Stephen Rees's blog

Hat tip to Cycling Mama on the LRC blog for this New York Times article.

It is about a controversy in the US. The White House has been doing its usual trick of doubting the science that links exposure to low level ozone with morbidity. A bit like they were doing on climate change and greenhouse gas (though they seem to have reversed that one now).

It does not apply here. For example in the SFPR studies there is an acknowledgment that local air pollution will get worse and there will be health effects. What is stunning is the effrontery of the analysis which suggests that as this will increase expenditure on healthcare that will be good for the economy! This is a well known mistake long recognised in cost benefit analysis and known as the “broken window effect”. It stems from people who used to claim that repairing broken windows was economic activity that added growth to the economy. It is, of course, nonsense. What it actually does is divert spending away from other activities that would have lead to an overall improvement in “welfare” . For example, the shopkeeper whose windows were smashed must pay to put them back as they were instead of investing the money in improvements, which would have increased his business.

It is also worth noticing that ozone is the product of emissions – mostly from gasoline powered cars – that react in sunlight. The SFPR will also increase emissions of ultrafine carbon particulates as well – and the health impacts of those are not in doubt. Diesel exhaust is a known human carcinogen – and increased truck traffic near homes and schools guarantees increased exposure to the most vulnerable members of the community – the young and the aged.

At least with the SFPR there is an admission that traffic will increase. Somehow that is not supposed to happen on the Freeway or the Port Mann Bridge. Apparently that will just divert increases in traffic that would occur anyway. And amazingly there are people who believe that – or say they do.