More on Setback to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

In my recent post called “Setback to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” I noted:

Environmentalists everywhere were saddened that the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency with its recent ruling invalidating the EPA’s regulation of mercury and other toxic chemicals that are emitted from power plants.  But at the same time, as much as I hate to say it, the ruling is a validation of common sense…..The EPA’s position was that it could do its thing without regard to the costs incurred by the power plants.  Really?  How smart was that? 

Obviously we don’t want cancer, mass extinctions, and profound environmental damage.  But wouldn’t basic rationality have dictated that we at least consider the costs associated with minimizing them?

2GreenEnergy supporter Cameron Atwood asks:  I suppose one of my first questions would be – the cost according to what accounting?

According to what I read, it doesn’t really matter; the SCOTUS simply said that costs need to be considered, which makes eminent sense to me.  That’s why I’m not at all peeved with the ruling; how hard would it have been to put some impoverished grad student to work for a few weeks and work up a spreadsheet?

I’m sure you’re implying that the externalities of coal-fired power plants should be considered; I agree 100%.