Cost-Benefit Analysis

Not too long ago, after much study, the EPA issued a new rule to reduce (not eliminate) toxic mercury emissions at our nation's coal-fired utility power plants.  Seems like a pretty good idea to me -- myself, I'm not keen on inhaling or ingesting too much mercury, but that can happen when you burn shit-tons of fossil fuels like coal.

True to form, the utility industry sued the EPA in an attempt to reverse the ruling.  The power company plaintiffs claimed that the EPA did not "initially" consider compliance costs to utility companies when making it's decision.  Their suit made it all the way to the Supreme Court.  In a 5-4 call, The Robes agreed with the utility companies -- before reducing the poisonous pollution power plants are allowed to spew into the air, we must first ask what it costs.

As Justice Kagan pointed out, the EPA certainly did consider costs, initially and for many years after, until it rendered its ruling.  More to the point, what is the cost of inaction?  What's the cost of the status quo?  Is cost really more important than public health?  I'm real sorry, utility companies, but you're the ones who built these coal-burning plants ages ago.  If your technology is outdated and toxic, that's your problem.  Stop acting like you have a right to poison us just so you can burn cheap, dirty coal for a while longer.

"Hey, Vern!  It's your ol' buddy Earnest.  You care about pollution, and smog, and burning coal, and the EPA and all that, Vern?  Me neither, ol' buddy.  Cost is all I care about.  Long as my bills don't go up too much, the future can go piss up a rope.  Can I offer ya some more mercury, Vern?"            

Sounds like a whole bunch of jiggery-pokery to me.