From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:59:04 GMT

In article <C1IzKI.JrG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>>   He was correct, because we tried in vain to buy freon anywhere in town. He
>>>was finally told that the only place to go was a garage where they have the
>>>new EPA approved delivary systems for R-12.  The cost for a garage to do this
>>>$6 job is now $110.  That is a 1733% increase in cost, and it is another
>>>example of the price we will pay for our environment.
>
>>Except it was never a $6 job.  It was $6 for the can, and $200+ for the
>>environmental damage.  Just because you didn't have to directly pay for the 
>>damage you did to the environment by wasting away the ozone, doesn't
>>mean that it was less "costly" before the regulations.
>
>  So, where did you get the $200+ figure from?  I agree that R-12 is _probably_
>bad for the earth.  To what extentent is unknown, and how people changing
>their own air conditioner coolent figures into the equation is completely 
>unknown.  Sorry, I don't buy your figures.

Neither do I.  Just a hypothetical example.  As long as you acknowledge
that the social cost of you spilling freon out there is more than the $6
you paid for the can.  

The effects of loose freon on ozone are well-known, as are the effects
of lack of ozone on cancer rates.  

>>>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>>>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>>>before they implemented the regulations?
>
>>Hey, you can pay the cost either in regulating freon usage so it doesn't
>>leak and kill the ozone, or you can pay the cost with the extra risk of
>>cancer to the next ten thousand generations.  Your call.  
>
>    What I am concerned about is a knee-jerk responce by the EPA.  Why did
>they go with this outright ban?  Whatever happened to phasing something out?

My impression is that this *is* the middle of a phase out.

>They did the phase out with leaded gas, and it worked well.  Do you honestly
>believe that freon causes such a clear and present danger as to call for the
>immediate regulation?  I think not.  

And what evidence do you base that thought on?  Why are you automatically
assuming that the Bush-run EPA didn't do a cost-benefit analysis before
getting the regulation past the Competitiveness Council?  Why didn't
Dan Quayle complain about it to the heavens?

Look, there are enough stupid regulations out there for you to find one
to pick on without complaining about something as reasonable as freon
control.

>A phasing out process over 5 years would have
>allowed people, and technology to catch up.  

It also would have caused irreparable environmental damage, the costs of
which the EPA apparentally felt outweighed the benefits of a phase-out. 
Leaving aside the fact that the EPA *is* using a phase-out.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh