Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Jobs and Regulation
  • Killing the “Job-Killing Regulation” Meme

    April 3, 2012 – Bloomberg

    The phrase “job-killing regulation” has become a standard part of the political lexicon this campaign season, most often used to disparage President Barack Obama’s energy and environmental policies.

    But a new report suggests we ought to take claims of regulatory-related unemployment with a grain of salt. The Institute for Political Integrity, a nonpartisan think tank associated with the New York University School of Law, finds many of the studies purporting to show mass job losses — or gains — from environmental rules use poorly executed economic models that do not accurately measure true costs and benefits.

  • New report tries to clear up debate over EPA and jobs

    April 3, 2012 – Washington Post

    Someone needs to bring a little order to this chaos. And a new paper (pdf) by the Institute for Policy Integrity tries to do just that. The authors, Michael Livermore, Elizabeth Piennar, and Jason Schwartz, make two key points. First, most of the concrete estimates of job losses and gains around environmental rules are wildly misused — people basically just tout whatever study supports their pre-existing beliefs. And, second, while job impacts are important, they should be looked at in the broader context of the costs and benefits of new regulations. Job losses or gains, the authors note, “should not serve as a trump card.”

  • Study explores limits of modeling links between enviro rules, jobs

    April 3, 2012 – Greenwire

    The politics of how environmental regulations affect hiring and firing is distorted by campaign rhetoric that often gives short shrift to the uncertainties surrounding economic models, New York University researchers argue in a report released today.

    NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity looked at the complex relationship between the labor market and regulations in the report and determined politicians on either side of the fight often fail to call attention to the limits and assumptions of such models.

  • In State of the Union, Obama should stress that environmental protections don’t kill jobs

    January 23, 2012 – Grist

    In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Obama is likely to focus heavily on economic growth and job creation. But he should also make clear that economic progress need not come at the expense of the environment; to the contrary, the public-health efforts he’s made over the past year will generate billions of dollars in value for the American public.

  • Wellinghoff hypes IT for electricity

    April 27, 2011 – Grist

    In his vision of an America transitioning away from fossil fuels, Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, sees information technology as the basis for tremendous financial and employment opportunities. And with the right policies and incentives, this could happen soon. But in our current political reality, it feels like light years away.

    Speaking on the future of American energy in the United States at Princeton recently, Wellinghoff got into the details of the technologies, many sitting on the shelf today, that could change individuals’ use of electricity and fuel — and would change some of how America does business for the better.

  • A cap-and-dividend way to a cleaner nation and more jobs

    June 18, 2010 – Washington Post

    Researchers at the New York University School of Law found that the legislation would generate good, “green jobs” in areas such as construction, solar power and mass transit because a predictable carbon price spurs investment in efficiency and cleaner-energy solutions.

  • Reasons to Pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act—Part Two

    November 5, 2009 – Center for American Progress

    On top of the health costs, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that failing to deal with climate change will cost our economy an average of $27 million to $375 million every day from now until 2050.

  • Without Carbon Pricing Any Green Energy Plan Is Fundamentally Incomplete

    December 19, 2008 – Treehugger

    Whether its in the form of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, some form of carbon pricing is essential to stimulate development of the low carbon technologies which will reduce dependence on fossil fuels and stimulate economic growth, a new briefing from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law says.

  • Carbon Price Essential if “Green” Stimulus to Have Desired Effect, Experts Say

    December 16, 2008 – TriplePundit

    When it comes to making the transition to a ‘green,’ low carbon economy, government stimulus plans are doubly beneficial, but public sector investment and spending alone will not be enough to spur decisive action and a long-term commitment.

  • Economists see ‘cap and dividend’ program spurring economy

    December 16, 2008 – E&E News PM

    Long-term efforts to create ‘green’ jobs and infrastructure will not succeed without a real price on greenhouse gas emissions, a New York University think tank charges in a new report. President-elect Barack Obama has proposed a mandatory, economywide emissions cap to cut carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases 80 percent by 2050. The policy would auction pollution credits to electric utilities and other major emitters to meet the cap.