[ad_1]
The Clean Water Act really helped the United States to recover. In fact, between 1972 and 2001, the share of US waters clean enough to be fished increased by 12%. This is apparent from a study published in September that laid the most comprehensive foundation for the results of this historic rule. A study conducted by a partner on Monday reveals that all of these regulations have a cost, a cost that may even outweigh the benefits.
However, the two studies from Iowa State University and the University of California, Berkeley, suggest that these cost-benefit analyzes may lack some of the essential benefits of water quality regulation. At a time when President Donald Trump is canceling environmental regulations on the pretext of high costs, it may be essential to refine this cost-benefit analysis.
"Good regulation, good policies are laws in which the benefits outweigh the costs."
Since the law on safe water came into force in 1972, most of the pollutants regulated by it (eg faecal bacteria and industrial waste) have decreased. The authors analyzed data including 50 million US water quality measurements, collected from 1962 to 2001, to conclude that water pollutants had "decreased significantly". In theory, the law works.
In this study, however, Keizer noticed that costs seemed to outweigh the benefits. Since 1960, the government and industry have invested more than $ 1 trillion to combat water pollution. The second study, which examined 20 past assessments of water pollution policies, found that this cost was three times greater than the median benefits.
Some of the 20 analyzes in this study are funded by the government; others come from researchers like Keizer. They all help to influence the policy eventually. And overall, they find that regulating water quality does not seem worthwhile.
This is a problem.
"Good regulation, good policies, are those in which the benefits outweigh the costs," said David Keizer, professor of economics at Iowa State, co-author of the studies, for Earther.
At the same time, Keizer and his colleagues found that the way in which the analyzes measured the benefits is often low. Although the analyzes have looked at how pollution is decreasing as a result of the policy, they do not always weigh the benefits to human health and the cost. this ultimately means for the economy (although we already know that improving public health supercharges the economy).
This is partly what Keizer and the rest of the writers criticize. The Clean Water Act and similar regulations such as the US Water Rule are clearly needed, but Keizer believes that less money could be spent more efficiently. Having a more complete picture of the costs and benefits would help to achieve this goal.
"There are potentially a number of categories [of benefits] not measured this need for further examination, "he continued. "Every time pollution has health effects, these benefits are really significant."
The health benefits can be particularly high for communities near waterways that see a positive change from the Water Quality Act, Keizer said, especially for communities of color or neighborhoods. low income who suffer from pollution and health problems.
Considering these benefits can show us that environmental regulations are worth more than anyone else could realize.
Source link
