3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe point is that the costs aren't detailed.
- krainboltgreene 4y agoNot 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 agoFor 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 agoFantastic, it's below both of those values.
- solveit 4y ago467 pages. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/naaqs-pm_ria_proposed_2022-12.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/naaqs-pm_...