patrick.net

I was in LA in the 70's coughing up bloody phlegm in the morning and I couldn't see the second telephone pole down the street because the air was thick and brown. I guess we exported that issue.

"The EPA justifies its economically burdensome PM2.5 regulations by claiming that reducing PM2.5 levels saves lives and that each life saved is worth $9 million in monetized benefits."

I wonder how they came up with those figures. Most people do not earn even 2 million dollars in there lifetimes, but the EPA pegs each life saved as 9 million dollars. I can't help wonder if the oppose is true. the more air pollution would save money. Look at it this way, Smoking kills 6.5 million people a year, on average smokers die 15 years earlier than non-smokers. But the simple fact is people that live longer have more medical aliments that cost lots of money to fix. If these people were to die sooner, from something, lets say smoking, you would actually save money I the long run. So the same logic should follow pollution. While pollution kills people, if these people would have lived longer they would develop more aliments that would cost a lot more in the long run then a smoking/pollution related deaths.