Well, my friends, I have some chilling news to share with you. It seems the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided the lives of American citizens have declined in value along with the American dollar. Yes, you heard me correctly, for according to an article by Seth Borenstein in Friday’s edition of The Advocate, my newspaper of choice, “The value of a statistical life is $6.9 million in today’s dollars,” which is “a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago” (2008, p. 8A).

You ask, “But how does anyone decide how much a human life is worth?”

Well, it seems the EPA’s figure is not based upon what you or I or anyone else will earn in our lifetimes. Nor is it based upon our potential contributions to society, or how much we are loved and/or needed by anyone else, including our families. And that means, apparently, my life is worth the same amount as that of Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, or Donald Trump, which, as I previously related, is now $6.9 million dollars. Of course, your life is also worth the same amount.

“No way, “ you shriek. “I won’t earn that much if I live to be as old as Methuselah.” 

Neither will I, but, again, it doesn’t matter how much you or I will earn in our lifetimes. Instead, “Economists calculate the value based on what people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and how much extra employers pay their workers to take on additional risks” (Borenstein, 2008, p. 8A). Moreover, according to the EPA, “People shouldn’t think of the number as a price tag on life” (Borenstein, 2008, p. 8A). “It’s our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to reduce similar risks to their own lives,” says Al McGartland, director of the EPA’s office of policy, economics, and innovation (Borenstein, 2008, p 8A). (Hmm, I’ve got news for Mr. McGartland; I do think of it as a price tag on life. How else should I think of it?)

Of course, as Borenstein relates, the devaluation of American lives has dire consequences since it affects whether or not regulations, for example, stricter guidelines on pollution, will be approved and become law. After all, “The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation” (Advocate, 2008, p. 8A). The example Borenstein provides is this:

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule cost more than the lives it saves, so it will not be adopted. (Advocate, 2008, p. 6A) 

Now, here’s the clincher. It seems that environmentalists are accusing the Bush administration of devaluing our lives in order to avoid tougher rules and regulations. (Personally, I’m not in the least surprised). And apparently the administration is “cooking the books in regards to human life,” according to S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (Borenstein, 2008, p. 8A). And, as if that isn’t enough, get this: Under the Bush administration, in 2002, the EPA, in its infinite wisdom, decided “the value of elderly people was 38 percent less than that of people under 70” (Borenstein, 2008, p. 8A). Humph! Well, I am certain all the senior citizens in this country are simply delighted to learn they are worth far less than younger people. Thank you, George W. Bush, for yet another reason to want the national nightmare of the past eight years to be over—and for good.

That’s it for tonight. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired. So, I think I’ll go put my feet up, sip a glass of wine, smoke a cigarette, and bask in the knowledge that my life is worth a whopping $6.9 million, devalued or not.

Borenstein, S. “EPA lowers value of life;” Associated Press; The Advocate; Friday, July 11, 2008; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; p. 8A.