Institute for Policy Integrity logo

Twitter @policyintegrity

In the News

Viewing all news in Transparency
  • Two Or Three Tanks Of Gas Can Buy You A Climate Bill

    June 15, 2010 – Change.org

    Michael Livermore, executive director of NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity, argues that leaving these substantial benefits out is a huge mistake. “It’s like telling someone in the market for a home to pay $200,000 without telling them the property is a mansion on Fifth Avenue or a mountain ranch in Colorado,” he wrote in Grist.

  • EPA Analysis Says Climate Bill’s Cost for Households Would Be ‘Modest’

    June 15, 2010 – Washington Independent

    As Michael Livermore wrote last week, the “all costs no benefits” method of analysis utterly distorts lawmakers’ perspectives. Obviously if the costs of unrestrained climate change were included, the bill would look like a screaming bargain.

  • EPA analysis of Senate climate bill shows modest costs, omits benefits

    June 15, 2010 – Grist

    As Michael Livermore wrote last week, the “all costs no benefits” method of analysis utterly distorts lawmakers’ perspectives. Obviously if the costs of unrestrained climate change were included, the bill would look like a screaming bargain.

  • Will the EPA score the true costs AND benefits of the climate bill?

    June 9, 2010 – Grist

    This afternoon, the EPA is said to be sending its economic analysis of the climate bill proposed by Kerry and Lieberman to the Senators’ offices. It’s a scoring of how the legislation would affect the American economy. Hopefully that analysis will include the benefits, not just the costs of the measure. The agency has not incorporated benefits into its past economic analysis of climate legislation. Usually it looks exclusively at the price tag, giving legislators nervously poised to vote on the controversial proposal a clear view of the downsides but none of the upshots.

  • Excluding the benefits

    June 2, 2010 – Ezra Klein’s Blog at The Washington Post

    “For years we have been looking at only one side of the coin — the negative effects of regulating carbon emissions,” writes Michael A. Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. His institute put together a report looking at the benefits of carbon-reduction strategies – something that estimates of cost from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office don’t take into account:

  • Study calls federal flood insurance program harmful as lawmakers ponder its future

    April 21, 2010 – ClimateWire

    The cost of federal flood insurance, including the program’s $20 billion deficit, is “likely dwarfed” by its harmful impacts on natural areas vulnerable to construction, according to a new report. The program, launched 42 years ago as a financial safeguard for threatened homes, is clashing with adaptation policies being prepared for the impacts of climate change, cautions the paper by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law.

  • FEMA Flood Insurance Program Primarily Benefits The Wealthy: Study

    April 21, 2010 – Huffington Post

    A policy research group study has found that the National Flood Insurance Program, a division of FEMA, primarily benefits wealthy homeowners who build in high-risk coastal areas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis, “Flooding the Market”, the flood insurance program’s subsidies help wealthy Americans with large beachfront properties or vacation homes in a typical year, and low-income individuals only during severe catastrophes.

  • ‘Social cost’ of tailpipe and other CO2 emissions should be higher

    April 2, 2010 – ClimateWire

    Michael Livermore…with New York University, said the government’s social cost of carbon analysis is not perfect. He would like to see a higher price per ton, and more consideration given to potential catastrophic risk. (Requires subscription.)

  • Livermore on OMB and cost-benefit analysis

    March 24, 2010 – The New Republic’s The Vine

    Earlier this week, several environmental groups fired off a letter to the Obama administration condemning the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Their complaint? The green groups believed that OMB was incorrectly devaluing the cost savings that would come from a new EPA rule on vehicle fuel efficiency. Many greens were outraged. And if OMB was doing what it was accused of doing, it would be a real outrage. Except that, as it turns out, OMB was doing no such thing.

  • Jason Schwartz on Carbon Cutting Stateside

    March 10, 2010 – Planetshed Blog

    Under President Bush, not much happened at the federal level when it came to climate change. During that bleak time, environmentalists could at least look to the states for a glimmer of progress. States in several regions organized carbon cutting initiatives and proposed some moderate but important greenhouse gas reductions. These local, largely market-based programs could jump-start America’s climate efforts and prove to the nation that cap-and-trade is not a dirty word.