Pollution control costs can be reframed as immediate health harms clashing with future benefits

Evidence

The short-term economic costs of complying with environmental protection controls are almost always susceptible to being reconceived as having their own adverse implications for human health, which renders unavoidable a clash between competing human health concerns. A wealthier society, some argue, is a healthier society. Greater societal affluence means a higher standard of living; more people enjoy better and healthier food and drink, put less strain on their bodies, and receivebettermedical care, all of which result in signifi- cantly lower incidences of illness and longer life expectancies than in poorer societies. There are, accordingly, immediate human health costs that result from society’s assuming higher pollution control costs now for the inherently speculative benefit of future generations. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 143

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Ecosystem structure guarantees that environmental costs and benefits never fall on the same people — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 132; Delayed environmental harms create regulatory cost-asymmetry and uncertainty — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 306; Dread of future environmental risk itself causes physical and economic harm — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 309 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• The chemical industry reframed carcinogen debates around human benefits #exemplifies (0.85) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1779
• Delayed environmental harms create regulatory cost-asymmetry and uncertainty #complicates (0.75) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 306
• Dread of future environmental risk itself causes physical and economic harm #complicates (0.70) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 309