Podcasts about policy integrity

We live in a burning world. As we record, there are record wildfires across the Americas, record temperatures around the world, falling oxygen levels in the oceans and however much supposedly renewable energy we produce, Jevons' Paradox means we keep on burning fossil fuels.  This is not a great combination, but even the so called renewables have more under the hood than appears on the surface.  Burning wood - or grasses - for 'Green' Energy is both a massive accounting scam and one of the ways that the predatory industrial complex sucks in eye-watering quantities of public money - while selling us the lie that this is somehow net zero.  It isn't, but sometimes we need someone who really knows what they're talking about to spell out the details for us and this week, our guest is one of those people. Dr. Mary Booth is the founder and director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, a Massachusetts-based think tank that uses science, communications, and strategic advocacy to protect forests and our climate future. Mary worked as Senior Scientist in the Environmental Working Group in the US, working on water quality. Now, she directs the PFPI's science and advocacy work on greenhouse gas, air pollutant, and forest impacts of biomass energy and has provided science and policy support to hundreds of activists, researchers, and policy makers across the US and EU - and now that the UK is no longer in the EU (sigh) in the UK as well.  I heard Mary on the Economics for Rebels podcast back in February and was blown away by her grasp of the essential science, and also by the sheer mendacity of the companies involved: the lies they tell, the false accounting they use and the extent to which they are destroying the biosphere to give us - or at least, those who set our policies and spend public money - an illusion of somehow being more 'green', more sustainable, more ethical.  I wanted to give listeners to Accidental Gods the chance to hear Mary in action, so here we are: people of the podcast, please welcome Dr Mary Booth of the Partnership for Policy Integrity. Partnership for Policy Integrity  https://www.pfpi.net/PFPI international work https://www.pfpi.net/international-work/Guardian article by Greta Thunberg https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2022/sep/05/burning-forests-energy-renewable-eu-wood-climateLand Climate Blog https://www.landclimate.org/the-problem-of-bioenergy-in-the-eu/Forest Defenders Alliance (EU) https://forestdefenders.eu/Forest Litigation Collaborative https://forestlitigation.org/BBC Panorama: Green Energy Scandal Exposed https://vimeo.com/795555785/c6e9420ff6

To what degree can investors control climate outcomes? Listen to Jason Mitchell discuss with Professor Madison Condon, Boston University School of Law, about what universal ownership theory represents in the context of climate change and how this has recently changed. In addition, this far-reaching conversation highlights how private sector ownership of climate models has created a ‘climate intelligence arms race' that has serious oversight implications. Madison Condon is an Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law where she teaches Environmental Law and Corporations. Her research focuses on climate change and its relationship to corporate governance, market risk, and financial regulators. She was first a Legal Fellow, and then an Attorney, at the Institute for Policy Integrity from 2017-2020. Before that, she clerked for Judge Jane Kelly of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and was a fellow with the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Today, I am talking about the crucial topics of policy, integrity, and boundaries.    I draw from a recent experience we had at The Big Talk. And remind you of the power of setting and maintaining boundaries with respect and love.    I also share why these concepts are super important for your journey to big stages.   In this episode, we'll explore: The policies my team and I have in place for our Masterclass, The Art of The Big Talk Why our policies are important for protecting our community How to uphold policies and set boundaries with integrity, respect, and love The way to remain positive, constructive, and productive in your communication — even when someone is in conflict with you More from Tricia  Join my Complimentary Transformational Masterclass for Speakers  Explore my content and follow me on YouTube Follow me on Instagram  Connect with me on Facebook  Connect with me on LinkedIn  Visit my website at TriciaBrouk.com 

Do you hate hidden hotel, housing, airline, ticketing, banking, and other corporate fees? Do you want Congress to do something about them? In this episode, learn about the wide range of unreasonable fees being reported to Congress during hearings and examine what proposals could have bipartisan support. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes FTC Authority Ronald Mann. Apr 23, 2021. SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court of the United States. April 22, 2021. Junk Fee Overview Ashish A. Pradhan. May 19, 2023. The National Law Review. Will Kenton. January 24, 2023. Investopedia. Brian Deese et al. October 26, 2022. White House Briefing Room Blog. October 20, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Brian Canfield et al. July 7, 2021. Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law. Internet *Federal Communications Commission Healthcare August 8, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Banking/Payments Lindsey D. Johnson. July 26, 2023. Consumer Bankers Association. July 11, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. Offices of Consumer Populations and Markets. May 23, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. October 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. September 28, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. August 16, 2022. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. August 16, 2022. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Joe Valenti. March 30, 2022. * Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Blog. January 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 7, 2020. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 28, 2018. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Housing July 19, 2023. White House Briefing Room. March 14, 2023. National Consumer Law Center. Jennifer Ludden. January 13, 2023. WBUR. Airlines Reid Bramblett. Frommer's. Suzanne Rowan Kelleher. Mar 7, 2023. Forbes. U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation. December 13, 2022. U.S. Department of Transportation. November 2022. Statista. Rosie Spinks. June 1, 2018. Quartz. May 2011. Jones Day. Hotels November 17, 2021. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Christina Jelski. Mar 12, 2021. Travel Weekly. November 28, 2012. The Federal Trade Commission. Ticketing June 20, 2018. U.S. House of Representatives. Anne Bucher. June 13, 2018. Top Class Actions. “Susan Wang and Rene' Lee v. StubHub, Inc. Case” [No. CGC-18-564120]. The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Cars June 23, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Laws Bills Audio Sources July 26, 2023 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Witnesses: Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Director of Housing Advocacy, Atlanta Legal Aid Society Manager Director, Patomak Global Partners Clips Michelle Henry: In the consumer finance space, we recently filed a multi-state lawsuit against Mariner Finance, a Wall Street private equity-owned installment lender. Our lawsuit alleges that Mariner charged consumers junk fees for hidden add-on products that consumers either did not know about or did not agree to buy. These hidden add-on products, such as credit insurance and auto clubs, are typically low- or no-value products. Consumers left Mariner believing that they had entered into an agreement to borrow and repay over time a certain amount of money. In reality, because of these hidden junk fees, Mariner added hundreds to thousands of dollars to the total amount a consumer owed. The cost of the junk fees is staggering. For a random sample of loans originated in Pennsylvania in December of 2020, Mariner charged each consumer an average of $1,085 in junk fees for an average of $3,394 in cash borrowed. Michelle Henry: We also had a significant junk fee settlement in 2018 with Wells Fargo. This settlement stemmed from Wells charging its auto finance customers millions in junk fees. Despite evidence that many customers already had the required car insurance, Wells improperly charged more than 2 million accounts for force-placed insurance. To resolve the multi-state action, Wells agreed to pay states $575 million. Michelle Henry: In 2021, we announced the landmark junk fee settlement with Marriott International. For many years, travelers had been misled by the published rates offered by hotels for a night stay, only later to be hit with the mandatory resort fees when they were checking in. Thanks to our settlement, Marriott now has a policy in place to be upfront and transparent in the disclosure of mandatory fees, including resort fees, as part of the total price of a hotel stay, allowing consumers to compare total costs for hotels and find the one that is the best fit for them. Marriott was the first hotel chain to formally commit to the upfront disclosure of resort fees as part of the initial advertised price. We hope others will follow. Michelle Henry: In the end, what we are fighting here for is basic fairness and transparency. When consumers are shopping online or in person, they deserve to understand what a loan, a house, or a vacation will cost and exactly what key terms they're agreeing to. At the same time, all businesses deserve to compete on an even playing field, where the price is the price with no hidden surprise fees. Lindsey Siegel: My name is Lindsay Siegel and I'm the Director of Housing Advocacy at Atlanta Legal Aid, which provides free civil legal services to families with low incomes in the metro Atlanta area. Today, I will focus on the rental housing market and how predatory and hidden rental fees gouge families living in poverty and make their rent even more unaffordable than it already is. Miss Dixon is a single mother who found an online listing for an apartment in the fall of 2020. The advertisement said it rented for $1,400 per month. It did not list any other monthly fees she would be required to pay. She applied and paid $525 through the landlord's online portal, which covered her $50 application fee, a $175 moving fee, and a $300 screening fee, all of which were non-refundable. She was not able to see the lease or the apartment she'd be renting, but she knew if she did not pay sight unseen she would lose the apartment. And when her application was approved a few weeks later, the landlord charged her another $200 approval fee. She finally received and signed a copy of her lease just two days before she was slated to move in. It was 50 pages long and contained to eight different addenda. She had expected to pay her rent and for water. She didn't expect to be responsible for a package locker fee, a trash removal fee, a separate valet trash fee, a pest control fee, a technology package fee, an insurance fee, and a credit reporting fee. When the fees added up, $83 had been tacked on to her monthly rent. And to make matters worse, Miss Dixon's landlord did not accept the rent by cash, check, or money order. When she paid through the landlord's online portal she was charged another $72-per-payment convenience fee. The low income renters Atlanta Legal Aid represents have an extreme power imbalance with their landlords. The high demand for rental housing, especially at the more affordable end of the market, makes some landlords believe they can easily get away with unfair and deceptive lease terms and rental practices. The bait and switch Miss Dixon experienced where the landlord advertise the rent as one price only to raise it much higher with junk fees after she had spent hundreds of dollars up front is a far too common practice of many investor landlords in the Atlanta area. Low income renters like Miss Dixon become trapped. She couldn't afford to walk away from a predatory lease two days before she was supposed to move in, even if she realized it would be unaffordable. Of particular concern are the use of high application fees. They often far exceed the cost of running a report, and most renters have to pay them several times before finding a home to rent. We've heard reports that some institutional landlords even collect application fees after they've found a renter for an available home. Brian Johnson: The focus of the President's initiative has been on applying political pressure to companies to induce them to change their fee disclosure practices. In the process, the White House and supporting agencies have dismissed broad categories of fees as junk without ever providing any consistent definition of the term, which has created uncertainty as to which fees can be assessed by institutions without undue reputational or regulatory risk. Brian Johnson: The CFPB has been the most enthusiastic among regulators in heeding the President's call, indiscriminately attacking a growing list of common financial service fees, no matter that they are lawful and fully disclosed. Brian Johnson: The agency has publicly hectored companies about deposit account fees and used the implied threat of investigation to induce such companies to abandon these legal fees. Further, in addressing other fees, the CFPB appears appears to have violated its own regulations and laws governing how agencies proffer rules by disguising interpretive rules as policy statements in bulletins and issuing circulars that function as legislative rules. In another instance, under the guise of interpretation, the CFPB read a word into a statute to achieve its desired policy outcome. In still another, the agency treats the rulemaking process as a foregone conclusion, acting as though a still proposed rule has already taken effect, signaling that the agency has no interest in considering public comments, establishing an adequate evidentiary basis to support its conclusions, or considering potential changes to improve the rule. These examples demonstrate an abuse of power and the agency's disregard for process and the limits placed on it. Moreover, the CFPB's behavior subverts the authority of Congress to oversee the agency and legislate the legality of fees in our financial marketplace. Simply put, it's not playing by the rules. Lindsey Siegel: So I think the federal government does have a role to play. The CFPB could create best practices, investigate junk fees further -- especially those being charged for tenant screening reports -- could bring enforcement actions against debt collectors that engage in collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in their collection of rental debt especially includes collection of junk fees. And certainly, you know, HUD could further study and address the disproportionate impact of these practices on renters and rental applicants of color. Lindsey Siegel: Tenants living in Atlanta have a very hard time finding a rental, finding a home, that's not owned by a corporate landlord at this point. They have bought up many properties in the Atlanta area and they always seem to be working in lockstep so that once one institutional landlord is charging a certain kind of fee then another one tends to charge it as well. Just one example of this is the proliferation of landlords charging for insurance fees, and often tenants will think that these are renters insurance because they're often called renter's insurance. But it's not like traditional renter's insurance that protects the renter and their property if it's destroyed. What it does is protect the landlord and doesn't really provide a benefit to tenants at all. And we've seen that proliferate with investor landlords in particular. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I can't imagine any reasonable member of Congress not saying, "I want the person to know what their financial obligation is when they sign an instrument, not after they read page 10 in the fine print." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'm less caught up in whether or not a trash collection fee is appropriate or not, and more caught up in, does that renter know at the point in time they're signing a lease what they're expected to pay every month? Michelle Henry: We often see things bleed over state lines and boundaries, as you are well aware, and so it's important that we work together to enforce these matters. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): How often do these kinds of cases cross state lines? And would having federal standards against these types of hidden fees make these cases easier to bring? Michelle Henry: Almost always. And I think that's critical. Where we have been most successful is joining with our fellow states, other attorneys general, partnering with them, and including the CFPB. In December of 2020, the CFPB, with all 50 states and the District of Columbia, filed enforcement action against Nationstar mortgage, again for deceptive practices, for not being transparent when they were servicing borrowers mortgages, and as a result of that joint effort we were able to obtain a settlement of $73 million and brought aid to 40,000 borrowers. Michelle Henry: You know, the reality is a lot of times consumers get misled. So they start, they're looking on the internet, they're trying to do due diligence and look for the best price, whether it's for a hotel, a vacation, and they're in there examining it, and they get led to a certain area of a certain website thinking that's the best price. And they go down this rabbit hole where they have no idea at the end of it that the price they thought they were going to pay for a hotel stay with their family is actually far larger because of fees that they weren't prepared, were not properly advised of, and at that point, they're so far in or they never discover it. So no, I don't think they understand exactly what to be aware of. We're trying to do our best to educate but far more work needs to be done, and I applaud this committee for working on it. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): If more federal agencies had the authority to address these hidden fees, how would that affect your office's capacity? Michelle Henry: It would help tremendously. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): Thank you so very much. Michelle Henry: If history is any lesson, we know that they can't be trusted to act in the best interest of consumers on their own. Look, they're in the business of making money for their shareholders and we need robust consumer protection rules and enforcement to ensure that. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): So what we're talking about here is not the "what," it's the "how." And I for one do not think that the regulator's who have demonstrated pushing the boundaries of their authority, giving them more authority is a good idea if we're coming up with a real bipartisan sustainable solution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): The problem we have here too, when we transfer power out of Congress to another branch, yes, that changes every four years or so. So you may be thrilled with a regulatory regimen that comes out from the CFBP today, but because of the way they behaved, it'd be one of the first things I would work to repeal if the administration changed and withdraw it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'd like to submit for the record a letter from the Consumer Bankers Association on the subject. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): Mr. Johnson, can you talk about the effect of the method that the CFPB is using to go after this and the impact that it can have, the negative implications that has? Is the CFPB's tendency to name and shame business institutions to avoid certain practices or adopt new ones effective regulation? They're not really thinking through the full impact and all the potential unintended consequences. Can you think of any example under this current leadership of the CFPB where they have taken that into consideration? Can you speak a little bit about the efforts and the length the CFPB goes in an effort to avoid judicial review and skirt the APA process? June 8, 2023 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security Witnesses: Chief Executive Officer, National Consumers League Bruce Greenwald Professor of Business, Marketing Division, Columbia Business School George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University Clips 21:35 Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): Simply put, these are fees that are disclosed to a consumer midway through or at the end of a transaction, or they're fees that serve no tangible purpose for a consumer, like a processing fee, and that they are mandatory or unavoidable. 28:00 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): The way I look at this issue, and the way many Tennesseans look at it, is this is another way for the FTC, the CFPB, DoT, and all these regulators to clamp down on businesses and try to micro manage businesses. 30:42 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: as a strategy where firms decide to divide a product's price into two or more mandatory parts, a base price for the main product and one or more mandatory surcharges, rather than charging a single all-inclusive price. For example, many hotels have a mandatory fee on top of the daily room rate. These are sometimes called resort fees, or facility fees, or destination fees and can range from $20 to over $50 a night. And many rental car agencies assess several mandatory fees on top of the daily rental rate, such as concession recovery fees, customer facility fees, energy recovery fees, and vehicle licensing fees. 31:20 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: In general, what research on partition pricing has shown is that when firms separate out mandatory surcharges consumers tend to underestimate the total price they'll have to pay and they're often more likely to complete the purchase. 31:50 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: With drip pricing, firms advertise only part of our products' price upfront and reveal other charges later, as shoppers go through the buying process. Drip fees can be mandatory or can be for optional items, but for today's testimony I'll focus on the dripping of mandatory surcharges. Drip pricing is commonly used in industries like the cable TV and the ticketing industries. When a consumer shops for a TV-Internet bundle from a cable television provider, they may first see an attractive base price offer for the bundle, but later learn there are also broadcast TV fees, set top box fees, regional sports fees, and TV connection fees that raise the price considerably. And a consumer shopping for a ticket for a live event, like a concert, a play, or a baseball game, typically first sees the price for different seats in the venue. After selecting a seat, as the consumer clicks through more webpages, they may come to learn there's also a mandatory booking fee, ticketing fee, venue fee, and delivery fee, even when the tickets are delivered electronically. Eventually, they see a total price that may be much higher than the first price they saw and they may be under time pressure to complete the purchase, as there might be a countdown clock that indicates they have to complete their purchase in just a few minutes. Or they may be told there's only two seats left at that price. 33:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: What research has shown is that when surcharges are dripped, consumers end up being more likely to buy a product that appears cheaper upfront based only on the base price, but that's more expensive and total given the drip fees. Consumers also tend to buy more expensive products than they otherwise would, such as a seat closer to the stage for a live event. 35:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: These policies will benefit consumers if they require that upfront stated prices must be all-inclusive. In other words, all mandatory fees must be included in the total price and that the total price should be seen upfront. This is what academic research suggests will be most beneficial to consumers. 39:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Everybody knows bags fly free on Southwest, everybody knows bags don't fly free on the legacy airlines, everybody knows there's going to be a fee for for bags on the other airlines and the like. Maybe there's ways you can disclose it, but nobody's fooled at this point. 42:45 Sally Greenberg: If consumers hate junk fees so much, why do companies large and small increasingly impose them? The answer is, unsurprisingly, because they are a substantial profit center. 43:20 Sally Greenberg: Late payment fees charged by banks and credit cards cost American families an estimated $12 billion annually. These fees, which can be as much as $41 for each Late Fee Payment, far exceed the cost to the issuer for processing and do little to deter future delinquent payments. 43:40 Sally Greenberg: Airlines are also poster children for junk fees. Globally, revenue from junk fees, ancillary fees in airline speak, brought in $102.8 billion in 2022. To put this in perspective, junk fees last year made up 15% of global airline revenues, compared to 6% only 10 years ago. 44:00 Sally Greenberg: Anyone who buys tickets to a concert or sporting event is well acquainted with the myriad fees. They're added at the end of the ticket buying process. We have the example that you showed, Senator Hickenlooper. Primary and secondary market ticketing companies charge service fees, order processing fees, delivery fees and other charges that increased ticket prices on average 27% for the primary market and 31% for the secondary market. 45:05 Sally Greenberg: Junk fees themselves are anti-competitive. They make comparing prices more difficult, distorting well functioning marketplaces. Honest entrepreneurs who invest in their businesses, innovate, and strive to create better value for their customers lose business. Action to address the consumer and competitive harm created by junk fees is urgently needed. 45:30 Sally Greenberg: First, we would urge you to support S. 916. It's the Junk Fee Prevention Act, which would require some of the worst abusers of junk fees to display the full price of services upfront, and they would bar excessive fees and ensure transparency. Second, we ask that Congress restore the FTC's ability to obtain strong financial penalties from wrongdoers. The Supreme Court, in 2021, overturned AMG Capital Management v. FTC, wiping out a critical enforcement tool for the commission. S. 4145, which is the Consumer Protection Remedies Act, would restore that ability to impose monetary relief to the commission. And finally, Congress must not allow businesses that trap consumers with unfair and deceptive fees to escape accountability through fine print in their contracts. To that end, we're proud to support S. 1376, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, which would prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements from being enforceable if they require arbitration in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes 44:35 Sally Greenberg: Renters, for example, tend to have lower incomes than those who own their homes. These consumers are also some of the most preyed upon by abusive junk fees. A 2022 survey conducted by Consumer and Housing Advocates found that 89% of landlords imposed some rental application fees[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:09 PM couldn't find this specific survey]], nearly as many renters paid excessive late fees and they also get hit with utility, administrative, convenience, insurance, and notice fees. 51:30 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): I'm not hearing from Tennesseans about junk fees. They're just not talking about. They are talking about real economic harm. And I think for some it's been kind of perplexing that we would focus on this issue. I even had one Tennessean say, "Well, what exactly is a junk fee? And what are the economic harms that come to people for fees for discretionary services?" 53:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: I can't see any reason why people who pay their credit cards on time should have to subsidize people who pay their credit cards late. The evidence is clear on this from the that if you reduce late fees, more people pay late. The makes clear that if you reduce late fees, everybody ends up paying higher interest rates and, and lower income and higher risk borrowers get less access to credit. So most of what we see in the market is efficient. It prevents cross consumer subsidies and a lot of these things that are labeled as junk fees are actually just efficient multi-part pricing. 1:00:30 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: When a larger firm, or really any firm, uses hidden fees or surcharges, it doesn't only hurt consumers, but it hurts well intentioned, honest competitors like many of our country's small businesses that you're talking about. So when a larger firm makes salient a lower base price and only puts in small print or only reveals at the end of the shopping process that there are additional mandatory fees, their product offerings may appear, at least at first, to be cheaper than those of say a small business, an honest competitor who uses all inclusive prices, whose prices at least at first then, will appear more expensive, even if they're actually cheaper in total when the hidden fees of the large firm are added in. Now, research shows this is going to lead consumers to be more likely to even first consider the products and services of the larger firm who uses hidden surcharges because their products seem cheaper. In other words, their supposed low prices draw consumers in. But then having first consider their products consumers will also be more likely to stick with that firm and ultimately purchase their products, even when they're more expensive in total with the fees. So these hidden fees, they don't only hurt consumers by leading them to make purchases that are against their own self interest, but it also hurts honest competitors who are using transparent pricing practices. 1:04:10 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): One area of this high excessive fees is ticketing. We had the hearing earlier this year with the president of Live Nation/ Ticketmaster, and other witnesses and as you are aware, the facts are quite startling. It's being reviewed by the Justice Department, including 90% monopoly on ticketing for major NFL, NHL events, 80% for major arena events, and 70% monopoly when it comes to all ticketing. In addition to that, Ticketmaster now owns a number of venues and also locks in a number of other venues that they don't own with their services for in excess of seven years, which is a subject of a bill that Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced, because this locking in makes for even less competition. And then finally, Live Nation promotes the act. So it's like a three cornered monopoly. 1:12:30 Sally Greenberg: Yes, you may know that you have a baggage fee, but there are many people who are older, who have disabilities, who may have children with them; they cannot be carrying their bags onto the airplane. So they are forced to eat the cost of a $35 fee, something that used to be free before, and has jammed our airplanes full of luggage up top, creating hazards for flight attendants as well. 1:13:55 Sally Greenberg: We certainly support the Good Jobs for Airports Act. I think many consumers had no idea that a lot of these workers were not making minimum wage[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:08 PM couldn't find a source for this.]], were relying on tips. And many people who use the wheelchairs and the curbside baggage services did not know that people were living on tip wages and many people don't tip, as some of us who've been tipped workers know. Tipping is very up and down and certainly not a reliable source of income. So yes, we very much appreciate that legislation and it's long overdue. 1:21:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Junk fees is a meaningless term, but it's worse than meaningless. It's actually pernicious, which is that by sort of using this blanket conclusory label, it obscures the complexity of this, the difference between trip pricing, risk based pricing, multipart pricing, partition pricing, and that sort of thing, and it kind of sweeps into one bucket things that are legitimate, things that are aren't, things that might be partially legitimate. And now it's even got more confusing because if you look at the FTC rule, for example, on auto dealers, they take things like nitrogen filled tires, they charge more money for a claim that's a junk fee. The problem with that is not that it's a separate price for nitrogen filled tires. The problem, if there's a problem, is that nitrogen filled tires are garbage, right? There's nothing there. It doesn't matter whether it's disclosed separately or bundled in the price if it's a worthless product. And so when we talk about junk fees, we can end up confusing ourselves, lumping in things because we want to just apply this label to it, whereas I think it'd be much better to understand risk based pricing. What are things where they're pricing for something that you get no value from? What are the things where they're pricing things simply to extract wealth from consumers and the like? Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

Governor Hochul recently backed off her proposal to gut the state's climate law in the budget. While most of the attention was on trying to understate the negative impact methane has short term on global warming, a secondary concern was her push to count biomass as renewable energy. Laura Haight of the Partnership for Policy Integrity talks to Mark Dunlea of Hudson Mohawk Magazine about why biomass (e.g., the burning of wood) is a false climate solution.

On this episode of Free Range, Host Mike Livermore is joined by two University of Virginia Law students, Matt Disandro and Elizabeth Putfark, who have produced this explainer episode on the pros and cons of wood pellets as a replacement for fossil fuels. To make wood pellets, wood from trees is broken apart, heated to reduce moisture, converted to a fine powder, and compressed to form dense, short pellets. According to Daniel Reinemann from Bioenergy Europe, a nonprofit based in Brussels that advocates for biomass energy, wood pellets are the closest thing that the biomass market has to a commodity. (6:50-8:09) Dr. Knight, the Group Director of Sustainability at the U.K energy company Drax, explains the key difference between biomass and fossil fuels: fossil fuels take millions of years to turn biological matter into fuel; biomass, on the other hand, was carbon in the sky a few years ago. Disandro, Putfark, Knight, and Reinemann discuss carbon sequestration, the carbon dividend, and the potential technology known as “BECCS” – bioenergy carbon capture and storage. Many policies encourage the use of wood pellets, including the European Union Renewable Energy Directive. (8:10-19:57) The biomass industry doesn't just affect Europe; it also impacts wood pellet manufacturers in the Southeast United States, which is very rich in timber. To discuss the market for pellets in the Southeast US, Disandro and Putfark are joined by Professor Bob Abt, a forest economist at North Carolina State University. Abt discusses the tradeoffs and distributional consequences of the growing demand for wood pellets from the Southeast. (19:58-24:42) Notwithstanding support in the EU for wood pellets, conservationists have been raising alarms. Lousie Guillot, a journalist at Politico, provides some background on the controversy. (24:43-26:46) According to Dr. Mary Booth, the director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity's science and advocacy work, burning wood is not a carbon neutral energy source. Dr. Booth and the hosts discuss the urgency of reducing emissions now and the important role trees play in taking carbon out of the atmosphere. (26:46 – 31:20) One feature of the controversy is how the Renewable Energy Directive classifying wood pellets as a zero-carbon energy source, despite objections from some environmentalists. (31:21 – 33:27) An additional question is whether wood pellets are mostly derived from forest refuse -- which is the treetops, branches, and diseased trees left behind from logging – rather than whole trees. Heather Hillaker, at the Southern Environmental Law Center, explains her research on wood pellet sourcing in the U.S. Southeast. Using satellite imagery, SELC's geospatial team found that 84% of the hardwood material being used for bioenergy came from whole trees instead of refuse. Guillot shares details of similar problems happening in European forests. (33:28 – 38:49) Hillaker goes on to discusses the social and community impacts of the wood pellet mills on environmental justice communities. (38:51 – 44:59) Livermore, Disandro and Putfark wrap up the episode by discussing their own views on the pros and cons of wood pellets and what, if anything, the wood pellets experience teaches about broader issues in climate policy. (45:00 – 51:43)

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While that hinders the Biden administration’s ability to battle climate change, the ruling could also affect other agencies. For more, we spoke to Jack Lienke, the Regulatory Policy Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law. Wall Street has hit a negative milestone as stock have posted their worst first half of a year since 1970. Hong Kong commemorates 25 years since transferring to Chinese rule.

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While that hinders the Biden administration’s ability to battle climate change, the ruling could also affect other agencies. For more, we spoke to Jack Lienke, the Regulatory Policy Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law. Wall Street has hit a negative milestone as stock have posted their worst first half of a year since 1970. Hong Kong commemorates 25 years since transferring to Chinese rule. Your donation powers the journalism you rely on. Give today to support Marketplace Morning Report.

Rachel Rothschild, legal fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity, joins Kate and Melissa to recap oral argument in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. They also recap cases about prescription drugs, tribal casinos, outpatient dialysis, and what happens when a state wants to enforce a law that's no longer in effect. Plus, there's more on KBJ's pending confirmation, Ginni Thomas's doings, and Sam Alito's... laugh? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With more than 100 million housing units and commercial buildings burning fossil fuels for space or water heating or for cooking across the United States, our building sector needs a major retrofit. Buildings cause 13 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, and every new fossil-fueled appliance or structure locks in higher emissions and costs for decades to come – not to mention serious health impacts from burning fuels indoors. To reach net-zero by 2050, we must electrify all new buildings by 2025 and all new building equipment by 2030. So how do we do this? Where is it happening? Who is leading and who is stalling? On this episode of Electrify This!, host Sara Baldwin speaks with building electrification experts to discuss efforts underway to get gas out of buildings and switch to clean electricity, including city leadership and California's new, landmark 2022 Energy Code.Guests: Denise Grab, Manager, Carbon-Free Buildings, RMI.  Denise works to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from buildings in the West and across the U.S., and she brings over a decade of experience in advancing clean energy, climate, and clean air policy and law throughout the country. Prior to RMI, she served as the Western Regional Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, an Adjunct Professor at New York University School of Law, an associate at a major law firm, and a law clerk for a federal district court judge. Denise obtained a JD from Yale Law School, a Masters in Environmental Management from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and a BS  with highest honors in Environmental Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley. Tyler Poulson, Deputy Director, Building Electrification Institute (BEI). BEI equips cities across North America with the knowledge, tools and resources needed to accelerate the transition of building systems away from fossil fuels and towards high efficiency electric options. Tyler focuses on helping cities develop critical state and utility partnerships while advancing policies that will accelerate building electrification across their regions. Tyler previously focused on clean energy and climate change solutions in local government sustainability offices for Salt Lake City and Park City, UT. He has past experience in the finance sector and a Masters in Economics from the University of Utah. To Dig in Deeper, Check out these Must-Read Resources:Building Electrification Institute Building Electrification Institute | City Playbooks for the Equitable Electrification of Multifamily Buildings RMIRMI | Gas Stoves: Health and Air Quality Impacts and SolutionsRMI | Regulatory Solutions for Building DecarbonizationBuilding Energy Exchange | Low Carbon Multifamily Retrofit PlaybooksCity and County of Denver | Renewable Heating and Cooling PlanBuilding Decarbonization Coalition | The Flipside Report: A White Paper on Targeted Geographic Electrification in California's Gas Transition  

In today's program we continue our forest management investigative series. Our focus today will be on the growing wood pellet bioenergy sector, and its massive detrimental effect on British Columbia's remaining forests. Joining us today for this episode is Dr. Mary S. Booth, PhD. Dr. Booth is a nationally recognized advocate known for producing high-quality, data-driven arguments. An ecosystem scientist by training, she received her doctoral degree in Ecology at Utah State University, focusing on biogeochemistry and plant ecophysiology. She completed postdoctoral fellowships at the Ecosystems Center at the Woods Hole Biological Laboratory and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Dr. Booth's approach to advocacy was formed at the Environmental Working Group, where she served as a Senior Scientist working on water quality. She currently directs the Partnership for Policy Integrity science and advocacy work on greenhouse gas, air pollutants, and forest impacts of biomass energy and has provided science and policy support to hundreds of activists, researchers, and policy makers across the US and Europe. To learn more about Dr. Booth and her work please visit: http://www.pfpi.net https://www.forestdefenders.eu

What are NFT's “non-fungible tokens", death by a thousand cuts - Archegos, what's happening with the GameStop stuff, and 'Immediate and drastic.' The climate crisis is seriously spooking economists. What are NFT's “non-fungible tokens" “Non-fungible” more or less means that it's unique and can't be replaced with something else. For example, a bitcoin is fungible — trade one for another bitcoin, and you'll have exactly the same thing. A one-of-a-kind trading card, however, is non-fungible. If you traded it for a different card, you'd have something completely different. But NFTs are designed to give you something that can't be copied: ownership of the work (though the artist can still retain the copyright and reproduction rights, just like with physical artwork). To put it in terms of physical art collecting: anyone can buy a Monet print. But only one person can own the original. NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain. Death by a thousand cuts - Archegos and what's happening with the GameStop stuff - source and the reddit post Archegos defaulted on margin calls from several global investment banks, including Credit Suisse and Nomura Holdings as well as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Why this is a big deal. Banks could have a huge sell off which is really bad. And the banks are already bracing for huge fallouts of this. Investment banks Credit Suisse and Nomura said they would incur significant losses after the U.S.-based hedge fund was forced into a fire sale of assets and defaulted on its margin calls. SUM UP FROM REDDIT - -The economy is propped up by jack shit -Banks, Hedge Funds etc, over leverage themselves and are allowed to have infinite money (Margin) -Short positions being sold cannot be returned (domino effect) because everyone is shorting everything with money by Fed -Eventually someone is left holding the biggest bag in the history of capitalism causing the largest Domino Default that has ever happened -Will make 2008 look like nothing -Anyone on other end of Short will get fat rich -A few banks might collapse, unless Government bail them out by printing 10s of trillions of dollars -Cash will be worthless -Innocent people will get screwed because Bonds are now worth nothing, their capital management firm just went bankrupt losing savings, boomer stocks plummet as they are all being sold off by big bears trying to obtain liquidity for themselves. 'Immediate and drastic.' The climate crisis is seriously spooking economists - source “Nearly three-quarters (74%) of economists agree "immediate and drastic" action is warranted to curb emissions, according to a survey released Tuesday from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law. That's up sharply from 50% in 2015. Since that time, the United States has been hit by an onslaught of extreme and deadly weather events including Hurricane Maria, massive wildfires in California and this year's deep freeze in Texas. With those floods, wildfires and hurricanes occurring more frequently, the financial toll from the climate crisis is expected to rise dramatically: Economic damage from climate change is projected to reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025 and surge to roughly $30 trillion annually by 2075 under most scenarios, according to consensus forecasts included in the survey.” Produced by The Wild 1 Media. Check out our other podcasts - https://darksidediaries.sounder.fm https://anchor.fm/ttmygh --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Note: this episode was recorded in January, 2021. In this episode our staff attorney Caitlin McCoy was joined by Justin Gundlach and Elizabeth Stein to discuss their recent article "Harmonizing States' Energy Utility Regulation Frameworks and Climate Laws. A Case Study of New York."  Justin is a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. His work focuses on state-level energy and climate policy. And he's a coeditor of Climate Change, Public Health, and the Law, and the author of numerous publications and amicus briefs on legal and policy issues related to the impacts of energy use on climate and of climate change on infrastructure and public health.  Elizabeth is the lead counsel for energy transition at the Environmental Defense Fund. She engages in state proceedings to advocate for aligning energy policies with state climate policies. And she has a particular focus on reducing reliance on oil and gas in transportation and in the building sector. She's successfully developed and advocated for best practices in the electric system to make sure that the grid is resilient and supports sustainability and reliability. And an important part of her work of course is collaborating with state and local agencies.  A full transcript is available here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-55-Caitlin-Elizabeth-Justin-NY.pdf We hope you enjoy this podcast!

In today's show, I talk with Laura Haight, U.S. Policy Director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity, or PFPI. PFPI uses science, policy analysis and strategic communications to promote policies that protect climate, ecosystems, and people. From the PFPI website: Laura Haight has extensive experience working on environmental, energy, and health care policy, and has been instrumental in passage of dozens of state and local laws to promote clean energy, reduce pesticide use, increase recycling, prevent pollution, and clean up toxic waste sites. Starting her career as a community organizer with the Sierra Club Radioactive Waste Campaign, she has held senior level positions at the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Environmental Advocates of New York, and the New York Public Interest Research Group. Prior to joining the staff of PFPI, Haight served as Vice President for Public Policy at the New York State Association of Health Care Providers. She brings to PFPI a wealth of experience in environmental advocacy, policy analysis, campaign coordination and strategic communications. Haight received a Bachelor’s degree in American history and literature from Harvard University and a Master of Science degree in environmental studies from the Bard Graduate School of Environmental Studies. Laura is knowledgeable about so many environmental issues around the world. Today, we discussed the biomass industry, its destructive practices, and the government regulations that encourage it. We discussed: the biomass industry, and especially the forest biomass industry, which not only clearcuts forests, but basically vacuums up all the material leaving a virtual moonscape behind. We also discussed legislation in Massachusetts called the Next Generation Climate Roadmap bill. This bill was vetoed last week by Governor Baker, apparently because it calls for more stringent green building codes that the construction industry opposes. But it has already been refiled. Changes proposed by the Baker Administration to MA Dept. of Energy Resources regulations would make biomass "renewable" and consider it “green power” and open it up for lucrative subsidies that will make biomass plants profitable, and encourage their construction. The proposed Palmer biomass burning plant in Springfield, MA. This plant is being opposed by residents and organizations alike for environment justice and pollution threats. Thanks for listening to Audible Cafe! This show originally aired on WBCR-lp Great Barrington 97.7FM. Visit berkshireradio.org to find out about the station or make a much-needed and much appreciated donation! —————- SHOW RESOURCES Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) website Overview of H.853: An Act to Assure the Attainment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goals in the Alternative Portfolio Standard (Rep. D. Provost, D-Somerville) New CSSN Report: Who’s Delaying Climate Action in Massachusetts? Twelve Findings Burned: Is Wood the New Coal? a documentary film About the Palmer Paving Corporation’s proposed biomass plant in Springfield, Mass: Arise for Social Justice website “Scrutiny persists over biomass plant in Springfield.” Daily Hampshire Gazette. December 31, 2020. “Mass. Has Strong Rules About Burning Wood For Electricity. In 2021, It Plans To Roll Them Back.” WBUR report. December 22, 2020. “MA Pushes to Greenlight Subsidies for Polluting Biomass Power Plants.” Press release from Biomass Energy Subsidies section of the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) website, December 22, 2020 Theme music by BRIAN EDDY

Today's episode of The Marketplace of Ideas brings you a conversation between two of the leading minds in the academy on cost-benefit analysis. Caroline Cecot is an Assistant Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. She teaches administrative law, environmental law, and torts. Professor Cecot has published widely in leading journals, and is a co-author of the casebook Environmental Law and Policy, 4th Ed. (Foundation Press, 2019). Prior to joining the faculty, Professor Cecot was a Postdoctoral Research Scholar in Law and Economics at Vanderbilt Law School and clerked for the Honorable Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was also a Legal Fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Professor Cecot is an affiliated scholar at the Atlantic Council, the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, the Institute for Policy Integrity, and the Technology Policy Institute. She also regularly serves as an instructor in Law & Economics Center educational programming. She currently serves on the US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board's Economic Guidelines Review Panel. Professor Cecot earned an AB degree, magna cum laude, in economics from Harvard College, a JD from Vanderbilt Law School, and a PhD in law and economics from Vanderbilt University. During her graduate studies, she received the Robert F. Jackson Prize and the Archie B. Martin Memorial Prize for her grades; and she was elected to Order of the Coif. Click here to read Professor Cecot's recent article, and the focal point for today's episode, on “Deregulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability.”   Michael A. Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He teaches environmental law, administrative law, regulatory law and policy, and advanced seminars on these topics. Professor Livermore is a leading expert on the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate regulation, and has published widely in leading journals. He is the co-author of Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health (Oxford University Press, 2008).  He is also the co-editor of The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy (Oxford University Press, 2013). Prior to joining the faculty, Livermore was the founding executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Livermore earned his JD magna cum laude from NYU Law, where he was a Furman Scholar, was elected to the Order of the Coif, and served as a managing editor of the Law Review. After law school, he spent a year as a fellow at NYU Law's Center on Environmental and Land Use Law before clerking for Judge Harry T. Edwards on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Professor Livermore is also Professor Livermore is a public member of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Click here to read Professor Livermore's new book with Richard L. Revesz on “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health.”   Links Caroline Cecot, Deregulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability, 68 Duke L.J. 1593 (2019), https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol68/iss8/2 Michael A. Livermore and Richard L. Revesz, Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health, Oxford University Press (2020), https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197539446.001.0001/oso-9780197539446

Welcome to Audible Café! Today I’m speaking with Scot Quaranda of the Dogwood Alliance. From their website: “For over 20 years, Dogwood Alliance has worked with diverse communities, partner organizations and decision-makers to protect Southern forests across 14 states. We do this through community and grassroots organizing, holding corporations and governments accountable and working to conserve millions of acres of Southern forests.” And one of their major campaigns is called “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” - taking on the forest biomass industry. I’ve been looking at the forest biomass issue recently, and I’d like to bring you a series of shows about it, not only because burning forest biomass threatens our environment and our health as much or more than coal or oil, but it is destroying entire forest ecosystems for the profit of corporations, and for little to no return to the people who live in these deforested regions, and who actually pay for the huge profits these corporations make from it through massive subsidies. And we’re only at the beginning of this monster - with pending changes to energy regulations here in Massachusetts, the biomass industry is coming for OUR HEALTH and OUR FORESTS. Just ask Governor Baker.l I’m going to try to untangle this complex subject for you, so that you are in full possession of the facts. I’m relying on the great work of a lot of people for this show. Just a few are the Partnership for Policy Integrity or PFPI, the Dogwood Alliance, The film “Burned: Are Trees the New Coal?”, and other sources. See below for links FOREST BIOMASS is fuel derived from the burning or heating of growing things, like trees and other plants. We’re discussing the industrial scale forest biomass, not your home woodstove, although home woodstoves are terribly polluting despite their cozy appeal. The fact is, we’re clear-cut logging the forests of the southeastern United States at an alarming rate for biomass fuel for export to Europe. The trees being cut down, processed into pellets, and shipped to Europe, are causing devastation to the southern states, especially along the Atlantic coast, and it’s all being touted as “clean” energy, “renewable” energy, “green” energy. It’s helping governments meet their carbon goals here and in Europe and the UK, and the entire industry is based on a lie. The big lie is that the burning of trees is a clean, green, sustainable energy solution. Anyone with a smidgen of common sense would conclude that this couldn’t possibly be true, and it isn’t. But by some bizarre “accounting error” — let’s point out this was no error - this was political and corporate maneuvering to make the logging and biomass industry a LOT Of money. Let’s break it down: The logging companies cut down the trees. How do they get access? The same way industry vultures got access to coal in the South and fracking rights across our country — they coerce and bribe decent people who have no money to speak of to sell the logging rights to their land. Or they access public forests, like what’s happening now in Massachusetts - by manipulating the political power brokers, like Governor Baker, into passing regulations that favor the cutting of trees for profit. Or they simply buy up the land and create biomass plantations, turning thriving, diverse bioregions into moonscapes. Once the trees are cut down, they are transported to biomass plants where they are either burned for electricity — a stupid way to meet our electricity needs if ever there was one — or processed into pellets for Europe’s energy needs. And no government is really counting the carbon cost of this process! Voilà!! A convenient “accounting error” — where no country is counting the carbon cost of decimating our forests — and they all get rich. But how are these industry giants getting rich? Our tax dollars. There are HUGE subsidies and tax breaks for the biomass industry. Otherwise, it would not be profitable! But it is, hugely profitable, and all the costs are borne by the earth of course, who suffers the most, and by US, the regular folks. Here are the ways we all suffer: the devastation of clear-cutting in the first place, which turns a thriving, living, diverse forest with all the creatures that live there, into a dead, desolate waste-land. It’s a soul-crushing experience, to witness the before and after of a clear-cut, and it should be. Because if a person has an intact heart and soul, ,they know deep in their bones that it is wrong, that it is horribly, horribly wrong, to perpetrate this kind of violence on any single living thing, let alone on the millions of living beings destroyed when a region is clear-cut. The forests that shelter us, and sustain life, and are living, breathing beings in their own right. All the biological diversity that lived in those forests can NEVER be replaced by a pine plantation, a monoculture. Pine trees are lovely, but they can’t replace diversity all on their own. It’s devastating to our health to live anywhere near one of these biomass plants - and by the way, there is one planned for Springfield, Mass, on the Palmer Renewable Energy Corporation (don’t let the name fool you) site, to be built and operated right in the middle of the ASTHMA CAPITAL of the United States, Springfield, Mass, and not coincidentally, in an environmental justice neighborhood, which means people who live in poverty or are low-income, who have been disenfranchised of their power to stop such a project because they don’t make huge contributions to politicians. So, why is this all allowed to happen? It’s because people who are in power plot for years, decades even, to lay the groundwork for their money-making schemes. And they have plenty of money for schmoozing politicians, dumping thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions into their campaign chests. When we say we need to “get money out of politics” that’s what we’re talking about. GETTING MONEY OUT OF POLITICS so politicians can think straight and make good decisions. Our elected representatives are so distracted by having to immediately start fundraising the minute they take office, pressured by the political machine of their parties, that of course they can’t just do their jobs! The entire system is a mess. So that’s the groundwork for my great interview with Scot Quaranda, Communications Director for the Dogwood Alliance. Thanks for listening to Audible Café!Judy SHOW RESOURCES Dogwood Alliance website Burned: Is Wood the New Coal? a documentary film About the Palmer Paving Corporation’s proposed biomass plant in Springfield, Mass: Arise for Social Justice website “Scrutiny persists over biomass plant in Springfield.” Daily Hampshire Gazette. December 31, 2020. “Mass. Has Strong Rules About Burning Wood For Electricity. In 2021, It Plans To Roll Them Back.” WBUR report. December 22, 2020. “MA Pushes to Greenlight Subsidies for Polluting Biomass Power Plants.” Press release from Biomass Energy Subsidies section of the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) website, December 22, 2020

2020 was historic in terms the number of natural disasters, with weeks of raging, smoking wildfires in some parts of the country that left many struggling to breathe. In other parts of the world, residents weathered tropical storms that destroyed communities and severely diminished livelihoods. Yet in others still, communities experienced one of the hottest years ever recorded.All of this happened amid a global pandemic upended the U.S. economy and everyday life for millions. people.While the incoming Presidential Administration must tackle a host of issues to make our environment safer and more sustainable, there are also things each of us as individuals, and as communities.Guests for this conversation include:*Elizabeth Chun Hye Lee, United Methodist Women’s Executive for Economic and Environmental Justice and Climate Justice Lead.*Phyllis Terwilliger, UMW Be Just. Be Green Jurisdictional guide for Northeast, a UMW Susquehanna conference Social Action Coordinator in PA.*Dr. Andrea Marpillero-Colomina, Clean Transportation Consultant at GreenLatinos.*Laura Haight, U.S. Policy Director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity.---Faith Talks is hosted by Jennifer R Farmer, Spotlight PR.Visit www.UnitedMethodistWomen.org to find out more.

Richard Revesz, the Lawrence King Professor of Law at New York University and co-founder of the Institute for Policy Integrity, shared his thoughts on how the transition to a new presidential administration later this month will impact US environmental and climate change policy in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.

Georgia’s runoff election will determine the balance of power in the Senate, and the degree to which Joe Biden will count on Congress to back his ambitious clean energy agenda.---On January 5th a special runoff election in the state of Georgia will determine who will fill the state’s two seats in the United States Senate and which political party, Republican or Democrat, will control the upper chamber of Congress. The runoff election will be the final act in a tumultuous election season, in which the parties have offered starkly different visions for the role of government, the future direction of America’s energy system, and how that system will impact our environment.Crucially, the outcome of Georgia’s runoff election will determine the degree to which President-Elect Joe Biden may be able to count on the Senate’s support in enacting his energy platform, which aims for a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. Bethany Davis Noll and Richard Revesz, regulatory experts whose work focuses on the legal tools available to presidents to pursue their agendas, take a look at the options available to Biden to pursue his energy agenda with, or without, help from the Senate.Bethany Davis Noll is litigation director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Richard Revesz is Dean Emeritus at the NYU School of Law and Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity.Related Content Will Trump’s Regulatory Rollbacks Survive? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/will-trumps-regulatory-rollbacks-surviveHow to Combat the Corona-Recession and Climate Change https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2020/08/07/how-combat-corona-recession-and-climate-changeBalancing Renewable Energy Goals with Community Interests https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-digests/balancing-renewable-energy-goals-community-interests

In this week's episode, host Kristin Hayes talks with the coauthors of the new book “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health," Michael A. Livermore and Richard Revesz. Livermore was the founding executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University (NYU) and now serves as one of its senior advisors. He is a professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Law. Revesz is the Lawrence King Professor of Law at NYU and the current director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. Oxford University Press released the new book last week; in this episode, Livermore and Revesz talk about why they chose to invest their time in this project, what messages they intend the book to convey, and how they see the issues described in the book playing out over the next few years. References and recommendations: “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health" by Michael A. Livermore and Richard Revesz; https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reviving-rationality-9780197539446 "Mindscape" podcast; https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/ "Nice White Parents podcast; https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Over the DER Task Force's short history we've had two meetup presentations focused on NY’s Value of Distributed Energy (VDER). First was Russell Wilcox's, this show's producer and CEO of Urban Energy, and second was Justin Gundlach's of the Institute for Policy Integrity. Both can be found in our Content Library.In this episode, Colleen, Duncan, and James explore what NY's application of the VDER framework is and how it is going. We discuss each component of the VDER value stack, consider the original motivations of VDER and the Reforming the Energy Vision processes, come up with some ways to improve it, and ultimately each host decides whether VDER has been a success thus far.Visit http://www.dertaskforce.com for more information on upcoming meetups and podcast episodes.

President Trump has gone to great lengths to undo the regulatory accomplishments of his predecessor. But the President’s methods could come back to haunt him, dooming his deregulatory energy and environmental agendas.---The Trump Administration has taken aggressive steps to undo the regulatory accomplishments of former president Obama, with some of the highest profile rollbacks taking place in the energy and environmental arenas. In his three years in office, President Trump has repealed the Clean Power Plan, rolled back restrictions on methane leaks and, most recently, repealed limits on automotive tailpipe emissions. Yet, it’s possible that the same tools that Trump has used to undo the regulatory achievements of his predecessor could be turned against him. A pair of regulatory experts take a look at President Trump’s unprecedented use of three legal tools to pursue his deregulatory agenda, and at how a new administration could use these same tools to roll back Trump-era rules. They also discuss how the very nature of future presidencies may be altered as the deregulatory gloves have been taken off, limiting the ability of presidents to enact important rules on any front. Bethany Davis Noll is Litigation Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Richard Revesz is Dean Emeritus at NYU School of Law, and directs the Institute for Policy Integrity. Related ContentBalancing Renewable Energy Goals with Community Interests https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-digests/balancing-renewable-energy-goals-community-interests Whither the Regulatory War on Coal: Scapegoats, Saviors, and Stock Market Reactions https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/working-paper-whither-regulatory-war-coal The Rise of Partisan Politics in Energy Regulation https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/rise-partisan-politics-energy-regulation

Caitlin McCoy is joined by Bethany Davis Noll, Litigation Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School. They discuss the recently-finalized Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule, which weakens fuel economy and GHG standards for cars and light trucks. They share some insights into the rule and how it could be challenged. A transcript of this episode is available here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-41-Caitlin-and-Bethany-vehicle-emissions-fuel-efficiency-rollbacks.pdf See here for more of our work on the clean car rules https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/corporate-average-fuel-economy-and-ghg-emissions-standards/

This week on Versus Trump, Jason discusses some fascinating research about how the Trump Administration has fared in the courts with Bethany Davis Noll, the Litigation Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. They discuss challenges to Trump's regulatory agenda, why the Administration is losing at a historic rate, what is slipping through the cracks, and what come next. Enjoy! As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesYou can find Bethany's project here. She welcomes any comments or new cases! Her email is at the bottom of that page. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Richard Revesz, a professor at NYU Law School and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, discusses how Democratic attorneys general, riding a blue wave into office, may do a U-turn on lawsuits brought by their Republican predecessors - many of which challenge tighter federal environmental regulations. He speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Richard Revesz, a professor at NYU Law School and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, discusses how Democratic attorneys general, riding a blue wave into office, may do a U-turn on lawsuits brought by their Republican predecessors - many of which challenge tighter federal environmental regulations. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

Richard Revesz, a professor at NYU Law School and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, discusses why the Trump administration is proposing to relax Obama-era rules that were meant to block rogue methane leaks from oil and gas wells. Plus, David McLaughlin, Bloomberg News legal reporter, discusses a Thursday FTC hearing, where U.S. antitrust enforcers are exploring whether rising industry concentrating in the tech sector is hurting the ability of American companies to be competitive abroad. She speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Richard Revesz, a professor at NYU Law School and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, discusses why the Trump administration is proposing to relax Obama-era rules that were meant to block rogue methane leaks from oil and gas wells. Plus, David McLaughlin, Bloomberg News legal reporter, discusses a Thursday FTC hearing, where U.S. antitrust enforcers are exploring whether rising industry concentrating in the tech sector is hurting the ability of American companies to be competitive abroad. She speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

This is the fifth in a five-part series. You can find the first installment here. US Environmental Protection Agency boss Scott Pruitt is gone – not because of his environmental malfeasance, but because his $43,000 phone booth, his $100,000 trip to Disneyland, and his attempts to get his wife a lucrative job were too tacky even for an administration built on bling. His replacement, Andrew Wheeler, is less embarrassing but more dangerous. A coal lobbyist until last year, Wheeler is also a long-time adviser to climate-science denier James Inhofe and a sure bet to continue Pruitt’s policies – albeit with more stealth and fewer attention-grabbing abuses of power. Pruitt’s departure comes just one week after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his own retirement from the US Supreme Court, and those two departures have overshadowed the publication of a document that Pruitt and Army Public Works boss Ricky James dropped on us last Friday – a document that mentions Kennedy 64 times and illustrates as well as anything the underhanded way Pruitt subverts environmental protections: not through argumentation, but through sabotage in the name of regulatory certainty (and just in time for summer break). It’s a document that will show up on the Federal Register any day now, and that you and any member of the public will then have 30 days to comment on, but which you’ll only understand if you know a bit of history, and that’s by design. It’s part of an effort to torpedo a Supreme Court opinion that Kennedy penned in 2006 – an opinion that builds on decades of precedent and practice, and that provides the foundation for the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule (also known as the “Clean Water Rule”), which sets the ground rules for determining which of the waters of the United States are protected by the Clean Water Act (CWA). If Wheeler and James can rescind that rule, they’ll manage to undermine the popular Clean Water Act without the voting public knowing until it’s too late, and last week’s document is part of their effort to do just that. Specifically, it’s a supplemental notice to the Trump Administration’s year-old proposal to repeal the WOTUS rule and instead “recodify” the mess that predated it in accordance with an opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia – an opinion mostly ignored by courts and practitioners, for reasons we covered in earlier installments of this series. Scalia, as we saw in part three, believed the CWA should only protect “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” – basically, lakes rivers, and streams, but not the wetlands or creeks that feed them, and not waterbodies that only flow intermittently. The repeal would leave 80 percent of US waterways unprotected by federal authorities, and it’s one part of a multi-pronged attack on WOTUS that includes a two-year delay on its implementation and a more insidious order to ignore the local scientists and specialists who review dredging permits and instead “involve the Administrator’s Office early on in the process of developing geographic determinations” – a move that Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) described as “a crude Clean Water Act coup d’état.” “This latest move by Pruitt is his Plan B as it is becoming increasingly clear that his Clean Water rewrite plan is illegal and will be tossed out in court,” she said. In this, the fifth, final, and long-overdue installment in a five-part series on the Clean Water Rule, we try to offer a clear and simple explanation of the state of WOTUS in the current administration. You can see the first installment here. More on the Bionic Planet Podcast The story continues below, but I’ll also be editing audio from the interviews I conducted with Shrader and others for this series into episode 32 of the Bionic Planet podcast, which which I hope to have ready over the weekend. You can access Bionic Planet via iTunes, TuneIn, Stitcher, and pretty much anywhere you access podcasts, as well as on this device here: Timeline The story continues below, but here is a timeline to help you keep key dates in order: June 19, 2006: The Supreme Court’s Rapanos v United States split decision introduces massive uncertainty over what are and are not protected waters, sparking hundreds of court cases and demands for clarity. Over time, Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” guidance becomes the rule of the land. August 27, 2015: As the Obama Administration prepares to implement the WOTUS Rule, a district court in North Dakota issues a preliminary injunction against the rule until arguments can be heard, essentially freezing the rule in 13 states. October 9, 2015: The Sixth Circuit Court issues a nationwide stay, which the Obama Administration begins to fight before the 2016 elections sweep Donald Trump into office. February 28, 2017: Donald Trump signs an executive order instructing the EPA to scrap the WOTUS rule and “consider interpreting the term ‘navigable waters’…in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia.” July 27, 2017: Pruitt and acting Army Civil Works boss Douglas Lamont publish their proposal to rescind the 2015 WOTUS Rule – a move that cannot be challenged in court until the rule becomes official. January 22, 2018: The Supreme Court rules that challenges to the WOTUS rule must be filed in district courts, forcing the Sixth Circuit Court to vacate its nationwide stay but leaving the North Dakota injunction intact. February 6, 2018: With the Sixth Circuit Court’s stay vacated, Pruitt and Lamont implement an “applicability date” two years in the future – namely, in February, 2020 – sparking an immediate court challenge. March 30, 2018: EPA boss Scott Pruitt directs the agency to ignore local experts and defer instead to his own office when issuing permits. June 29, 2018: Pruitt and James issue a supplemental notice to the earlier proposal. The new notice summarizes existing court challenges and argues that their existence introduces more uncertainty than existed before the rule was created. July 5, 2018: Scott Pruitt resigns, and former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler is named his replacement. New Notice, Old Arguments Last week’s supplemental notice will soon be listed in the Federal Register, after which the public has 30 days to comment on it. Some organizations, like the American Farm Bureau, a longstanding WOTUS opponent, have welcomed the notice. “The issuance of this additional notice shows that EPA listened to public comments that showed confusion over what was being proposed and why,” they said in a statement. “This supplemental notice will provide a more meaningful opportunity for public comment by clarifying that EPA’s proposal is to permanently repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule because that rule was illegal in multiple respects.” Beyond clarifying the position, however, the notice does little to bolster the Administration’s claim that the existing rule should be repealed before the agency can “recodify” the mess that the rule was created to fix. After finding that the previous regime was riddled with uncertainty, the agency has a duty to explain why it must repeal the whole rule rather than leaving the rule in place while working to correct whatever problems the agency claims to have found in the rule. “It’s ironic that they claim they’re doing this to provide certainty, considering the fact that before 2015 there was a world of very little certainty,” says Bethany Davis-Noll, Litigation Director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “Getting rid of the 2015 rule doesn’t reduce regulatory uncertainty; it creates regulatory uncertainty.” In addition, the administration has yet to explain how returning to the confusing regime in place before the 2015 rule complies with the Clean Water Act or how the agency is justified in imposing forgone wetlands benefits on the public. “Without that explanation, this could be a pretty good lawsuit for anybody who wants to challenge the agency,” says Davis-Noll That is, in fact, a pillar of the suit currently underway to block the delayed implementation of the rule. The Lack of Analysis or Reason This series began back in February, when 11 states sued to block the delay in implementing the WOTUS rule, based in part on their contention that the new applicability date was pulled out of thin air while going through the motions of scientific review and public consultation as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. A key argument is that the Trump Administration ignored the existing cost/benefit analysis and failed to conduct one of its own. Columbia University Assistant Professor Jeffrey Shrader says the Trump Administration not only overstates the costs of implementing the rule, but ignores the benefits of scenic beauty, resilient agricultural systems, and income from mitigation banking. “They left out any benefit from mitigation or protection of wetlands,” says Shrader, who co-wrote an analysis called “Muddying the Waters: How the Trump administration is obscuring the value of wetlands protection from the Clean Water Rule”. Specifically, he points out, the administration simply ignored all wetland benefit studies published between 1986 and 2000 on the premise that their age makes them untrustworthy, but the administration also took its own cost analysis from the same period – despite the fact that more recent studies focused on coastal wetlands show that valuation benefits have increased since then. At the same time, the rise of mitigation banking has both reduced the cost of compliance and created income for people who restore degraded landscapes. The End of the Restoration Economy? Proponents of the repeal argue that states will pick up the slack, but current laws evolved because upstream cities and states had little inclination to do that. “About half of the states have laws on the books that say they cannot implement stricter protection for wetlands than the federal government, and those are the states where the largest at-risk wetlands are located,” says David Groves, a former policy advisor to the Obama Administration who now works as Director of Business Development at The Earth Partners, an environmental consultancy. “The vast majority of economic activity in the mitigation banking industry is in the southeast, which is made up of states with no state-level protections,” he adds. “Significantly reducing the scope of the Clean Water Act would present an existential threat to the mitigation banking industry and would destroy a huge amount of value.” The result, he says, would be more taxpayer spending overall, but the costs would flow to downstream states.  

The impact of climate change on the things we buy is already noticeable, but it’s bound to get worse. In future decades, the food we eat, beverages we drink and clothes we wear may all be altered by the warming planet. In the second of two episodes about climate change, Jenny and Lindsey dig into the future impact of global warming on shoppers. They talk with Andrea Illy, Chief Executive Officer of IllyCaffe; Dr. Peter Howard, economics director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's School of Law; and Cecilia Strömblad Brännsten, a sustainability business expert at H&M.