"First up, earlier this month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a new rule signaling a major change to the way it accounts for the impact of certain air pollutants on human health. Many health experts say the shift will likely lead to increased air pollutionand worse health outcomes. Andrea Thompson, SciAm's senior editor for life sciences, is here to give us a clearer understanding of what the agency is doing and what that means for the air we all breathe."
"Pierre-Louis: So my understanding is that, in general, the EPA uses a type of cost-benefit analysis to understand the impact of an environmental regulation. Can you talk a bit about how, prior to this rule change, the EPA measured these costs and benefits? Thompson: Yeah, so in general the science for how you sort of calculate how much a regulation will cost, the sort of economic benefit you'll get from it has been pretty well established over several decades."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a rule that alters how the health impacts of specific air pollutants are accounted. Existing cost-benefit analyses pair epidemiological studies that compare high- and low-pollutant areas with economic valuations of health outcomes to estimate regulatory benefits. Those health studies control for other influencing factors and model how changes in pollutant levels affect hospitalizations, premature deaths, and other indicators. The modeled health impacts are then converted into economic terms to inform regulatory decisions. Many health experts predict the accounting change will permit higher pollution levels and degrade health outcomes.
Read at www.scientificamerican.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]