to overturn the law of gravity, “sending us floating about the room.” It seems funny until you realize that it’s in response to a disturbing trend in Congress of misusing, manipulating, or ignoring scientific facts and academic research. As Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, put it, if they keep it up, “[p]oliticians overruling scientists on a scientific question would become part of this committee’s legacy.

Worst of all are the environmental costs. As the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity reports in “Flooding the Market,” “The financial costs of the NFIP are considerable, but they are likely dwarfed by the ecological damages that the program encourages. Floodplains are located near waterways and in coastal zones. These areas tend to be both ecologically significant and sensitive, and they contribute substantial ecosystem services.”

“Cost parity is the holy grail of renewable energy,” says Michael Livermore, executive director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “But there is cost parity with subsidies, and there is cost parity without subsidies. If this is happening without subsidies, then that means that wind power is going to explode, regardless of what the government does. I doubt that’s what really is going on.”