Cost/Benefit of Govt. Environmental Regulation

[Huckleman2000]

The dismal science again repudiates free-range capitalism...

Science Ignored, Again
The New York Times | Editorial

Saturday 14 October 2006

The Bush administration loves to talk about the virtues of "sound science," by which it usually means science that buttresses its own political agenda. But when some truly independent science comes along to threaten that agenda, the administration often ignores or minimizes it. The latest example involves the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to reject the recommendations of experts inside and outside the government who had urged a significant tightening of federal standards regulating the amount of soot in the air.

At issue were so-called fine particles, tiny specks of soot that are less than one-thirtieth the diameter of a human hair. They penetrate deep into the lungs and circulatory system and have been implicated in tens of thousands of deaths annually from both respiratory and coronary disease. The EPA, obliged under the Clean Air Act to set new exposure levels every five years, tightened the daily standard. But it left unchanged the annual standard, which affects chronic exposure and which the medical community regards as more important.

In so doing, the agency rejected the recommendation of its own staff scientists and even that of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council, a 22-member group of outside experts that had recommended a significant tightening of the standards. Stephen Johnson, the agency administrator, claimed there was "insufficient evidence" linking health problems to long-term exposure. He added that "wherever the science gave us a clear picture, we took clear action," noting also that "there was not complete agreement on the standard."

One wonders how much evidence Mr. Johnson requires, and how "complete" an "agreement" must be before he takes action. A 20-2 vote in favor of stronger standards seems fairly convincing to us; likewise the unanimous plea for stronger standards from mainstream groups like the American Medical Association.

The environmental and medical communities suspect that the administration’s main motive was to save the power companies and other industrial sources of pollution about $1.9 billion in new investment that the more protective annual standard would have required. But here, too, the administration appears to have ignored expert advice. Last Friday, the agency released an economic analysis showing that in exchange for $1.9 billion in new costs, the stronger annual standards could save as many as 24,000 thousand lives and as much as $50 billion annually in health care and other costs to society. Studies like these always offer a range of possible outcomes, but even at the lower end - 2,200 lives and $4.3 billion in money saved - the cost-benefit ratios are very favorable.

In the next year or so, the administration must decide whether to tighten the standards for another pollutant, ground-level ozone, which causes smog and is also associated with respiratory diseases. The scientific advisory committee has tentatively recommended that the ozone standard be tightened, citing new evidence of smog’s adverse effects. This time Mr. Johnson should pay more attention to the scientists and less to the political strategists in the White House.

 

[neonlyte]

Huck...

I'm coming to the conclusion that politicians only make proactive statements when out of power or in the run up to an election. In power, the majority of decisions are reactive and the 'voice' that prompts the reaction is either driven by 'voters' or money (contributors). Voters don't muster a voice about 'invisible soot' even though they should, contributors hold sway and the political response is thus tuned. I would guess the magnitude of annual 'soot deaths' would need to be at least ten times greater for voters to register their protest in political polls. Then you might get proactive political decision - but guess what, it won't be lives that count, it will be the billions of health care dollars saved on behalf of the voters. Then again, I am a political cynic. Interesting article.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Indeed, Neon, politicians were able to muster incredible resources on behalf of Terri Schaivo's tormentors under the guise of a so-called culture of life. When the life-death tradeoffs are not so personal, however, the same lawmakers (and their shepherded supporters) default to dubious contentions that reduce deaths to a line item in a skewed argument to benefit their contributors. Their absolutist proclamations about the sanctity of life go by the wayside in the face of their absolutist proclamations about the virtue of corporate profit.

 

[Pure]

I had an insight tonight, though the thought is not new.

Bush and co., like Amicus, Roxanne, Coulter or Falwell do not deal in facts. They deal in allegiances. WHO are you for?

IT simply does NOT matter if 20 of 22 scientists say something.

There is only one question: Do you support the industries in question? This is part of the larger, Do you believe in America? question.

There is simply the core issue behind these questions: Are you going to honor private ownership and capitalism.

If companies pollute IT DOES NOT MATTER; OR--IF IT DOES-- IT'S NOT A MATTER FOR GOVERNMENT TO MEDDLE IN. Perhaps industry experts could confer to figure out voluntary 'guidelines' to deal with any alleged problems, and propose these guidelines for the government to applaud.

As soon as you cite your 'scientists', you trigger a reaction, since you are actually saying [as they hear it] "Hey, I don't believe in the American way; in private property rights."

 

[Huckleman2000]

I had an insight tonight, though the thought is not new.

Bush and co., like Amicus, Roxanne, Coulter or Falwell do not deal in facts. They deal in allegiances. WHO are you for?

IT simply does NOT matter if 20 of 22 scientists say something.

There is only one question: Do you support the industries in question? This is part of the larger, Do you believe in America? question.

There is simply the core issue behind these questions: Are you going to honor private ownership and capitalism.

If companies pollute IT DOES NOT MATTER; OR--IF IT DOES-- IT'S NOT A MATTER FOR GOVERNMENT TO MEDDLE IN. Perhaps industry experts could confer to figure out voluntary 'guidelines' to deal with any alleged problems, and propose these guidelines for the government to applaud.

As soon as you cite your 'scientists', you trigger a reaction, since you are actually saying [as they hear it] "Hey, I don't believe in the American way; in private property rights."

Right, Pure!

The really insidious piece of this is that the viewpoint is conflated with 'the American way', when nothing is further from the truth! The history of American progress has been towards individual human rights that are protected by government, not unfettered individualism in the guise of supreme private property (ie, corporate) rights.