Trump EPA: Value of Human Life is $0

The EPA's decision does not literally assign zero value to individual human lives. Rather, it means the agency will no longer quantify and include the monetary benefits of lives saved or health improvements in its cost-benefit analyses for pollution regulations. Specifically, the EPA stopped calculating the dollar value of health benefits—such as prevented asthma attacks, hospitalizations, and premature deaths—when weighing these benefits against industry compliance costs. Economists clarify that the 'value of a statistical life' refers to the value assigned to slightly reducing death risk across large populations, derived from labor market studies showing workers demand higher wages for riskier jobs. The practical effect is that regulators now only count industry costs in their analyses while excluding quantified health benefits, which critics argue skews decision-making in favor of less stringent pollution controls.

Environmental economists and public health experts argue that excluding quantified health benefits creates a fundamentally imbalanced analysis. As one expert explained, 'Considering costs without considering benefits is like trying to cut a piece of cloth with one blade of the scissors: The cut is likely going to be inaccurate and rough.' Historically, the Clean Air Act has demonstrated exceptional benefit-to-cost ratios—often cited as 30 to 1 or higher—meaning the economic value of health improvements far exceeds compliance costs. Research shows that reductions in PM2.5 pollution have added 1.4 years to average American life expectancy since 1970. By removing health benefits from the equation while retaining industry costs, critics contend the analysis will likely result in weaker pollution standards, leading to higher air pollution levels and increased illness and deaths, particularly among vulnerable populations including children, elderly people, and those with chronic respiratory conditions.