Last month, I wrote a column about the challenges journalists face in covering the ethical decisions that affect humanity’s response to global climate change. Well here’s a doozie: What is a human life worth — not in any abstract, existential sense, but in cold, hard dollars?
That was the subject of a keenly important article by The Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein yesterday, who discovered that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has discounted the “value of statistical life” by almost $1 million over the last five years. The practice of monetizing life at all sounds nefarious, but, according a Forbes article from last January, it “makes sense” in a world in which we expect government to protect its citizens from things like global warming:
Although some may consider it immoral to even raise the question of the dollar value of life, risk regulation agencies can’t avoid doing so. We would soon exhaust all of our resources if we tried to do everything that would make our lives safer. A zero pollution, risk-free society is unattainable.
Borenstein’s piece for the AP reflects this same rationale:
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.
When it comes to the agency’s latest changes to the value of a statistical life, however, Borenstein adds an extremely important caveat:
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.
A specific regulation would be something like a cap-and-trade scheme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In my column about covering the ethics of such legislation, I quoted a long feature from the May issue of Scientific American that explained how the difference between economic projections that say the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action and those that say the opposite comes down to a set of moral decisions. Among these considerations, the author wrote, is the fact that:
Many people, some living, others yet to be born, will die from the effects of climate change. Is each death equally bad? How bad are those deaths collectively? Many people will die before they bear children, so climate change will prevent the existence of children who would otherwise have been born. Is their nonexistence a bad thing? By emitting greenhouse gases, are the rich perpetrating an injustice on the world’s poor? How should we respond to the small but real chance that climate change could lead to worldwide catastrophe?