Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

Viewing all news in Environmental Health
  • Who Joe Biden is Picking to Fill His White House and Cabinet

    Over 100 environmental safeguards were removed across the past four years. Biden plans to impose stricter environmental standards on industry, a job that would be overseen by his next EPA administrator. Possible picks include Richard Revesz, an NYU Law professor who is considered one of the foremost legal minds in environmental law. Originally from Argentina, he has spent most of his career in academia. But he has managing experience, having served as dean of the NYU law school from 2002 to 2013.

  • Trump Re-Election Would Enable Defense, Expansion of EPA Rollbacks

    Environmentalists acknowledge a Trump re-election victory would mean new threats to regulation but might not guarantee success of poorly crafted deregulatory efforts. “The Trump administration’s record in defending these rollbacks has been really atrocious thus far,” Environmental Defense Fund attorney Tomás Carbonell said during the environmental law conference, citing a statistic from New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity that the administration has lost 83 percent of its legal fights to date with respect to deregulatory efforts across multiple federal agencies.

  • The Other Public Health Crisis

    • Richard L. Revesz

    According to prominent medical doctors, we are in the midst of “the biggest public health challenge of the 21st century.” But it’s not the one you think. The toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is enormous and devastating. But the public health impacts of climate change could be vastly greater. The medical profession is demanding that we recognize climate change for the health crisis that it already is, rather than the environmental catastrophe that it threatens to become. 

  • Critics of Pending EPA Lead Water Rule Face Tough Call on Filing Lawsuit

    New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity non-partisan think tank met with OMB officials Aug. 28 to reiterate its concerns about the proposed rule’s cost-benefit analysis. Former EPA officials, state drinking water regulators and water utilities have also raised concerns about the complexity of the proposed rule and whether it can be implemented well.

  • How EPA Rollbacks Evade 1994 Environmental Justice Order

    When EPA moved to lock in a national rollback of long-standing hazardous pollutant requirements last year, officials saw no need to study the effects on environmental justice communities despite a 1994 executive order requiring agencies to assess environmental justice concerns. At the Institute for Policy Integrity, a think tank based at New York University School of Law that opposes the policy's repeal, Jack Lienke noted that the executive order is not legally enforceable. But in light of a 2015 Supreme Court decision saying agencies had to incorporate cost considerations into their rulemakings, EPA's move could be vulnerable on the grounds that the agency ignored the possible costs associated with the health damage accompanying higher levels of toxic emissions, said Lienke, the institute's regulatory policy director.

  • Environmental, Public Interest Groups Seek Stricter EPA Lead Regulation

    Environmental and public interest groups are using meetings with White House Office of Management & Budget and EPA officials to reiterate their push for the agency to tighten its pending revisions to the lead and copper drinking water rule, including seeking quicker replacement of lead pipes and a new analysis of the rule’s benefits. The environmental group Clean Water Action met with OMB and EPA officials Sept. 4, and New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity non-partisan think tank met with the officials Aug. 28.

  • Administration Reviewing 50 Major Projects for Environmental Waivers

    The Natural Resources Defense Council noted, “Nothing in NEPA gives the president the authority to side-step the environmental review and public participation the statute requires.” New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity added that any exemptions allowed are for “true emergencies” that threaten lives and that it is “an enormous stretch to claim the economic crisis from COVID-19 fits.”

  • Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks: A Four-Year Tide of Regulatory Change

    In some cases, Trump administration efforts are hitting delays and possibly brick walls. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a new rule must have a “reasoned explanation” for it to be sound – or withstand a lawsuit, says Bethany Davis Noll of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. If some Trump moves leave a lasting mark, in other cases the president’s actions could face reversals – notably in cases where his policies lack strong economic or scientific footing. “I think most presidents want some kind of legacy,” Davis Noll says, and in her view “that’s what he hasn’t managed to accomplish.”

  • Prospect of Biden Win Highlights Vulnerability of 4 Major Power, Climate Rules

    The D.C. Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in challenges to major replacement rules sometime in the fall. Decisions in all three high-profile legal battles could come after Biden potentially takes the oath of office. "These are complicated cases and it typically takes the D.C. Circuit at least six months to decide them, so they're probably pending when the new administration comes into office," Richard Revesz, director of New York University Law School's Institute for Policy Integrity, said. A new Biden administration would likely ask the D.C. Circuit to put the suits on hold on the grounds that the new president wants to review and modify the rules, Revesz said, noting that Trump did the same thing with the Clean Power Plan shortly after being sworn into office in 2017.

  • What Is the Trump Administration’s Track Record on the Environment?

    To date, challenges to Trump’s deregulatory actions have been very successful. The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that the Trump administration has lost 87% of challenges to its regulations, guidance documents, and agency memoranda.