Calculating the costs of pollution


Michael Greenstone on the importance of strong science in informing policy.

Connect

    

Subscribe

Interested in...




News

Study: Will We Ever Stop Using Fossil Fuels?

Study: Will We Ever Stop Using Fossil Fuels?

History predicts that fossil fuel consumption will continue to grow without aggressive efforts to price carbon and improve clean energy technologies.

February 12, 2016Read more


Francesca Dominici, Michael Greenstone and Cass R. Sunstein

Last week, a divided court of appeals upheld what may well be the most important environmental rule in the nation's history: the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury standards. The regulation is expected to prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks a year.

Critics of the mercury rule have focused on its expense. The EPA estimates it will cost $9.6 billion a year, with most of the burden falling on electric utilities. Indeed, the issue of cost is what split the court.

The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to regulate electric utilities under its hazardous air pollutants program only if it finds that such regulation "is appropriate and necessary." Focusing solely on mercury's effect on public health, the EPA made that finding.

That troubled Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. In his dissenting opinion, he asked, quite reasonably, how the EPA could possibly conclude that regulation is "appropriate" without considering costs. He argued that it's "just common sense and sound government practice" to take account of costs as well as benefits.

But the court's majority had an answer...

Read the full article at The LA Times

More:

3 Questions: Michael Greenstone on the experimental method in environmental economics

New Study: Improving the Pollution-Mortality Link