In the News

A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law finds that a weakening of net neutrality rules might actually “reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.”

In sum, the authors determined that Web users “collect between $4,155 and $5,686 worth of value from the Internet per year.” And the report notes an end to net neutrality rules — the FCC’s version of which the authors describe as “imperfect” — could shift investment from content creation into service provision, reducing the value of the Internet to its users.

“Industry will favor that approach, states will favor it, environmental groups will favor it—and we believe the EPA has the legal power to do it,” says Michael Livermore, a law professor at New York University and the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. The IPI released a paperr earlier this year that makes the case that the EPA has power under the Clean Air Act to recognize state cap-and-trade programs. “The only question,” says Livermore, “is how risk-averse the EPA is.”

President Obama’s announced halt to the EPA’s proposal to strengthen ozone standards is problematic, but does not necessarily indicate (as some fear) that the administration is caving on its entire environmental agenda. The move is, however, likely to bolster the “environment vs. jobs” rhetoric that has been used by many on the right against recent EPA public health protections. If other regulations fall under that political steamroller, the country stands to lose billions in public health benefits that can be achieved at minimal costs. The President needs to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Others, however, have argued that tougher ozone standards would save money currently lost when Americans get sick from air pollution.

“Those rules will generate billions of economic benefits in excess of compliance costs,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. “With each year of delay, that means additional costs imposed on the public, included lost productivity, hospital bills, more asthma cases and untimely deaths.”

In a report last year by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, the state got the discouraging mark of D+ for its process of reviewing regulations. One of Cuomo’s goals should be to make our state a model for the nation: tightening rules that don’t adequately protect New Yorkers from harm, but loosening those that slow job growth without sufficient benefit.

Tuesday’s announcement could be the last best chance, said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. “One granting programme obviously isn’t going to be a game changer in terms of advanced biofuels,” he said.

Cutting the $6bn subsidies for corn ethanol would be a far bigger boost. But Livermore added: “It’s kind of a reality test to ensure that there is genuine interest and this is not just a government boondoggle. If they don’t show interest, it is a real sign that maybe this isn’t such a good avenue in the future.”

Recently, a choir of industry voices has risen up in opposition to strengthened controls on smog proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. As with other recent environmental rules, opponents have made lots of noise about the potential economic harm and job losses, while attempting to downplay the environmental benefits. House GOP members, for example, decried the “potentially devastating impacts of [the EPA’s] proposed new standards on the U.S. economy and jobs.” But these and other alarmist calls all suffer from the same flaw: They’re premised on studies that disregard basic best practices in cost-benefit analysis in order to force their point.

In our struggling economy there are policies that could help boost employment if anyone cared to do so. Reducing distortionary taxes on work, like the payroll tax; helping workers relocate for jobs; or raising the Earned Income Tax Credit—these are all measures that would help improve the labor market and ultimately cut unemployment.

On the other hand, cutting environmental regulations would do little, if anything, to address the jobs crisis and would cost the American public billions in economic benefits.

It turns out that clean air is a really, really good investment. For every dollar that we put into cleaning our air, we get twenty five dollars back in return benefits.

According to a study by the EPA, we spent $53 billion in 2010 on the rules stipulated by the Clean Air Act and reaped $1.3 trillion in benefits from things like increased property values and avoided pollution-related deaths and doctors visits.

Scott Holladay over at Fast Company wrote up a very comprehensive rundown on the math behind the figures, click over and give it a read.

President Obama’s recent announcement of new fuel economy standards will help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, save drivers money at the pump, and curb harmful emissions and pollutants.

But the effectiveness of the standards will depend on the details and implementation—too many loopholes and the benefits could be watered down. For example, overly generous credits for electric cars might be good for battery makers, but will reduce the environmental and consumer savings of the rule if it causes lower-cost efficiency technologies to sit on the shelf.