The environmental health of the world has become increasingly a part of the economic discourse for many countries. This is reflected in two articles recently featured in The Economist (The Economist staff) (The Economist staff). The burning of fossil fuels, long taken for granted as a driver of economic development, is now identified with massive climate change trends. For some nations, fossil fuel prices have been subsidized for many years. This practice is receiving a wide and searching re-examination. Its economic impacts have may have been more negative than positive (The Economist staff). Although there are direct economic reasons for considering discontinuing fossil fuel subsidies, there are other, less immediately obvious long-term benefits to taking a hard look at environmental policy. Nations may find that environmental improvement has economic benefits for individual citizens as well, and thus, for the whole country. Research suggests that lifetime health and income outcomes are worsened by exposure to air pollution. This may go against expectation because heavy industry is usually associated with prosperity, in popular thinking. However, long-term comparisons of areas that implemented air quality regulations with those that did not demonstrate that reduced pollution improved both chronic disease morbidity and adult labor market performance (The Economist staff). In their article on fossil fuels subsidies, the Economist’s writers note that several countries are contemplating reducing fuel subsidies. These include Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, and India. Their governments have been spending substantial percentages of their gross domestic product on such subsidies. The article cites a global figure of 2 trillion dollars spent on underwriting fossil fuel use, or more than 8%, when losses due to sacrificed tax revenues are taken into account. The article also notes that these expenditures are non-productive. They lead to inefficiencies in the economy, perhaps because due to unresponsiveness to market forces. Another problem is subsidies make national governments vulnerable to unpredictable budgetary expansion when the price of fossil fuel jumps. The government must pay the world market price, no matter the price charged to consumers or transportation systems. The most severe indictment of fossil fuels subsidies asserted by the authors of this article is that the benefit of any fuel subsidy accrues not to the poor of a country, but rather to the wealthy. This is an eye opening insight and supports the idea that all that money could be better spent on improving the economic potential of the poorest citizens. However, increased energy costs raise the cost of living, and this is one potent objection to eliminating fuel subsidies. This can be an inflammatory move on the part of a government, and the article cites popular protests against subsidy cuts in places like Malaysia. This article brings to light an element in the economic health of a nation that may be new to many student readers. These subsidies, doubtless well-meant, may have the effect of sapping the economy of significant resources, while at the same time, not helping the people it should help (The Economist staff). The danger that this student sees is that the benefits could go to industrial interests tha