3 ms·
> In its retrospective study on the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA estimated that the benefit of pollution control over the 20 year period was on the order of $22
by anamax 15y ago
> In its retrospective study on the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA estimated that the benefit of pollution control over the 20 year period was on the order of $22 trillion.
$22T/20 years is over $1T/year. US GDP in 1990 was under $6T. US GDP in 1970 was just over $1T.
> the lack of Clean Air Act controls on the use of leaded gasoline would have resulted in major increases in child IQ loss
Oh really? Why would leaded gas in 1980 cause more problems than leaded gas in 1950?
> Meanwhile, "the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits."
Just as the benefits are not limited to the money not spent on medical care, the money spent on pollution controls are not the only costs.
- redcap 15y ago> Why would leaded gas in 1980 cause more problems than leaded gas in 1950? Larger population and rising wages lead to more cars on the roads and hence more pollution?
- smithian 15y agoGDP does not account for the externalities that the study took into account.
- anamax 15y ago> GDP does not account for the externalities that the study took into account. Externality estimates and valuations are notorious for reflecting the biases of the estimators. Estimates that are a large fraction of GDP are very suspicious. Do you seriously believe that the clean air act "saved" 1/6th of the US economy?
- smithian 15y agoI hear what you are saying, but I think you're mixing units. Since the study is accounting for things that are not accounted for in GDP, It doesn't seem to make much sense to compare the dollar figure reached in terms of GDP. If GDP devalues human health as part of its basic assumptions, an analysis that does not devalue human health will come to different numbers. It's almost a tautology.