What was the cost, in dollar terms, of the nine lives lost in the DC Metro crash on Monday? And how does that compare to what the cost would have been to prevent the accident, or lessen the severity of it? Should we do a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best policy?
Edward Tenner's post at the Atlantic looks at the absurdity of the proposition:
The disturbing truth is that even at the old, higher number, the loss of 9 human lives would not be grounds for replacement of the older model cars offering less survivability. Even if all nine casualties could have been spared, the $888 million estimate cost of replacing 1970s cars newer, safer models would have been almost $100 million per life, more than twelve times the pre-2008 $8.04 million statistical value of life used by the EPA.
This makes me think. In terms of economic efficiency, aren't Metro and most other public transportation systems arguably way too safe?
Well, you get the point.
Full textAndrew Freedman of washingtonpost.com's Capital Weather Gang has a nifty catch: the Heartland Institute, the people cluttering up my newspaper this week with climate-change-denying ads, have officially changed tack on their lobbying policy. Back in March, the group told Freedman:
"Our purpose is to bring scientists, economists, and policy experts together to address issues overlooked or ignored by the IPCC [the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] .... If we really wanted to influence policy we would have held the event in Washington, not New York - as many of the policy wonks at the conference have urged us to do, but we resist."
But the group ended up holding its conference in Washington this month. Now they tell Freedman:
"The reason we moved up the date, changed the location, and presented a shorter schedule ... was to bring our message to elected officials in Washington D.C. in time to inform the debate over climate and energy policy."
Inform, right.
Full textToday CPR releases Reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program: Exchanging Promises for Results (press release, full report).
For years, the jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed (the states and Washington D.C.) have essentially not faced consequences for failing to meet pollution-reduction targets. It's not surprising that the Chesapeake Bay has languished.
What the new CPR report recommends is almost an obvious next step: the states should face consequences for not meeting goals. The report calls on Congress to empower the EPA to impose penalties on jurisdictions that flunk.
The report says that Congress should reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program with changes to require Bay jurisdictions to set a statutory deadline of 2020 for Bay restoration, and require Bay jurisdictions to establish five sets of two-year milestones outlining the interim reduction requirements necessary to achieve that deadline.
Full textOn Tuesday, Representatives Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg asking the agency to re-examine its assessment that bisphenol A (BPA) does not pose health risks to consumers. The FDA responded that it was already planning on doing so, and that a new decision would be released within "weeks, not months" (AP, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).
Full textThe Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on Saturday, and the Washington Post on Sunday, about a meeting of industry groups in Washington last week to devise a plan to respond to criticisms of Bisphenol A (BPA).
From the Post:
Manufacturers of cans for beverages and foods and some of their biggest customers, including Coca-Cola, are trying to devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans of a controversial chemical used in the linings of metal cans and lids.
The Environmental Working Group has posted the full memo summarizing the meeting. The memo says that the commitee is focusing lobbying efforts on Connecticut and California, given pending legislation. And: "Their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.' "
Serious health concerns ought to be treated as serious health concerns, not just a PR problem.
Full textOn Tuesday, CPR Member Scholar Catherine O'Neill testified about mercury pollution from chlor-alkali plants at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
At least one in ten women of childbearing age in the United States has blood levels of mercury that threaten the neurological health of her newborn babies. Chlor-alkali plants are a major source of mercury pollution (which we are exposed to primarily through eating fish), even though only four of the plants in the United States still use a mercury-emitting technology. It's completely unnecessary, O'Neill argued, because the industry developed an alternative technology decades ago that does not use any mercury. Approximately 95 percent of chlor-alkali is produced using those newer processes, "diaphragm cell" and "membrane cell."
Said O'Neill: "For years now, we've tried waiting this problem out, allowing the chlor-alkali plants to switch over to mercury-free production methods on their own. It's time to stop waiting, and start requiring them to clean up their act, so as to reduce this serious and entirely unnecessary risk."
Full textCPR President Rena Steinzor and Policy Analyst Matt Shudtz submitted formal comments this week to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with policy recommendations for separating science from politics.
Back on March 9, President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity, which outlined broad principles on the subject and requested that John Holdren, the director of OSTP, draw up a series of specific policy recommendations. CPR Member Scholars wrote a letter to Holdren with initial recommendations, and suggested opening the process to formal public comment. On April 27, the White House announced that they were doing just that.
The comments submitted by Steinzor and Shudtz on Wednesday give recommendations in response to each of the six broad principles that President Obama set out. Below is a summary of their recommendations.
Full textWith Cass Sunstein's confirmation hearing for "regulatory czar" set for today, CPR Member Scholars Catherine O'Neill and Amy Sinden have an op-ed on the subject in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer -- "The cost-benefit dodge." They write:
Full textBeginning in the Reagan administration, any regulation with a significant impact has had to pass through Information and Regulatory Affairs' doors for approval. The office's role, frankly, has been to water down health, safety, and environmental regulations - if not drown them entirely.
...
Once confirmed, Cass Sunstein will face a choice: rely on cost-benefit analysis with the zeal his past writings suggest he would, modify the process in the hope that it can somehow be mended, or abandon it in favor of a better method. The decision he makes will have profound consequences.
Let's hope we find out what his choice will be during his confirmation hearing. And let's hope he chooses wisely.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will mix it up with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show tomorrow (Thursday) night.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff told CNN that Salazar is looking forward to talking about "his work implementing President Obama's vision for building a clean energy economy and his efforts to protect America's treasured landscapes. Time permitting, of course, the Secretary will be glad to offer Stewart some fashion tips, including how best to sport a cowboy hat and bolo tie."
Salazar will be the first Interior Secretary to appear on the show. We'll check it out.
Full textCPR Member Scholars Alex Camacho and Holly Doremus write: It's heartening that the recently released Waxman-Markey climate change bill discussion draft includes a lengthy subtitle on Adapting to Climate Change. No matter how rapidly the world acts to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions, significant changes to global temperatures, sea levels, precipitation patterns, and ocean acidity are already locked in. Human well-being and protection of natural resources require that we respond to those changes, and those steps are likely to be both more effective and more efficient if we identify and implement them now, while climate changes are in their early stages. The adaptation provisions are exciting, though not perfect. Full text