Menu
Institute for Policy Integrity logo

In the News

Viewing all news in Opinion
  • Exposing the Contradictions in Trump’s Assault on Climate Change Policy

    The Trump administration said the decision to exit the Paris agreement was made because of its “unfair economic burden” on the U.S. economy. These dire predictions about the costs of addressing climate change have been a mainstay of the administration’s rhetoric since its beginning. Yet at times when it was convenient to take the opposite position, the administration has argued that climate regulations in fact impose no costs on the economy. These contradictory efforts have been used to protect the coal industry at the expense of the American people

  • States Don’t Have to Wait for Congress to Put a Price on Carbon

    Policy makers and regulators around the country are trying to figure out how to rapidly decarbonize the electricity sector. There are debates about what renewable goals states should have, by when, what should count as clean energy, and how much energy efficiency states should invest in. These debates overlook the most important tool we can rely on to achieve our clean-energy goals: markets and price signals.

  • Carbon Pricing Will Fuel Renewable Energy Transition

    New York’s economy could stand to gain more than $3 billion if the state’s electric grid operator adopts a simple policy change: putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. This is the conclusion of a new study released by the New York Independent System Operator, which manages the state’s electricity grid.

  • Should Fossil-Fuel Companies Bear Responsibility for the Damage Their Products Do to the Environment?

    When companies produce and sell harmful products, even if the full extent of the danger isn’t initially clear, they should pay to help remedy the damage done. Whatever challenges are involved in arriving at those solutions shouldn’t be mistaken for reasons to let fossil-fuel companies off the hook.

  • Trump’s EPA Chooses Rodents Over People

    The agency will curtail its reliance on animal testing, putting public health at risk.

  • Getting Energy Storage Policies Right

    At its full potential, energy storage will improve grid efficiency and resilience, while helping to reduce emissions. But if we don’t get the accompanying policies right, we risk falling short of these improvements.

  • EPA Will Say Anything to Avoid Addressing Climate Change

    Pay no attention to the premature deaths behind the curtain. That is the upshot of the analysis supporting the Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule, which public health groups are challenging in a lawsuit filed earlier this month.

  • More Bike Lanes, Not Just Post-Tragedy

    Protected bike lanes, which make streets safer for both pedestrians and bikers, can improve the situation tremendously. But city officials and Community Boards have refused to follow through with a comprehensive approach to installing and enforcing bike lanes, creating dangerous conditions in neighborhoods all around the city.

  • It’s a Bad Idea to Pick a Fight with California on Car Emissions

    Though standards limiting vehicle emissions have played a critical role in controlling U.S. air pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have imminent plans to roll back emissions standards for model years 2021 and beyond. As part of the proposal, the agencies have put California in their crosshairs. But leaving California alone could help keep the air cleaner and avoid the political and legal uncertainty caused by picking that fight with California.

  • The Trump Administration Might Be Too Incompetent to Undermine Environmental Regulations

    The Trump administration appears to be entering an alarming new stage of its attack on environmental protection. EPA has recently decided it will change the way it collects and processes data, to provide better justification to dismantle the analytical foundation of its rules.The consequences for the environment and public health could be disastrous. But even as this approach might be more deliberate, these actions are unlikely to survive court challenges as well.