Hacker News Reader

The point is that the costs aren't detailed.

467 pages. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/naaqs-pm_...

Not only is there a cost detailed, it's incredibly detailed, but instead of talking about how it was (obviously) detailed if you bothered to click two links, I'm wondering what cost 4,200 premature deaths would you consider not worth the change?

$4 trillion dollars. Even $100 billion.

For 4000 lives saved, and at a valuation of roughly $7 to $9 Million/life (US) to be consistent with US gov’t engineering practices and regulations, perhaps $30 to $40 billion to be consistent with other US policy initiatives.

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States

If you even spend, say, $100 Billion on this environmental concern (implicitly valuing $25M/life), you will underinvest in other governmental activities (e.g. DOT) that valued life at $9M/life, so reprogramming funds from air pollution to DOT would be estimated to save more lives. At first SWAG (linearity/hand-waving) implicitly accepting an additional 6000 lives lost due to such a misinvestment.

Fantastic, it's below both of those values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com