Slide 1: Economic Effects of Environmental Public Policy Costs of policies – some policies have little or no direct monetary cost. (They do not require major investments of administration or resources.) Removing subsidies to special interests and denying special access to national resources can result in a more efficient and equitable operation of the economy. For example, the use of national land for cattle grazing and timber harvesting is subsidized in the U.S. Slide 2: As a result of this the real costs of these activities are borne not just by the special-interest groups that have access to these resources, but taxpayers too. Removing such subsidies can have very real political costs. kayla's slides: 1: The end analysis is determined by the value selected Non Human Environmental Components Ex: population of wild flowers, or wilderness site -depends on how willing people are to pay to preserve them *people need to be more informed on the importance of theses components and value them Cost Effectiveness -analysis is an alternative option for evaluating the costs of regulations They ask - how can our goal be achieved at the least cost? Improved human health - means reduction of work stress caused by pollution = increased worker productivity = reduction and prevention of pollution related illness Improved Agriculture and forest production Reduction fo pollution related damage More vigorous growth by removal of stress due to pollution Higher farm profits, benefits all agriculture-related industries Enhanced commercial and/ or sport fishing Increased value of fish and shellfish harvests Increased sales of boats, motors, tackle, and bait Enhancement of business serving fishermen 2: Enhancement of recreational opportunities Direct uses such as swimming and boating Indirect uses as observing wildlife Enhancement of business serving vacationers Extended lifetime of materials and less cleaning necessary Reduction of corrosive effects of pollution, extending the lifetime of metals, textiles, rubber, paints, and other coating Reduction of cleaning costs Enhancement of real estate values to have improvement we must lower the amount of pollution below the threshold levels until there are no ill effects The modest agree of cleanup benefits can out weigh costs A situation: ineffective in short time = cost effective in long term Ex- acid deposition; ground water contamination Overall: cost-benefit analysis pollution of air and surface water were bad but large sums of money has provided regulations - corrections have paid for themselves by the decrease in health cares costs - enhanced environmental quality Progress EPA accomplishments: since 1970 emmissions of six common air pollutants have decreased by 24% 1978 blood-lead levels in children 75% decline 1 billion pounds of toxic polluiton have been prevented from entering our waters each year due to waste water standards 200,000-470,000 cases of gastrointestinal illnesses each prevented by water saftey standards 1970- 73 million people upgraded sewage treatment toxic air emiisions down 39% 230 pestisides banned from use more than 141,000 clean ups of underground storage tanks have been completed since 1990 since 1980, 520 superfund sites on the national prioriteies list have received completed cleanup recycling recovery of municipal solid wastes has increaed from 7% in 1970 to 27% in 1996 Do these benefits outweight the costs? example - phase out of leaded gasoline cost EPA 3.6 billion cost benefit report 50 billion cost benefit is a part of public policy Epa and Federal agencies need to have an analysis for all new regulations 3: Some values are estimated more accurately than others Air pollution = more people seeking medical attention Regulating air pollution = decrease in # of medical cases = benefit (money + health) Medical costs are down and people have better health Difficult to estimate: depends on how much people are willing to pay for these benefits How do they decide this? Shadow pricing: asking people what they might pay for a benefit if it was up for their decision 4: *Example - to clean the air of Los Angeles homeowners were asked to place a value on improving the air quality Shadow pricing is difficult when dealing with human life To estimate the benefits of regulating pollution they calculate how many lives they will save SO: EPA calculated that new clean air standards for ozone and particulates would prevent 15,000 premature deaths a year The end analysis is determined by the value selected Non Human Environmental Components Ex: population of wild flowers, or wilderness site -depends on how willing people are to pay to preserve them *people need to be more informed on the importance of theses components and value them Cost Effectiveness -analysis is an alternative option for evaluating the costs of regulations They ask - how can our goal be achieved at the least cost? Improved human health - means reduction of work stress caused by pollution = increased worker productivity = reduction and prevention of pollution related illness Improved Agriculture and forest production Reduction fo pollution related damage More vigorous growth by removal of stress due to pollution Higher farm profits, benefits all agriculture-related industries Enhanced commercial and/ or sport fishing Increased value of fish and shellfish harvests Increased sales of boats, motors, tackle, and bait Enhancement of business serving fishermen Enhancement of recreational opportunities Direct uses such as swimming and boating Indirect uses as observing wildlife Enhancement of business serving vacationers Extended lifetime of materials and less cleaning necessary Reduction of corrosive effects of pollution, extending the lifetime of metals, textiles, rubber, paints, and other coating Reduction of cleaning costs 5: Enhancement of real estate values *to have improvement we must lower the amount of pollution below the threshold levels until there are no ill effects The modest agree of cleanup benefits can out weigh costs A situation: ineffective in short time = cost effective in long term Ex- acid deposition; ground water contamination Overall: cost-benefit analysis pollution of air and surface water were bad but large sums of money has provided regulations - corrections have paid for themselves by the decrease in health cares costs - enhanced environmental quality Progress EPA accomplishments: since 1970 emmissions of six common air pollutants have decreased by 24% 1978 blood-lead levels in children 75% decline 1 billion pounds of toxic polluiton have been prevented from entering our waters each year due to waste water standards 200,000-470,000 cases of gastrointestinal illnesses each prevented by water saftey standards 1970- 73 million people upgraded sewage treatment toxic air emiisions down 39% 230 pestisides banned from use more than 141,000 clean ups of underground storage tanks have been completed since 1990 since 1980, 520 superfund sites on the national prioriteies list have received completed cleanup recycling recovery of municipal solid wastes has increaed from 7% in 1970 to 27% in 1996 Do these benefits outweight the costs? example - phase out of leaded gasoline cost EPA 3.6 billion cost benefit report 50 billion cost benefit is a part of public policy Epa and Federal agencies need to have an analysis for all new regulations 6: Progress EPA accomplishments: since 1970 emmissions of six common air pollutants have decreased by 24% 1978 blood-lead levels in children 75% decline 1 billion pounds of toxic polluiton have been prevented from entering our waters each year due to waste water standards 200,000-470,000 cases of gastrointestinal illnesses each prevented by water saftey standards 1970- 73 million people upgraded sewage treatment toxic air emiisions down 39% 230 pestisides banned from use more than 141,000 clean ups of underground storage tanks have been completed since 1990 since 1980, 520 superfund sites on the national prioriteies list have received completed cleanup recycling recovery of municipal solid wastes has increaed from 7% in 1970 to 27% in 1996 Do these benefits outweight the costs? example - phase out of leaded gasoline cost EPA 3.6 billion cost benefit report 50 billion cost benefit is a part of public policy Epa and Federal agencies need to have an analysis for all new regulations