In the News

Of course, since the EPA was created in 1970, the U.S. has seen recessions, bubbles, flush times, and dire straits. But not one of these macro episodes was caused by anything the EPA has done. Instead, they were caused by financial crises, like the 2007 mortgage crisis and the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s, or external shocks, like the 1970s oil embargo (made all the worse by the country’s addiction to gasoline).

But whenever the economy declines, the same anti-environmental rhetoric is trotted out, with those on the right calling the EPA a bunch of “hot shot junior lawyers and zealots” (Stockman, 1980s), or even worse, “the Gestapo of government” (Tom DeLay, 1990s), and accusing the agency of wanting to “put the American economy in a straightjacket” (Joe Barton, 2010s).

How many times must these dire predictions about economic doom from environmental protection be proven untrue before we collectively stop listening?

This week, the Washington Times ran an op-ed by Steve Milloy in which he asks the EPA to “show him the bodies” of victims of polluted air. He questions whether the agency has “tangible evidence” that emissions from power plants are “causing actual harm to real people.”

It is tempting to go line by line through the piece debunking each point. But Milloy makes a specific request to see “bodies,” and sadly, that is easy enough to show him.

When faced with regulation, industry will generally choose the cheapest way to comply. As long as they achieve stringent pollution goals, this is a good thing: Economically efficient rules get less resistance and blowback than those that create unnecessarily heavy burdens on business.

So it makes sense for EPA to choose more flexibility whenever legally possible. But in upcoming proposals to control greenhouse gases, some signs point to a political calculation that may steer the agency away from this tactic.

A.E.P. shuttering its attempt at carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology is a good example of the consequences of the lack of clear signals from the government on climate change policy. Potential innovations like these will continue to fall by the wayside unless there is a meaningful sign from Washington that clean energy requirements are on the horizon.

Without a penalty for carbon emissions, the return on investment for CCS projects is non-existent. Why would profit-seeking companies incur extra costs when they don’t have to? Unless businesses are not required to foot the bill for the environmental damage they cause, there is no reason to expect that one morning they will wake up and start spending shareholder money to contribute to the public good.

Michael Livermore, the executive director of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, said it would be a mistake to give that up just because critics would raise the specter of cap and trade.

“If we ever want to get serious about greenhouse gas reductions, it will include these kinds of things,” Livermore said in a recent interview. “We’re not going to, as a society, impose double costs completely unnecessarily because of some silly rhetorical issue. I think it will get figured out.”

An upcoming review of federal air pollution rules for nitric acid plants could be an early chance, his group said in a recent report.

WIGGLE ROOM — A report out today from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity says the EPA has some leeway for flexibility — and can probably allow trading within industry sectors — when it sets new industry-specific climate rules.

If someone offered you an investment that would pay out $25 for every $1 you paid you would probably take it.

It turns out that investing in clean air generates exactly those returns in health benefits to the American public. The rules that keep our air safe to breathe raked in annual benefits of $1.3 trillion compared to costs of only $53 billion in 2010. Things like avoided doctors’ visits, increased property values, and pollution-related deaths postponed add up to major money in the pockets of families around the country.

Michael Livermore, the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said that lifting environmental restrictions wouldn’t help the economy as proponents claimed.

“It’s just really not that big a deal that it would make sense for Congress to spend so much of its energy and so much of its time focusing on this if what they care about is the economy,” he said. “If what they care is making things easier for special industrial actors who are politically connected, then it makes a lot of sense.”

President Obama’s new Executive Order has the potential to trim unnecessary rules while boosting needed protections. Adequate protection for the environment, public health, and consumers is essential, but periodic review can help ensure they stay up to date.

Independent agencies are charged with regulating some of the most important issues facing the country like Internet policy and consumer safety. Today’s move will help improve those regulatory programs by setting up a process of periodic review, while respecting the discretion of these agencies.

Scientists from around the globe, working with a variety of models and data sources, have identified a substantial risk that, unless we act quickly, human-induced climate change will lead to an increase in extreme weather.

Whether the most recent droughts, tornadoes and floods are a direct result of climate change is certainly an issue worthy of further scientific study. But we needn’t wait for the answers to begin moving forward on reducing our greenhouse gas output—the risks of a warming planet are already significant enough to warrant action now.