4 ms·

EPA estimates that if finalized, a strengthened primary annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 9 micrograms per cubic meter, the lower end of the proposed range, w

EPA estimates that if finalized, a strengthened primary annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 9 micrograms per cubic meter, the lower end of the proposed range, would prevent: up to 4,200 premature deaths per year; 270,000 lost workdays per year; result in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032. Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides.

oneoff786 4y ago
> As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. > Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? Because this is the point they concluded would maximize the benefits relative to the costs and downsides.
schiffern 4y ago
Primary standards are meant to determine healthy levels, including for vulnerable people like children and the elderly. They are not intended to determine what levels are economically efficient. That's handled during implementation, not when setting the primary standards. So the EPA does consider it, they just do it in a later step. "Garbage in, garbage out," so you want to make sure your medical science is accurate when it goes into the economic analysis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218
tony69 4y ago
The cost function is exponential. Ie getting the last 1 microgram out costs as much as getting down to the 10 micrograms before that
S201 4y ago
> Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. For the same reason we haven't dropped fossil fuel use overnight: It's not practical. You can't just wave a magic regulatory wand to elimination all air pollution without expecting (severe) economic impacts.
BurningFrog 4y ago
OP is here trying to point out that we're only told of the benefits of this proposal, not the costs. Which gives a one sided view of the issue. This is not because there are no costs, but because the EPA doesn't want to talk about that, and the reporter can't and/or won't do the work to figure it out.
woodruffw 4y ago
> Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. I don't understand this: isn't the fact that they didn't lower it to zero strong evidence that they performed a cost-benefit analysis? Where's the evidence that they gave it "no consideration"?
- ComputerGuru 4y ago
  The point is that the costs aren't detailed.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    Not only is there a cost detailed, it's incredibly detailed, but instead of talking about how it was (obviously) detailed if you bothered to click two links, I'm wondering what cost 4,200 premature deaths would you consider not worth the change?
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      $4 trillion dollars. Even $100 billion.
      - onecommentman 4y ago
        For 4000 lives saved, and at a valuation of roughly $7 to $9 Million/life (US) to be consistent with US gov’t engineering practices and regulations, perhaps $30 to $40 billion to be consistent with other US policy initiatives. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States If you even spend, say, $100 Billion on this environmental concern (implicitly valuing $25M/life), you will underinvest in other governmental activities (e.g. DOT) that valued life at $9M/life, so reprogramming funds from air pollution to DOT would be estimated to save more lives. At first SWAG (linearity/hand-waving) implicitly accepting an additional 6000 lives lost due to such a misinvestment.
      - krainboltgreene 4y ago
jeffbee 4y ago
The clean air act prohibits the EPA from considering the cost. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations
krainboltgreene 4y ago
> As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. Just to be clear here not only are costs considered, but they are considered to an absurd degree considering the upsides. The parent just didn't bother to click two links.
giantg2 4y ago
With how much time everyone spends inside, you'd think they start addressing that for a larger impact.

oneoff786 4y ago

> As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. > Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? Because this is the point they concluded would maximize the benefits relative to the costs and downsides.

schiffern 4y ago

Primary standards are meant to determine healthy levels, including for vulnerable people like children and the elderly. They are not intended to determine what levels are economically efficient. That's handled during implementation, not when setting the primary standards. So the EPA does consider it, they just do it in a later step. "Garbage in, garbage out," so you want to make sure your medical science is accurate when it goes into the economic analysis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218

tony69 4y ago

The cost function is exponential. Ie getting the last 1 microgram out costs as much as getting down to the 10 micrograms before that

S201 4y ago

> Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. For the same reason we haven't dropped fossil fuel use overnight: It's not practical. You can't just wave a magic regulatory wand to elimination all air pollution without expecting (severe) economic impacts.

BurningFrog 4y ago

OP is here trying to point out that we're only told of the benefits of this proposal, not the costs. Which gives a one sided view of the issue. This is not because there are no costs, but because the EPA doesn't want to talk about that, and the reporter can't and/or won't do the work to figure it out.

woodruffw 4y ago

> Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. I don't understand this: isn't the fact that they didn't lower it to zero strong evidence that they performed a cost-benefit analysis? Where's the evidence that they gave it "no consideration"?

ComputerGuru 4y ago
The point is that the costs aren't detailed.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  Not only is there a cost detailed, it's incredibly detailed, but instead of talking about how it was (obviously) detailed if you bothered to click two links, I'm wondering what cost 4,200 premature deaths would you consider not worth the change?
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    $4 trillion dollars. Even $100 billion.
    - onecommentman 4y ago
      For 4000 lives saved, and at a valuation of roughly $7 to $9 Million/life (US) to be consistent with US gov’t engineering practices and regulations, perhaps $30 to $40 billion to be consistent with other US policy initiatives. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States If you even spend, say, $100 Billion on this environmental concern (implicitly valuing $25M/life), you will underinvest in other governmental activities (e.g. DOT) that valued life at $9M/life, so reprogramming funds from air pollution to DOT would be estimated to save more lives. At first SWAG (linearity/hand-waving) implicitly accepting an additional 6000 lives lost due to such a misinvestment.
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago

jeffbee 4y ago

The clean air act prohibits the EPA from considering the cost. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations

krainboltgreene 4y ago

> As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. Just to be clear here not only are costs considered, but they are considered to an absurd degree considering the upsides. The parent just didn't bother to click two links.

giantg2 4y ago

With how much time everyone spends inside, you'd think they start addressing that for a larger impact.