Fun Facts: Air pollution costs vs. campaign costs
by Bill Chameides | October 26th, 2012
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)
In which we do a little cost-benefit analyzing of some spending matters. (All numbers below are estimates.)
Cost of Clean Air Act (CAA) 1970–1990: $523 billion
Benefits of CAA 1970–1990: $6-$50 trillion*
Annual cost [pdf] of CAA in 2010: $53 billion
Annual benefits [pdf] of CAA in 2010: $90 billion to $2.3 trillion
Per candidate cap on political spending on presidential campaigns in 1976: ~$35 million
Amount of money raised by the two presidential campaigns 2011-2012: $2 billion**
Costs of political advertising in 2012: more than $3 billion
Benefits of campaign spending: priceless …?
____________
End Note
* Included in this monetary value assessed and estimated for “the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects” of the law are 205,000 avoided American deaths.
** According to the New York Times, between January 2011 and October 17, 2012, President Obama and the Democrats had raised some $1.06 billion and Governor Romney and the Republicans had raised some $954 million.
filed under: faculty, health, politicsand: air pollution, Barack Obama, Clean Air Act, legislation, Mitt Romney, public health
1 Comment
All comments are moderated and limited to 275 words. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Read our Comment Guidelines for more details.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Another Week of GW News, October 28, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered - [...] 2012/10/26: GreenGrok: Fun Facts: Air pollution costs vs. campaign costs [...]













It seems to me that government’s highest purpose is to serve the broad public good (such as clean air), but that government is more often looked at as a way to increase one’s own personal good, usually at the expense of others.
We need to be looking more at numbers like these, and not just slick slogans or quips.