In the News

An environmental group affiliated with New York University’s law school is petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to wield a seldom-used section of the Clean Air Act to require greenhouse gas emissions curbs.

The petition urges EPA to act under Section 115 of the air law, which enables EPA to demand action to curb pollution that’s endangering public health or welfare in foreign countries.

Seizing on signals the White House could move unilaterally to combat climate change, a New York think tank petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to pursue far-reaching antipollution measures, arguing that such action is required under the Clean Air Act.

Michael Livermore, executive director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said in a statement Monday that the Clean Air Act gives Obama plenty of running room.

He said Section 111 of the law, which addresses stationary pollution sources, “easily gives the President the power to use market mechanisms (like a cap) to drive down carbon emissions from power plants.”

What are the global trends for cost-benefit analysis, and how is this policy tool affecting environmental regulations? During today’s OnPoint, Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity and co-editor of the new book “The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy,” discusses the growing global use of cost-benefit analysis and its impact on environmental policy. He explains why he believes cost-benefit analysis is effective and highlights a recent case, relating to EPA’s mercury rule, where cost-benefit analysis was called into question.

The Institute for Policy Integrity and the New York University School of Law sought in a brief filed yesterday to rebut industry claims that EPA’s economic analysis of the rule’s costs and benefits was flawed.

“While EPA did not rely on cost-benefit analysis to justify the [rule], the Agency acted consistently with federal law and best economic practices by assessing all significant economic impacts — both direct and indirect, quantifiable and unquantifiable — in its regulatory impact analysis,” the group wrote in the brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But while Kerry discussed climate change briefly during his confirmation hearing last week, he spent much more time on issues of international conflict like Syria. And it is equally likely that they might take precedence after he is confirmed.

“He’s not going to be the climate secretary,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, in a recent interview.

Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said the public accepted that higher fuel economy standards would save them at the pump. “They have a lot of environmental benefits, but they also generate a lot of savings for consumers,” he said. “And that’s different from what you’re talking about with greenhouse gases” from power plants.

While the greenhouse gas rules are economically justified, especially when considering the cost of adapting to climate change, “it’s not like putting money in consumers’ pockets,” Livermore said.

“She definitely was willing to go and take criticism,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. “She wanted to use her position to achieve results for the American public.”

Livermore says there are steps government and individuals can can take now to slow the rate of increased warming and the damage that would follow.

For the government he suggests cap and trade legislation, development of cleaner renewable fuels and infrastructure projects including sea walls in New York City to protect against flooding and other consequences of more extreme weather.

He recommends that individual insulate homes, drive more fuel-efficient autos and use other fuel efficient products like compact fluorescent light bulbs and Energy Star refrigerators, and support politicians who are focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The costs for all of these moves “is nowhere near the costs we face if we don’t act,” says Livermore.

Environmentalists on Monday are set to file a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s plans to sell offshore drilling leases over the next five years, with a novel argument: that the government overlooked the value of waiting to harvest oil and gas from those coastal waters.

The economic-driven approach is a new one for offshore drilling critics, who have separately accused the government of moving too swiftly to approve new oil and natural gas exploration after the Deepwater Horizon disaster and ignoring the environmental effects of the work.