In the News

A new analysis of clean energy legislation finds that it will produce likely economic benefits of $1.5 trillion. The finding by the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity explains that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is “cost‐benefit justified under most reasonable assumptions about the likely ’social cost of carbon.’”

While reducing greenhouse gases will have costs, so will the results of climate change. That may seem obvious, but up until now the debate over climate legislation has only focused on the costs, without looking at the benefits. Last week, a federal interagency taskforce released preliminary findings that began to set a dollar value for the negative effects of climate change. Often referred to as “the social cost of carbon,” this estimate is key to exposing the hidden costs of a high-carbon economy. If we only focus on the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we are seeing only half the story—inaction on global warming will lead to a greater economic hit than the price tag on the Waxman-Markey bill.

The Institute for Policy Integrity on Sept. 8, however, released The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation, an analysis that the group says uses EPA’s current cost estimates of the House climate bill and the interagency estimates to draw conclusions about the net benefit from the legislation. The analysis states that the break even point for the social cost of carbon—beyond which the legislation passes a cost-benefit test—ranges from $7.70 to $8.97 per ton of carbon dioxide.

In what’s sure to be an important study at this crucial juncture of the future of climate legislation, researchers have discovered that the economic benefits of such a bill absolutely dwarf the costs—by a stunning margin of 9 to 1. Hopefully, the new findings will help silence persistent critics who claim climate action would devastate the US economy

What’s the cost of NOT cutting carbon emissions to curb global warming? That’s the calculation that NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity undertook in its new report on the benefits the American Clean Energy and Security Act could bring to America and the world – and the benefits far outweigh the costs, the report’s authors insist.

A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.

Meanwhile, some great research came out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity today: A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.

So much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around the climate bill in Congress revolves around the costs of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. What about the benefits?…That got some folks thinking. “Climate change is arguably one of the most complex issues to face Congress in recent memory, and yet Congress is essentially conducting its deliberations after having reviewed barely half the data,” says a new brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, an outfit basically created to bring cost-benefit analysis back to the environmental arena. The upshot? As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.

EPA should not grant the Chamber of Commerce’s request for an extraordinary on-the-record proceeding concerning the agency’s expected endangerment finding. Rather than engage in this time consuming process of little value, the agency should move forward with much needed regulatory action that was grossly delayed by the political calculation of the last administration, even as the science connecting greenhouse gas emissions to severe environmental consequences has continued to mount.

Many scientists are worried about certain greenhouse gas “feedback loops” that could lead to rapid and irreversible climate change. But if the world delays on a climate change agreement it will be political feedback loops we should be nervous about. Only by creating a strong international agreement soon, while international cooperation is at a historic high, can we hope to avoid both the greenhouse gas feedback loops and the spiral that could stop us from doing anything about them.