U.S. EPA Study Shows Economic Benefits of Protecting Fish from Cooling Water Intakes Greatly Exceed Cost to Industry
Since its inception, Riverkeeper has fought to stop power plants and other industries from killing fish in cooling water intakes. Closed-cycle cooling technology has been available for decades to reduce water use and environmental impacts by upwards of 95 percent but industry has fought all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid the cost of doing the right thing.
Reacting to a 2009 Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been slowly drafting regulations (known as the 316(b) Rule, for that section of the Clean Water Act) that would govern the use of surface waters for industrial cooling, the technology used to limit environmental impacts and is developing cost-benefit calculations to inform the technology choices.
Since proposing a weak rule in April 2011, the EPA collected more data, including a recent “stated preference survey” to gauge the value the American public places on ecosystem protection. The EPA’s survey demonstrated that the benefits of closed-cycle cooling outweigh the costs by more than three to one ($18 billion vs. $5 billion) and provide a greater net social benefit than any other options considered by the EPA.
Riverkeeper and 19 other environmental groups filed comments last week stating that in light of those new findings, and an independent expert analysis by environmental economist Frank Ackerman showing that a tough rule passes a cost-benefit test with flying colors, the EPA should require closed-cycle cooling nationwide.
As Ackerman stated, "Last year, EPA published a cost-benefit analysis of regulations–such as requirements for cooling towers–that would protect fish from cooling water intakes. That analysis contained a detailed calculation of the costs of regulation, but its estimate of the benefits of regulation contained an embarrassing number of blanks. EPA simply didn’t know, last year, how to place a monetary value on the huge reduction in fish mortality that would be achieved by building cooling towers.
This year, EPA released a nearly-complete study of the amounts that households would be willing to pay for saving huge numbers of fish. Drop these numbers into the blanks in last year’s cost-benefit analysis, and the answer is clear: public willingness to pay to protect fish is much greater than the cost of building cooling towers everywhere. This is true even under EPA’s unduly narrow use of the numbers, and even more so under a more natural interpretation of the new study."
In addition Reed Super, the lead attorney representing Riverkeeper and the 19 other environmental groups, said, "Until now, EPA has been comparing reasonably complete cost estimates against wildly incomplete estimates of benefits—often zeroing out or ignoring as much as 98 percent of the ecological benefits, which are harder to put a price tag on. For the first time, EPA is completing a sophisticated economic study that monetizes most of the benefits and, while it still undervalues aquatic resources in certain respects, EPA's analysis demonstrates that the benefits of protecting the biological integrity of our nation's waters from industrial cooling water withdrawals vastly outweigh the costs."
By Grayson Jaggers
The connection between the pandemic and our dietary habits is undeniable. The stress of isolation coupled with a struggling economy has caused many of us to seek comfort with our old friends: Big Mac, Tom Collins, Ben and Jerry. But overindulging in this kind of food and drink might not just be affecting your waistline, but could potentially put you at greater risk of illness by hindering your immune system.
- 15 Indigenous Crops to Boost Your Immune System and Celebrate ... ›
- 15 Supplements to Boost Your Immune System Right Now - EcoWatch ›
- Should I Exercise During the Coronavirus Pandemic? Experts ... ›
- The Immune System's Fight Against the Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
As the world continues to navigate the line between reopening and maintaining safety protocols to slow the spread of the coronavirus, rapid and accurate diagnostic screening remains critical to control the outbreak. New mobile-phone-based, self-administered COVID-19 tests being developed independently around the world could be a key breakthrough in making testing more widely available, especially in developing nations.
- FDA Approves First In-Home Test for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- When Should You Get a COVID-19 or Antibody Test? - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial Into Agency Reports ... ›
- Climate Denier Is Named to Leadership Role at NOAA - EcoWatch ›
New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.
Did you know that nearly 30% of adults do, or will, suffer from a sleep condition at some point in their life? Anyone who has experienced disruptions in their sleep is familiar with the havoc that it can wreak on your body and mind. Lack of sleep, for one, can lead to anxiety and lethargy in the short-term. In the long-term, sleep deprivation can lead to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
Fortunately, there are proven natural supplements that can reduce insomnia and improve quality sleep for the better. CBD oil, in particular, has been scientifically proven to promote relaxing and fulfilling sleep. Best of all, CBD is non-addictive, widely available, and affordable for just about everyone to enjoy. For these very reasons, we have put together a comprehensive guide on the best CBD oil for sleep. Our goal is to provide objective, transparent information about CBD products so you are an informed buyer.