It Would Cost Money to Save Lives, So, We Shouldn't Do It

Things that make you go, "Huh?"

The Environmental Protection Agency has made a finding that there is "compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health." Austin American-Statesman, December 8, 2009, Kindle Version.

The finding opens the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

Now, I think this is a no-brainer. It seems to me obvious that there is "compelling scientific evidence." However, clearly, reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people could disagree on the point, and many do.

That disagreement, however, is different from the response of U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Did they disagree with the conclusion that there was "compelling scientific evidence" that Americans' health was being hurt by manmade greenhouse gases? No. That was not their response. Their response was - it's going to cost money to reduce greenhouse gases, therefore we shouldn't do it, the health of Americans be damned.

Actually, the precise words were, "'It will choke off growth by addding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,' said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ... ."

Um. Okay. So do fire codes. If we didn't have to build buildings with two exits so people could escape in case of fire, they'd be cheaper. Explain that to the people who were burned to death in the Lame Horse nightclub fire in Russia. "Hey! It's okay you were roasted! The building was cheaper! Get it?"

So do other kinds of health rules for buildings. If we could use asbestos insulation in buildings, they'd be cheaper. Everyone would get asbestosis, but the buildings would be cheaper, don't you know?

Or electrical codes. Or plumbing codes. Or lighting codes. Or elevator safety codes. Gee, buildings would be so much cheaper if we just didn't have all these pesky codes protecting people, of all things. I mean, what do people matter when you're talking construction costs? First things first, you know?

Fine, argue with me about whether the world needs saving from global warming. I don't think there's much to argue about there, but at least we can have a principled argument. But, when you start in that it will cost too much to save the world, I'm getting off your train. I'm not going there.

And, the fact that, for some reason, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks there are Americans who will agree - it just costs too much to save humanity - is deeply troubling.