The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to change how it weighs the impact of dirty air—by no longer putting a dollar figure on many of the lives it could save, reports the New York Times. The newspaper describes the move as a "seismic shift" that may make it easier to repeal current limits on two major pollutants: fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone. Under the new approach—outlined in emails and documents seen by the newspaper—the agency's cost-benefit analyses would largely focus on what regulations cost businesses, not the dollar value of reduced illness and premature death.
The Times frames the context thusly: "Over the past four decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have used different estimates of the monetary value of a human life in cost-benefit analyses. But until now, no administration has counted it as zero." Business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have long pushed for changes, saying health benefits are overstated and uncertain. But legal and environmental experts say the shift undercuts the EPA's core mandate to protect public health. "The idea that EPA would not consider the public health benefits of its regulations is anathema to the very mission of EPA," says Richard Revesz of the New York University School of Law.
EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran said the agency will still consider health impacts from fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone but will no longer assign them a monetary value, arguing that past analyses—including in the Biden administration— conveyed "false precision." One big question is whether the new stance will hold up in court. ProPublica, meanwhile, reports on another potential EPA change: The agency is considering whether it has the legal authority to revise pollution rules more than once, even if new science emerges. Chemical companies have argued that the answer is no, and the EPA is weighing its response. Read that full story.
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
