Deflation: Even your life is worth less today,
according to EPA
July 1, 2008
It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government
agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be.
The “value of a statistical life” is $6.9 million in today's dollars,
the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May – a drop of nearly
$1 million from just five years ago.
Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the
devaluation has real consequences.
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human
life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed
rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a
regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.
Consider, for example, 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.
Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing
the value to avoid tougher rules – a charge the EPA denies.
“It appears that they're cooking the books in regards to the value
of life,” said S. William Becker, executive director of the National
Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local
air pollution regulators. “Those decisions are literally a matter of
life and death.”
Dan Esty, a senior EPA policy official in the administration of
the first President Bush and now director of the Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy, said: “It's hard to imagine that it
has other than a political motivation.”
Agency officials say they were just following what the science told them.
The EPA figure is not based on people's earning capacity, or
their potential contributions to society, or how much they are
loved and needed by their friends and family – some of the factors
used in insurance claims and wrongful-death lawsuits.
Instead, economists calculate the value based on what people are
willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and on how much extra employers
pay their workers to take on additional risks. Most of the data is drawn
from payroll statistics; some comes from opinion surveys. According to
the EPA, people shouldn't think of the number as a price tag on a life.
The EPA made the changes in two steps. First, in 2004, the agency
cut the estimated value of a life by 8 percent. Then, in a rule governing
train and boat air pollution this May, the agency took away the normal
adjustment for one year's inflation. Between the two changes, the value
of a life fell 11 percent, based on today's dollar.
EPA officials say the adjustment was not significant and was based
on better economic studies. The reduction reflects consumer preferences,
said Al McGartland, director of the EPA's office of policy, economics
and innovation.
“It's our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to
reduce similar risks to their own lives,” McGartland said.
But the EPA's cut “doesn't make sense,” said Vanderbilt University
economist Kip Viscusi. The EPA partly based its reduction on his work.
“As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go
up as well. It has to.” Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans
are less willing to pay to reduce risks.
At the same time that the EPA was trimming the value of life, the
Department of Transportation twice raised its life value figure. But its
number is still lower than the EPA's.
The EPA traditionally has put the highest value on life of any government
agency and still does, despite efforts by administrations to bring uniformity
to that figure among all departments.
Other, similar calculations by the Bush administration have proved
politically explosive. In 2002, the EPA decided the value of elderly people
was 38 percent less than that of people under 70. After the move became
public, the agency reversed itself.
Your humble Ace Reporter
Bob