Sunday, December 4, 2016

EPA Delenda Est

A pretty good post on the problems with the EPA: The case for dissolving the EPA
The EPA is the prototype of agencies that, driven largely by politics, spend more and more to address smaller and smaller risks. In one analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, of the 30 least cost-effective regulations throughout the government, the EPA had imposed no fewer than 17. For example, the agency’s restrictions on the disposal of land that contains certain wastes prevent 0.59 cancer cases per year — about three cases every five years — and avoid $20 million in property damage, at an annual cost of $194 to $219 million. In his excellent book Breaking the Vicious Circle, written shortly before he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Stephen Breyer cited another, similar example of expensive, non-cost-effective regulation by the EPA: a ban on asbestos pipe, shingles, coating, and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years — at a cost of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars. Breyer, appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton, observed that such a vast expenditure would cause more deaths than it would prevent from the asbestos exposure, simply by reducing the resources available for other public amenities.
This gets to one of my biggest problems with environmentalism as it is practiced in the United States today. Increasing costs (and growing government power) chasing ever smaller and less important improvements. This is not to say that we can't argue over exactly where to draw the line, but it's clear that in many cases EPA has the line so far behind them it's not visible in the rear view mirror.

Read the whole thing.

No comments:

Post a Comment