5 ms·
I don't understand your point. I agree that compensation is due. I'm saying that calculation of the losses needs to be as objective as possible, that your marke
by rlpb 9y ago
I don't understand your point. I agree that compensation is due. I'm saying that calculation of the losses needs to be as objective as possible, that your market-driven approach is flawed, and that therefore it is reasonable to consider scientific methods that try to come up with as objective an answer as possible.
- mikeash 9y agoHow can you get more objective than looking at either the cost of removing the pollution or the value of the property contaminated by it? That's a lot more precise than trying to apply DALYs in an entire population to individual households. The whole point of my post is to illustrate why compensating someone based on the health risks incurred is ridiculous if you can instead fix the problem or buy them out. In my example, do you think it would be fair for me to compensate you only the value of the DALYs lost in your household if you continue to live there, rather than the cost of cleanup or the cost of your property?