WEBVTT

00:00:09.434 --> 00:00:10.850
GUEST SPEAKER:
Governor, thank you

00:00:10.850 --> 00:00:14.180
so much for asking me to outline
a comprehensive cost-benefit

00:00:14.180 --> 00:00:16.940
analysis, regaring
decision making

00:00:16.940 --> 00:00:19.690
over a long delayed clean up
of a highly polluted Superfund

00:00:19.690 --> 00:00:21.230
site.

00:00:21.230 --> 00:00:23.360
As we know, underground
storage tanks at the site

00:00:23.360 --> 00:00:26.840
have leaked into nearby
wetlands and cleanup is expected

00:00:26.840 --> 00:00:29.650
to cost $35 million or more.

00:00:29.650 --> 00:00:31.880
The debate centers around
the city's eagerness

00:00:31.880 --> 00:00:33.720
to reuse this site
for a new mall.

00:00:33.720 --> 00:00:35.600
And who should be
held accountable

00:00:35.600 --> 00:00:38.450
for the costs associated with
this clean up, as the state

00:00:38.450 --> 00:00:40.700
government has no
funds, and the company

00:00:40.700 --> 00:00:43.310
responsible for the damage has
since gone out of business,

00:00:43.310 --> 00:00:46.702
leaving even no
clients remaining.

00:00:46.702 --> 00:00:49.160
Including an alterior road that
would link to the Superfund

00:00:49.160 --> 00:00:51.470
site to a nearby
highway would provide

00:00:51.470 --> 00:00:53.660
additional accessibility,
and consequently

00:00:53.660 --> 00:00:56.090
more business for the
mall, perhaps justifying

00:00:56.090 --> 00:00:58.250
more government spending.

00:00:58.250 --> 00:01:00.590
As you know, Governor,
multiple parties

00:01:00.590 --> 00:01:02.320
are pressuring you
in this decision,

00:01:02.320 --> 00:01:03.860
and there is no
consensus as to who

00:01:03.860 --> 00:01:06.800
should bear the cost of
ensuring the site is safe

00:01:06.800 --> 00:01:09.150
and of redeveloping the site.

00:01:09.150 --> 00:01:11.720
You asked me to outline a
comprehensive cost-benefit

00:01:11.720 --> 00:01:14.919
analysis that can be done to
help answer this question.

00:01:14.919 --> 00:01:16.960
I would argue that a
cost-benefit analysis should

00:01:16.960 --> 00:01:19.850
not in fact be used in this
decision-making process,

00:01:19.850 --> 00:01:21.880
as I believe the method
is deeply flawed,

00:01:21.880 --> 00:01:23.840
and may lead to
misleading results,

00:01:23.840 --> 00:01:26.315
exacerbating feelings of
poorly distributed benefits

00:01:26.315 --> 00:01:27.290
among parties.

00:01:32.625 --> 00:01:35.180
While proponents of
cost-benefit analysis

00:01:35.180 --> 00:01:38.220
assert that it, 1, results in
the more efficient allocation

00:01:38.220 --> 00:01:42.353
of resources and, 2, provides
objectivity and transparency,

00:01:42.353 --> 00:01:46.170
in a paper titled Pricing
the Priceless by Frank

00:01:46.170 --> 00:01:49.615
Ackerman and Lisa
Heinzerling, the authors

00:01:49.615 --> 00:01:52.140
argue against these
arguments by illuminating

00:01:52.140 --> 00:01:56.040
four fundamental flaws
to cost-benefit analysis.

00:01:56.040 --> 00:01:58.710
I will outline some of these
fundamental flaws in relation

00:01:58.710 --> 00:02:01.230
to the case the Superfund
site and provide thoughts

00:02:01.230 --> 00:02:03.600
for an alternative approach.

00:02:03.600 --> 00:02:05.640
The first fundamental
flaw centers around it

00:02:05.640 --> 00:02:08.220
cost-benefit
analysis, the process

00:02:08.220 --> 00:02:10.650
of reducing life, health,
and the natural world

00:02:10.650 --> 00:02:12.630
to monetary values.

00:02:12.630 --> 00:02:15.030
For example, according
to cost-benefit analysis,

00:02:15.030 --> 00:02:16.890
preventing the
extinction of bald eagles

00:02:16.890 --> 00:02:20.850
is worth $250 per household.

00:02:20.850 --> 00:02:22.570
And saving a human
life is calculated

00:02:22.570 --> 00:02:25.640
to be worth $6.3 million.

00:02:25.640 --> 00:02:28.270
For the people in this scenario
that we're talking about today,

00:02:28.270 --> 00:02:32.390
a risk of toxic poisoning due to
the previous industrial factory

00:02:32.390 --> 00:02:35.210
operations at the site,
the price of their health,

00:02:35.210 --> 00:02:37.979
and even their lives, cannot
be assigned a finite amount

00:02:37.979 --> 00:02:39.950
of money.

00:02:39.950 --> 00:02:41.930
Furthermore, the
$6.3 million figure

00:02:41.930 --> 00:02:44.450
is not considered by the
cost-benefit analysis

00:02:44.450 --> 00:02:49.940
to be a price of life, but
the cost of the risk of death.

00:02:49.940 --> 00:02:52.280
According to
Ackerman, in this way

00:02:52.280 --> 00:02:55.190
the cost-benefit analysis
equates the risks

00:02:55.190 --> 00:02:57.680
of death with death
itself, which are actually

00:02:57.680 --> 00:03:01.140
two different calculations.

00:03:01.140 --> 00:03:03.560
The second, cost-benefit
analysis ignores the reality

00:03:03.560 --> 00:03:05.450
that citizens are
concerned about risks

00:03:05.450 --> 00:03:08.150
to others and in addition
to their concern about risk

00:03:08.150 --> 00:03:09.840
to themselves.

00:03:09.840 --> 00:03:12.110
If we do a cost-benefit
analysis looking

00:03:12.110 --> 00:03:14.600
at the rebuilding of
the Superfund site,

00:03:14.600 --> 00:03:17.150
our analysis can't
quantify the value

00:03:17.150 --> 00:03:19.310
to our townspeople
people of the lives

00:03:19.310 --> 00:03:22.310
and health of their relatives,
and friends, and even

00:03:22.310 --> 00:03:23.292
strangers in the town.

00:03:26.600 --> 00:03:28.880
Thirdly, cost-benefit
analysis fails

00:03:28.880 --> 00:03:30.740
to address the collective
choice presented

00:03:30.740 --> 00:03:34.115
to society, as its valuation
of environmental benefits

00:03:34.115 --> 00:03:38.100
is based only individual's
private decision as consumers,

00:03:38.100 --> 00:03:41.810
and not collective
decisions as citizens.

00:03:41.810 --> 00:03:44.680
For example, a
study by Mark Sagoff

00:03:44.680 --> 00:03:47.820
found that his students
in their role as citizens

00:03:47.820 --> 00:03:50.170
opposed commercial ski
development of a wilderness

00:03:50.170 --> 00:03:53.120
area, but in their role
as consumers would plan

00:03:53.120 --> 00:03:56.900
to ski there if it were actually
built. So in this scenario,

00:03:56.900 --> 00:03:59.810
cost-benefit analysis could
take into account only

00:03:59.810 --> 00:04:01.940
our towns peoples'
willingness to pay

00:04:01.940 --> 00:04:04.640
for a new mall as
individuals and consumers,

00:04:04.640 --> 00:04:08.040
and not how they value this
site and its environmental

00:04:08.040 --> 00:04:12.714
and community value as citizens.

00:04:12.714 --> 00:04:14.380
In addition, there
are fundamental flaws

00:04:14.380 --> 00:04:15.960
and the use of discounting.

00:04:15.960 --> 00:04:18.390
While discounting acknowledges
that individuals believe

00:04:18.390 --> 00:04:22.019
it is better for them to suffer
harm later rather than sooner,

00:04:22.019 --> 00:04:24.190
it doesn't address the
very, very long term,

00:04:24.190 --> 00:04:26.970
where discounting its a
choice between preventing harm

00:04:26.970 --> 00:04:30.330
to the current generation
and preventing similar harms

00:04:30.330 --> 00:04:33.270
to future generations.

00:04:33.270 --> 00:04:35.770
And discounting also assumes
that environmental problems

00:04:35.770 --> 00:04:37.960
won't get any worse if
we wait to address them,

00:04:37.960 --> 00:04:40.450
and that technology
will keep evolving

00:04:40.450 --> 00:04:44.880
so that future solutions
will do more and cost less.

00:04:44.880 --> 00:04:46.810
Therefore, if we do a
cost-benefit analysis

00:04:46.810 --> 00:04:49.510
for the remediation of
this Superfund site,

00:04:49.510 --> 00:04:52.830
we cannot take into account
the possibility that we find

00:04:52.830 --> 00:04:56.710
an additional or irreversible
toxic pollution source that we

00:04:56.710 --> 00:05:00.190
do not currently know exists.

00:05:00.190 --> 00:05:03.460
Based on these fundamental
flaws in cost-benefit analysis

00:05:03.460 --> 00:05:05.560
outlined by Ackerman
and Heizerling,

00:05:05.560 --> 00:05:08.410
we cannot expect such an
analysis to be either objective

00:05:08.410 --> 00:05:10.520
or transparent.

00:05:10.520 --> 00:05:12.180
In fact, the
cost-benefit analysis

00:05:12.180 --> 00:05:14.742
relies on a series of
assumptions and value

00:05:14.742 --> 00:05:17.100
judgements that are
far from objective.

00:05:17.100 --> 00:05:18.600
As a result, I don't
think we should

00:05:18.600 --> 00:05:21.940
use a cost-benefit
analysis for our analysis.

00:05:21.940 --> 00:05:23.850
But rather, I think
we should look

00:05:23.850 --> 00:05:26.880
to past situations of
Superfund site remediation

00:05:26.880 --> 00:05:28.740
that may add in our
understanding of how

00:05:28.740 --> 00:05:32.520
other towns have addressed
such complex situations

00:05:32.520 --> 00:05:35.880
and undertake economic analyzes
of various past planning

00:05:35.880 --> 00:05:39.450
decisions that could
inform our own situation.

00:05:39.450 --> 00:05:41.460
Another idea would
be to potentially--

00:05:41.460 --> 00:05:43.810
based on public
town hall hearings--

00:05:43.810 --> 00:05:45.870
move toward the
consideration of a local vote

00:05:45.870 --> 00:05:48.902
to decide whether a tax can be
applied to the town's citizens

00:05:48.902 --> 00:05:51.020
and collected into
a pool that will

00:05:51.020 --> 00:05:55.467
go towards cleaning the site
and rebuilding the mall.

00:05:55.467 --> 00:05:58.050
I look forward to continuing to
analyze alternative approaches

00:05:58.050 --> 00:06:00.180
to evaluate our best
options going forward

00:06:00.180 --> 00:06:02.670
in this complex situation.