In another topic (Here) the following was presented as part of a post to question discussing whether or not appointing a scientist (or at least this particular scientist) to the head of the EPA was a sign of good things ahead.

I think the question of that particular topic can be debated, and I for one am a fence sitter on the subject. But the following quote caught my attention. DaffyGrl, makes some good points in her posts on this topic , and this is certainly not meant as any kind of inditement of her position. I just wanted to ask why this particular issue was seen as a problem.



I have to ask. Is this a bad thing? Of course how this approach was used or abused is an issue as well, but it is the more basic concept that I wanted to discuss.

Doesn't it make sense to do a cost benefit analysis on all proposed policies prior to implementation? For example, If we determine that a particular industry is polluting the air in a way that makes it .05% more likely that people in the area develop respiratory illnesses our first consideration is usually to increase pollution controls on that industry.

However, if that industry happens to be the only source of income in this area, then shouldn't we consider that an issue as well? What if the pollution controls in question were costly enough to cause the business in question to loose all profitability and as a result, close it's doors? Wouldn't it be likely that the cost of employment in the area and onset of poverty would have a much more damaging effect on the life and health of those effected by the pollution?
(Impact of Poverty on Health (PDF))

Now, in this scenario, regulating, or not regulating are not the only answers.

Perhaps, after examining the costs vs. the benefits we discover that the best solution would be issuing a government grant to pay for the upgrades to the plant that would reduce the pollution. In that way, the pollution is reduced, and the jobs are protected as well. We would protect people from the heath risks of both pollution and poverty.


Question for Debate:

Should we conduct a cost / benefit analysis of all proposed policies / solutions in regard to Environmental protection? Why, or Why Not?

Is it acceptable to try to balance the economic needs and the environmental needs by using government funds, at times, to finance improved pollution controls if a cost / benefit analysis shows that it would protect both the environment and the economy? Why or Why Not?

I think the cost/benefit analyses will always be contested, miring us in conversation while the environment (potentially) falls apart around us.

I think there are some generally agreed upon pollutants that are harmful to the environment.

There are others who's potential to harm is in question.

I think it's no more economically harmful, in fact I think it much less economically harmful to raise revenue from pollution charges than from income & corporate taxes.

So, I'm in favor of having a carbon tax, as long as the revenue offsets other taxes.

Likewise I'm in favor of tradable permits, though instead of granting them to grandfathered polluters (thus making a barrier to entry for new firms, reducing competition), they should all be auctioned by the government, with the revenue used to offset other taxes.

My favorite offset for taxes would be to grant, equally amongst citizens, a refundable tax credit. You could consider it making polluters pay us for polluting our air.

Such taxes are favorable to the economy in that they capture externalities and encourage more efficient allocation of resources (clean air, water). Taxing polluters has a similar effect as subsidizing non-polluters, but does it by raising revenue rather than spending it.