Just like in development and foreign aid, uninformed advocacy for environmental goals is misguided and can be completely detrimental. Policy on ground-level ozone standards in the U.S. is still subject to cost-benefit analysis.
The reaction from environmental advocates was almost uniformly negative. Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, complained that the "White House is siding with corporate polluters over the American people"... According to the EPA, limiting ozone concentrations to 60 parts per billion would cost between $52 and $90 billion annually. The benefits, due to improved human health and avoided deaths, fall between $35 and $100 billion annually. And from an economic perspective, given what we know today, it's a tough call... Advocates who condemn the president's ozone decision have missed a crucial point. Their political muscle is best used to push for policy changes that are clear winners, of which there are plenty.
Full article. Written by my fantastic microeconomics professor, Jay Coggins.
The reaction from environmental advocates was almost uniformly negative. Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, complained that the "White House is siding with corporate polluters over the American people"... According to the EPA, limiting ozone concentrations to 60 parts per billion would cost between $52 and $90 billion annually. The benefits, due to improved human health and avoided deaths, fall between $35 and $100 billion annually. And from an economic perspective, given what we know today, it's a tough call... Advocates who condemn the president's ozone decision have missed a crucial point. Their political muscle is best used to push for policy changes that are clear winners, of which there are plenty.
Full article. Written by my fantastic microeconomics professor, Jay Coggins.
RSS Feed