Smog Rules Could Cost Industry $90B–and Save $100B on Health Costs

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced its proposal to toughen up the standards for smog-causing pollutants, which would replace the standards set during the Bush administration. The Obama administration’s proposal sets a primary standard for ground-level ozone of no more than 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million, to be phased in over two decades. Regions with the worst smog pollution, including much of the Northeast, Southern and Central California and the Chicago and Houston areas, would have more time than other areas to come into compliance [The New York Times]. The previous standard was 0.075 parts per million, set in 2008 despite government scientists’ objection that it was not strict enough. Smog is formed when a stew of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and methane is baked in sunlight.

The new standard won’t be cheap, but proponents say it will save money, and lives, in the long run. The EPA estimates that by 2020 the proposal will cost $19 billion to $90 billion to implement and will yield health benefits worth $13 billion to $100 billion. The proposal would result in 1,500 to 12,000 avoided premature deaths by 2020, though the precise number depends on what limit the agency adopts [Washington Post]. Smog is linked to a wide variety of heart and respiratory diseases. Currently, a majority of the counties that are required to monitor ozone levels would not meet the new standard. If the 0.070 limit is adopted, 515 of the 675 counties that monitor ozone levels would be out of compliance.

Factories, oil and gas refineries, and power companies would be required to clean up their acts. “Coal-burning power plants are the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” John Walke, a clean air lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said about the industry that could get hit hardest. He said airplanes, ships, locomotives and off-road vehicles would also be targeted, perhaps more than automobiles, which have had to cut pollution since the 1970s [Reuters].

If approved, the new rules wouldn’t be phased in for several years. Whatever limit is selected, by the end of 2013, states must submit plans showing how areas that do not attain the new standard will be brought into compliance. The new rules would be phased in between 2014 and 2031, with deadlines depending on how dirty the air is in a given region [The New York Times]. The EPA will announce the new standard at the end of a 60 period to allow for public comment.

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The EPA estimates that by 2020 the proposal will cost $19 billion to $90 billion to implement and will yield health benefits worth $13 billion to $100 billion.

13 to 100?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The proposal would result in 1,500 to 12,000 avoided premature deaths by 2020...

link

The prevention of premature deaths is a drag on Social Security.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

13 to 100?

Congress Maths

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Congress Maths

Notice how the high end of that obscenely large range is what makes it into the headline

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

Notice how the high end of that obscenely large range is what makes it into the headline

and since when was congress right about the price of a project?

[SMR 368]

link

The only reason estimates are that broad is that someone doesn't want to know the real answer. The newspapers and EPA are keeping these estimates hugely vague so that there is some overlap that would imply a cost savings might occur. We're talking about billions of dollars and the best they can do is 19 to 90 and 13 to 100. The smart money has always been that if someone says something will cost from 19 to 90 billion dollars, it means that if they get lucky it will come in under 90 (double that if the government is involved). And if someone says they can save you between 13 and 100 billion, it means they'll break 14 if everything works out.

Saving lives would be a stronger case, if this whole article weren't so full of fuzzy math that the 1,500 to 12,000 number is about as sound as Bernie Madoff's retirement plan.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Notice how the high end of that obscenely large range is what makes it into the headline

It's pretty difficult to come with a more precise number based on so many variables, but the general understanding that air pollution contributes to health problems and death, which costs money to the states, is clear.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's pretty difficult to come with a more precise number based on so many variables ...

Sure.

Of course, you do understand that the larger the range, the more variance is expected in the final number? That is, large ranges imply a large margin of error.

Also... if the estimate range is x to y where y-x = almost 7x.... don't you find it odd that the headline number would be y? It's almost as if they're not simply reporting something, but actively trying to sell us something.

[Craneman 2]

The only reason estimates are that broad is that someone doesn't want to know the real answer. The newspapers and EPA are keeping these estimates hugely vague so that there is some overlap that would imply a cost savings might occur. We're talking about billions of dollars and the best they can do is 19 to 90 and 13 to 100. The smart money has always been that if someone says something will cost from 19 to 90 billion dollars, it means that if they get lucky it will come in under 90 (double that if the government is involved). And if someone says they can save you between 13 and 100 billion, it means they'll break 14 if everything works out.

Saving lives would be a stronger case, if this whole article weren't so full of fuzzy math that the 1,500 to 12,000 number is about as sound as Bernie Madoff's retirement plan.

If we are truely concerned with saving lives and the cost of health care related to polution,

We need to legislate away all toacco this would save much more then $100M.

Were is Algore on this issue?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

13 to 100?

Re-title the thread to fuzzy liberal math.

[SMR 368]

It's pretty difficult to come with a more precise number based on so many variables, but the general understanding that air pollution contributes to health problems and death, which costs money to the states, is clear.

So the numbers are imprecise but you are sure that the savings are more than the cost?

[Jasman0717 9]

We're talking about billions of dollars and the best they can do is 19 to 90 and 13 to 100. The smart money has always been that if someone says something will cost from 19 to 90 billion dollars, it means that if they get lucky it will come in under 90 (double that if the government is involved). And if someone says they can save you between 13 and 100 billion, it means they'll break 14 if everything works out.

Wow, billions don't mean anything any more 13 to 100 billion....I have no comprehension of that much money Give me a billion, i'll buy an island somewhere, write a constitution, make ties with the US and get my share of foreign aid