Last week the EPA announced new ozone standards in its efforts to maintain momentum in increasing the quality of our air as mandated by the Clean Air Act. These new standards were introduced toward the protection of wildlife, parks, and farmland as required by the law. The EPA’s standards fell short of those recommended by EPA scientific advisors.
In what is seen as an unlawful intervention, President Bush overturned the EPA’s guidelines and imposed less strict standards.
Interestingly enough, prior to Bush overturning the new standards, the EPA’s analysis estimated costs of the new standards to be from $7.6B to $8.5B, and estimated benefits valued at from $2B to $19B.
If you want to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, which benefit should we give him:
-On a cost-benefit analysis method, it appears that there is a potential $10B net benefit (which includes preventing cases of bronchitis, aggravated asthma, hospital and emergency room visits, nonfatal heart attacks and premature death…as well as protection of wildlife, parks…)
-In applying a Jeffersonian model - let’s say the don’t load up the earth with nasty-deadly stuff that will effect your offspring, and their offspring, and then their offspring greater than yourself standard - I think we agree that Bush also falls somewhat short (little bit?).
So just what model is our innovative leader applying to this scenario, and what would Thoreau say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
For a behind-the-scenes look into more of the dirty details behind the President's interference with the EPA ozone standard, check out my posting at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/science_decider_in_chief.html
Post a Comment