In the News

“EPA’s announcement marks incremental progress, but thus far, the agency fails to regulate existing oil and gas sources, which are projected to be responsible for up to 90 percent of emissions in 2018,” Jayni Hein, policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law, said in a statement. “This is a major concern in states like North Dakota, where oil production is booming, yet methane capture technology remains far behind.”

“Results like this should give a pause that maybe we should start being more cautious,” Peter Howard, an economist at NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, told VICE News. “Maybe this doesn’t happen, but if it does it could be quite costly, and we should take this risk into account.”

The price of gasoline today is wrong. It does not include the cost of carbon dioxide pollution from burning it. This is the baseline case for taxing carbon emissions. Without it, fossil fuels are underpriced, argues law professor Michael Livermore at the University of Virginia

While critics of climate regulations often complain that the costs of pollution controls are too high, directly regulating methane would buy time on climate change and redirect natural gas back into the supply chain, at little net cost, due to the commercial value of the captured gas.

For several years, Republican leaders and coal-state Democrats have railed against “Obama’s war on coal.” In reality, this supposed “war” is merely the latest stage of an effort to protect public health and welfare that began decades before President Obama took office.

At least in theory, the federal budgeting process is about rational investment. Funds are spent on programs and agencies that deliver benefits to the public, justifying their costs. However, aspects of this bill reflect congressional myopia, rather than investment in the future. Some provisions in the bill impede cost-benefit justified regulations and hinder efforts to improve public health and safety.

Tribe states that “coal has been a bedrock component of our economy and energy policy for decades” and that the Obama administration’s measure therefore “represents a drastic change in directions from previous Democratic and Republican Administrations.” He is flatly wrong.

For several years, Republican leaders and coal-state Democrats have railed against “Obama’s war on coal.” In reality, this supposed “war” is merely the latest stage of an effort to protect public health and welfare that began decades before President Obama took office.

Richard Revesz , a New York University law professor and author of “Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and our Health” says the EPA has generally underestimated, not overestimated, costs. But the whole argument over costs and benefits is largely about convincing the public and the politicians.

“There are a lot of different things they can try. It’s unclear how successful they’ll be,” Jack Lienke with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law says.