From: jhurst@amb4.ese.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Valuing the health benefits of clean air
Summary: Cost of operation and cost of abatement shouldn't be confused...
Keywords: Stop the Orygun Chainsaw Massacre, etc, etc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:44:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.41566
Distribution: usa
Organization: sadly lacking

Mark Wilson writes:
>I, Jim Hurst, wrote:

[regarding 03 and PM10 pollution in the south coast air basin, aka LA:

>>increased risk of death due to PM10 (particulate matter, 10 microns) exposure 
>>is 1/10,000. (For contrast, the risk of dying in a car accident is 2 in 10000,
>>and the risk of job related death is 0.5 in 10,000) 
>
>>They estimate the annual economic value of avoiding these effects at 9.8
>>billion dollars, and that attaining air pollution standards may save 1600 
>>lives a year.
>
>How many lives could be saved if that 9.8 million would be applied to say
                                           ^^^^^^^
Note that it's billion, not million.

>cancer or aids research.  And *please* don't tell me that we should have
>enough money to spend on both.

The figure of 9.8 billion represents the estimated societal *cost* of LA air 
pollution from these researchers, not the cost of abating it, an important 
distinction.  This is the value of the pollution-related health effects, as 
estimated from cost of illness, willingness to pay, and willingness to accept.  
(The first is wage data, the others fuzzier measures).  So this is an 
externalized current operating cost, not a cost of mitigation.

With a cost of this magnitude, it behooves us to look very hard at abatement 
alternatives: if the status quo costs $816 per capita per annum in health 
effects, it is quite likely that considerable savings are achievable.  

The key question is what strategies are available to reduce this pollution, 
and therefore its health effects, and how much these strategies cost.  
Suppose, ferinstance (not likely, of course) the entire 9+ billion in health 
effects could be eliminated by an investment of 1 billion.  Then making such 
an investment would look like a Good Idea, and we could start bickering about 
how to pay for it.  This being the real world, it's unlikely the cost/benefit 
ratio will be this favorable.

>Saving lives is a very noble goal.  At the same time why don't we try
>to get the maximum bang for the buck.

Indeed.  I agree with the sentiment.  Understanding the processes at work 
is often the first step.  Unfortunately, human epidemiology is messy, 
exspensive, and slow.  There's this terrible lack of volunteers for long 
term study...

>6.1 million dollars per life saved does not seem very cost effective.

What you are presumably getting at is the valuation of life used by Hall 
et all.  Remember this value is not to "save a life," it is the cost of 
a life taken.  They present no estimates of the marginal cost of saving one
of these lives.  They used 3 values, with low, medium and high values of 1.8M, 
4.0M, and 9.2M $ per life.  (Since vulnerable segments of the population are
the ones likely to die, these become "statistical lives," see the article
for more on that.)  Assigning a dollar value to a human life is a political 
valuation, not a technical one, probably best discussed elsewhere. There is 
a long, robust literature on the valuation of human life, and it seems 
pointless to go into it here.

The 9.8 billion figure includes health effects of 03 (non-fatal, but possibly
debilitating), Reduced Activity Days, and PM10.  The PM10 is responsible for 
the mortality, but only part of the total cost.  The cost of 03-related health 
effects is estimated at 2.7 billion, and of RADs at 775 million.  So the deaths
are given a value of 2.9 B to 14.9B, with a best estimate of 6.4 B, which 
amounts to 4M  per life.  

>Note:  Their have been recent studies that seek to show that decreased
>economic growth is also bad for potential health.  That is, basically.
>A wealthier economy has more money to spend on health.  Both health
>services for citizens and more research.  

There is no doubt that environmental protection, and in this case, the health
benefits thereof, is a luxury.  Luxuries are to be found in wealthy societies.  
The question is always, "Where do we go from here?"  What are the cost/benefits 
of our various options?  Is it our society can achieve that 1600 people die 
each year from automotive air pollution in the LA basin?  That children in the 
basin suffer possibly permanent lung damage so we can commute?  (For info on 
the chronic effects of ozone, see Morton Lippman's paper in Envir. Sci. & Tech, 
V. 25, No. 12, 1991, "Health effects of tropospheric ozone."  The gist on 
chronic effects is that they're damn tough to measure, but there seems to be
a "functional adaptation" which persists for at least a few months.  Other
studies suggest premature aging of the lungs.)  Given the average citizen is 
suffering $289 of health impact per year, is there some way we can significantly
reduce that impact for significantly less than $289 per year?  How many bus
passes can one buy for $289 p/a?  How many electric cars?  How much mass 
transit can be built for $289 * 12 M?   These fun questions are directed to 
misc.transit, btw, being inappropriate here.

($289 is the average impact of the 03 effects and the RADs, so it IS an average,
whereas the increased mortality can assumed to be a discrete quantity that is
distributed unequally across the population, eh?)

>The studies I have heard about
>put a figure of 7.5 to 20 million dollars per extra death per year.
>These studies are still controversial and not excepted by all.
>The lower figure of 7.5 million per extra death is getting awful
>close to your figure of 6.1 million per life saved.

Interesting theme, would you care to elucidate it a bit?  Your meaning is a
bit vague.  Would you be so kind as to give us the references and summarize 
the authors main points here?  Thanks,

						Jim
Newsgroups: sci.environment