![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Iowa enviro-regulations- is it worth it? Inhale deeply, and consider this....
Recently the Des Moines Register reported that:
"Federal environmental officials on Tuesday proposed new limits on soot in the air that could force expensive improvements at plants across the eastern half of Iowa, state officials said.
That, in turn, means Iowans could pay more for power or products in return for lessening the chance of respiratory illnesses."
While the above statement is correct, the Register's dear readers are not getting the whole story. While source-emitters will pass on extra costs to consumers to pay for the upgrades necessary to clean up emissions, these costs are not without benefits. One benefit, mentioned in the story, is that the chance for respiratory illness will be reduced. Other benefits not listed, but very significant are: less productivity lost to respiratory illness, less healthcare related costs due to decrease in respiratory illness, an increase in the overall quality of life due to a cleaner environment.
And the Bush administration agrees with me. WHAT? Are you mental? No, it's true, per the Christian Science Monitor*, "according to OMB, the yearly benefits of environmental regulations range from $121 billion to $193 billion, the costs from $37 billion to $43 billion. In other words, benefits of things like government-mandated clearer air and cleaner water outweigh costs by as much as 5 to 1." Read the whole story here.
Remember, as a devout capitalist (really, I am!), I know that there are 3 ingredients to a free-market economy: Capital, labor, and L*A*N*D. If you damage or degrade the productive capacity of any of these, you are not only harming the economy, you are harming yourself.
So, I look forward to new regulations decreasing the amount of harmful pollution in the air. We may pay a bit more out of our wallets, but it's better than paying the cost of not enacting the regulations. Then, you might end up paying with your life.
*********
And now a note on the Christian Science Monitor. It is one of the finest nationwide newspapers around. The reporting is good, and the bias is minimal. Don't believe me? Call up the journalism department of your local university, and ask them what they think of the Monitor. Be prepared to hear them gush about what a great paper it is.
"Federal environmental officials on Tuesday proposed new limits on soot in the air that could force expensive improvements at plants across the eastern half of Iowa, state officials said.
That, in turn, means Iowans could pay more for power or products in return for lessening the chance of respiratory illnesses."
While the above statement is correct, the Register's dear readers are not getting the whole story. While source-emitters will pass on extra costs to consumers to pay for the upgrades necessary to clean up emissions, these costs are not without benefits. One benefit, mentioned in the story, is that the chance for respiratory illness will be reduced. Other benefits not listed, but very significant are: less productivity lost to respiratory illness, less healthcare related costs due to decrease in respiratory illness, an increase in the overall quality of life due to a cleaner environment.
And the Bush administration agrees with me. WHAT? Are you mental? No, it's true, per the Christian Science Monitor*, "according to OMB, the yearly benefits of environmental regulations range from $121 billion to $193 billion, the costs from $37 billion to $43 billion. In other words, benefits of things like government-mandated clearer air and cleaner water outweigh costs by as much as 5 to 1." Read the whole story here.
Remember, as a devout capitalist (really, I am!), I know that there are 3 ingredients to a free-market economy: Capital, labor, and L*A*N*D. If you damage or degrade the productive capacity of any of these, you are not only harming the economy, you are harming yourself.
So, I look forward to new regulations decreasing the amount of harmful pollution in the air. We may pay a bit more out of our wallets, but it's better than paying the cost of not enacting the regulations. Then, you might end up paying with your life.
*********
And now a note on the Christian Science Monitor. It is one of the finest nationwide newspapers around. The reporting is good, and the bias is minimal. Don't believe me? Call up the journalism department of your local university, and ask them what they think of the Monitor. Be prepared to hear them gush about what a great paper it is.
