Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Environmental Health
  • Less Scandal, Equal Dysfunction

    February 27, 2019 – Slate (Opinion)

    Andrew Wheeler’s EPA may not be as dramatic as Scott Pruitt’s, but it still suffers the pathologies that make its work poor quality—and unlikely to hold up in court.

  • Trump’s Rule Threatens Booming $4B ‘Restoration Economy’

    January 3, 2019 – Greenwire

    By using data from 1999, the administration ignored any savings those business provided developers, according to Jason Schwartz, legal director at the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity. The lacking analysis underscores how the Trump administration’s pro-industry rhetoric ignores the ecological restoration business, he said.

  • Trump Rollbacks Causing Premature Deaths Should Not Be Celebrated

    October 25, 2018 – The Hill

    The administration’s so-called accomplishments, which include rolling back hazardous waste regulations and consumer protection rules, will inflict great harms on the American people, resulting in additional deaths, illnesses, and bankruptcies. The damages done by these heedless regulatory rollbacks significantly exceed the cost savings for regulated industries.

  • Chemical Plant Safety Rule Rollback Presses on After Legal Loss

    October 17, 2018 – Bloomberg

    An industry-friendly replacement for Obama-era chemical facility safety rules is moving forward despite a court decision in August that questioned the agency’s basis for making changes. The agency could have a stronger case if it let the original rule take effect and proposed changes down the line based on real data developed during the implementation, Bethany Davis Noll said.

  • EPA Expands Clean Air Act Loopholes for Coal Plants

    September 5, 2018 – The Hill (Opinion)

    EPA calls its Affordable Clean Energy proposal “a new rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” from coal-fired power plants. There are just two problems with that characterization: ACE won’t do much of anything to reduce coal plants’ CO2 emissions, and the rule isn’t really new at all.

  • Stars Aligning for EPA Change in Calculating Air Rules Benefits

    August 31, 2018 – Bloomberg

    Bucking the science on particulate matter’s health impacts could carry a legal risk, Michael Livermore told Bloomberg Environment. “Courts like deferring to agencies, but if they think the agency is untrustworthy on fundamental science, that is a huge problem for the agency,” he said. The EPA might have some discretion to adjust its co-benefit treatment, “but they might also threaten their ability to get deference in general by risking their scientific credibility.”

  • Tainted Review

    August 29, 2018 – The Regulatory Review (Opinion)

    Environmentalists should question any move by this Administration’s EPA to reform its cost-benefit analysis.

  • The 6 Things You Most Need to Know About Trump’s New Climate Plan

    August 24, 2018 – Vox

    “When an agency wants to do something that’s harmful to the American people, it typically tries to hide it,” Richard Revesz of the Institute for Policy Integrity told Johnson. “What’s unusual here is that the EPA just comes out and says it.”

  • Environmental Law Experts Find Major Legal Flaws in Trump’s Replacement for Clean Power Plan

    August 23, 2018 – ThinkProgress

    The Clean Air Act also requires the EPA to define the “best system of emission reduction” for existing facilities, such as power plants. But the EPA’s new plan “has identified a system of emission reduction that is, at best, mediocre, far from ‘best,‘” Richard Revesz, a professor of law at New York University and an expert on environmental law, told E&E News this week.

  • Trump Put a Low Cost on Carbon Emissions. Here’s Why It Matters.

    August 23, 2018 – The New York Times

    Trump officials contend that their carbon approach better reflects the way the government has traditionally done cost-benefit analyses. Critics argue that this approach is inappropriate for global, multigenerational problems like climate change, and that newer research suggests the social cost of carbon may be even higher than the Obama administration estimated. Ultimately, the courts could decide which view prevails. “This will be part of the legal challenges to these regulatory rollbacks,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. “The reasons for why the Trump administration picked these numbers for the social cost of carbon are going to be scrutinized.”