SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: coug who wrote (8003)3/8/2001 12:27:03 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
Thinking about the topic of cost benefit analysis when it comes to environmental issues.. I think of the movie, "Erin Brockovich" when she asked the woman attorney from PG&E, "What her uterus was worth?". The male attorney, "What his spine was worth?" and on and on..

In actual cases such cost benefit analysis usually involves statistical estimates of probabilities of deaths or damage rather then someone you can point to and say "they where damaged". In one case (sorry I can't find the link right now) the estimated probability is such that there might be a 50% chance of saving one life over the next thousand years at a cost of about $7trillion. In my opinion saving even one life is a worthwhile goal but that $7tril even if used rather inefficiently would probably save more lives (even if it was not spent specifically for that purpose the extra wealth would probably save some lives). In other cases no regulation is even needed to impose large costs. All that is needed is a few celebrities to say they are scared that X will hurt "our children", and if X is found out to be completely safe later on the company that makes it has probably all ready been forced to drop it, or perhaps it has gone out of business. This is not to say that there are not real environmental threats or that federal regulation has no role to play in reducing or eliminating them, just that such regulation should depend on careful consideration of both the costs and the benefits

Here is a couple of links to further describe the kind of things that I am talking about. I know that anyone here could post links to examples of environmental damage or well designed and implemented environmental law and regulation, however I think most people are all ready aware of many environmental dangers and know that regulations can have benefits. The costs are discussed less often and usu. with less vehemence. You have lobbyists talking about it but there is no equivalent of the green party of "Earth First"

nationalcenter.org

cato.org
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News