In the News

Postponing the vote on climate change legislation carries both political risks and possible rewards. But decision-makers shouldn’t abandon the most pivotal element of the bill: a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Breaking down the legislation into smaller pieces to avoid confrontation about carbon pricing is a bad idea.

This Friday is the deadline for public comments on the stricter vehicle efficiency standards from EPA and the Department of Transportation. The docket is likely to be overrun with statements for and against the regulation that would make cars and light trucks 30 percent more efficient in 5 years.

From an economic perspective, the social benefits of the rule outweigh the costs. The environmental, health, and energy security benefits—most especially from reducing the tailpipe emission of greenhouse gases—could more than double the estimated costs to manufacturers of installing more fuel efficiency technologies: social benefits could total over $800 billion, compared to around $400 billion in compliance costs.

Obama Administration regulators have moved forward with a climate agenda at a good clip—taking the issue from zero to sixty to make up for the lost time of the past eight years of stalling. So while the cap-and-trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives is currently stalled in the Senate, it is not true that American negotiators are going to Copenhagen empty handed.

Experts at a recent DIVERSITAS biodiversity conference in Cape Town showcased research suggesting that a single acre of coral reef yields an average of $53,000 in annual economic benefits, concluding that worldwide reefs are worth about $172 billion annually. This eye-popping value certainly seems like it would warrant coral reef protection, particularly given the positive rate of return for investing in restoration and conservation projects.

A recent Institute for Policy Integrity study found most expert economists agree that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help avoid a major economic malfunction. Which policy options will produce the best results? How will an international agreement affect the economy? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, discusses the study and explains how its findings can be applied to the congressional climate debate.

Last week Americans for Prosperity – the group behind the campaign against the health bill this summer – launched a hot air balloon to “expose the ballooning costs of global warming hysteria”. But a survey by New York University of 289 economists who had published studies related to climate in the 25 top academic journals over the last 15 years threatens to prick it.

Economists have sparred for years over what price tag to put on the societal danger of carbon dioxide emissions. Now the Obama administration is quietly struggling to reach its own conclusion.

The answer promises to weigh heavily on a slew of future regulations that directly and indirectly combat climate change.

“This has huge potential. So many decisions the government makes have an influence on greenhouse gas emissions,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at the New York University School of Law.

Most economists say the United States should commit to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of other countries’ actions, according to a survey released today. New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity queried nearly 300 economists who have published articles on climate change and got responses from 144 of them.

“We can now say that economists agree about the severe effects of climate change on our economy, just as scientists agree about the severe effects of climate change on our planet,” said Richard Revesz, dean of NYU’s law school. “There is a clear endorsement for action among the economists who study this issue.”

A New York University School of Law survey found near unanimity among 144 top economists that global warming threatens the United States economy and that a cap-and-trade system of carbon regulation will spur energy efficiency and innovation.

“Outside academia the level of consensus among economists is unfortunately not common knowledge,” Richard Revesz, dean of the law school, said during a press conference Wednesday. “The results are conclusive – there is broad agreement that reducing emissions is likely to have significant economic benefits.”

“An economist tree hugger is an imaginary creature,” says Michael Livermore of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, which conducted the survey. “But we found that economists really see climate change poses a lot of risk to the economy.”

The survey approached the 289 economists who had published climate-related studies in the top 25 economics journals in the past 15 years. About half, 144, responded, and 75% agreed or strongly agreed on the “value” of greenhouse-gas controls