air quality, biofuels, cancer, clean air act, Clean Water Act, co-benefits, cost benefit, cost benefit analysis, crop failure, crop losses, deregulation, EPA, extreme weather, fire, food, health, life-shortening effects, local, nuclear industry, nuclear waste, oil and gas industry, pollution, property damage, pruitt, public health, public health benefits, radioactive waste, Regulation, renewable energy, Solar, state, tidal energy, Transparency, Trump, Trump Administration, value of life, water quality, weather, wind
Re: Cost Considerations in Rulemaking Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107 Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule Comment Deadline Monday August 13th, 11.59 pm: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107
One Comment submitted by the public:
“The basic premise that environmental protection rules cost business more than the benefits to the public and public health is erroneous. For every dollar spent of increased costs, $2 to $12 is saved in public health.
Furthermore, the environmental costs to the public are not shared by the businesses that benefit from a relaxation of environmental protections; the taxpayers are on the hook for the harm caused by businesses to the public good.
We need clean air, water, and soil to continue to exist as a nation.
We already have higher health costs than other industrialized nations. If environmental protections are relaxed or ended, those costs will skyrocket.
We must protect our climate and resources in order to be a powerful nation. We must have a healthy workforce. We must grow the crops we need to survive. Only our environmental protection measures stand between us and disaster.
With droughts, flooding, and other catastrophic weather events becoming common occurences, we must do everything we can to protect out climate. That includes reining in fossil fuel exploration and exploitation.
It includes fostering new ways to produce energy and transport people and goods.
Our current challenge is to make big changes in the way we do business, and that means we must really look at long-term costs and benefits in the rulemaking process. That means we must have transparency and be consistent in applying the rules that protect the common good. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107-0154
Many more comments are found at the regulations web site. A more detailed comment is here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/trump-epa-cost-benefit-analysis-pre-rulemaking-comment-deadline-is-monday-august-13th-11-59-pm-eastern/
The above is separate from, but related to, the Thursday, August 16th, comment deadline: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/usdoe-spent-18-years-and-over-a-quarter-of-a-billion-dollars-but-failed-to-prove-low-level-radiation-is-safe-because-its-not-august-16th-comment-deadline-re-dangerous-trump-pruitt-epa-proposal/
Emphasis our own.