So, like most good red-blooded American 20-somethings, I'm a big fan of The Colbert Report; it's one of the few things on television that I will actually make time to sit down and watch on a first run.
If you're bothering to read a blog at all you're probably already familiar with the show, like it or not, so I'll get right to the point. Last night's show featured "The Word" segment, in which the word was "Priceless". The gist was that the EPA has lowered the value of a "statistical life" from an estimated $7.8 million to $6.9 million over the last five years, in an attempt to avoid placing regulations on American industry.
It breaks down like this: based on such measurements as payroll stats and opinion surveys, the EPA calculates how much consumers are willing to pay to protect against risks and what employers pay their hires to take on those risks during the job. More information can be found through this AP story.
With this data the EPA and Congress adopt regulation and law based on cost-benefit effectiveness. To use the AP's example:
"Consider...a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted."
As the AP reports, the EPA says this shouldn't be viewed as a "price tag on a life." Maybe. At least not in the most literal sense. But what we are talking about here is how much we (theoretically) are willing to shell out to cover our own asses from various things that can harm us if imposed upon us (tainted food, dangerous work environments, release of pollutants, etc.)
My first question coming off reading all this was why is this even a fucking issue? Why are we having a circle-jerk about how much is too much to make living quality better for American citizens, and ostensibly global citizens – because the shit that we do here with our water, land and air (specifically air) affects a good portion of planetary climate and conditions. Why the need for this dehumanizing dicking around with “statistical lives”? What kind of patriarchal expendable-population bullshit is this?
After biting down on a piece of leather for a few minutes and going to my happy place, I tried to take a step back. Okay, so on the surface this whole cost of life deal may seem like a despicable application of utilitarianism. But the fact is, there's only so much money in the coffers at any one point and we have to figure out where and how to apply it. Inconvenient act of life.
So let's take another look at where this American life monetization comes from (and by the by, the EPA is not the only federal department that writes up figures like this; there are several. Hell, the Transportation Department's is even lower.) The EPA says it's based of consumer evaluation. “Consumers” initially might make you think of folk like you and me, the normal citizens who work the jobs and breathe the air and pay the taxes. But looking further, we get a better idea of what the title consumer is supposed to refer to here.
A lot of this data comes from collectivist business entities – corporations – who have to pay employees more for hazardous work and have to change the way they do business based off environmental regulation. Because corporations have almost all the same rights as legal persons, they are “consumers”: they consume and use energy, resources, products and labor. When a group like Exxon-Mobil or Phillip-Morris is asked what the value of keeping their employees healthy and looking after the welfare of their industrial sites – cutting into their bottom line – how do you think they're going to answer?
Because these business entities have almost exactly the same rights as individuals, but with far more access and ability to wield raw and monetary resources, they have a huge sway on how these kinds of decisions go both in the executive and legislative branches of government. It's here interesting to point out that the EPA and Congress have been in a long-standing game of hot potato over who's responsibility it is to act on climate change and other environmental/health issues.
So these bougie motherfuckers are almost invariably going to sell short their human resources and physical sustainability for short-term profit, because hey, that shit's expensive.
But if the EPA and Congress were to actually consult and listen the populace (especially Congress, seeing as in a democratic republic they are theoretically supposed to do what we will), I think the American life value would be a hell of a lot higher. It might mean a spending more on these regulatory legislations, but there's a lot of places we could be dipping for that cash. How many billions is it going to cost for us to bail out Fanny Mae? When I talk to people out in the world, the biggest problem they seem to have with taxation in this country isn't so much the amount they pay, but how little they see of it in their lives.
If they were presented with the choice of propping up failing banks and padding energy industry coffers, or better ensuring the health and safety of their siblings, parents, children, themselves...I can wager a guess as to how that's going to swing.
Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment