Cost vs Lives for New Pollution Rules

The author of the editorial  “With New Pollution Rules, EPA Tries to Save Texas from Itself” in The Dallas Morning has a strong view of enforcing new pollution rules that will make the lives of Texans safer and the air of Texas much cleaner. The EAP wishes to finalize a rule to have 27 states to reduce their smokestack emissions. “The regulation targets coal-fired power plants and requires the reduction of sulfur dioxide, which contributes to soot and acid rain, and nitrogen oxide, a component of smog.” The writer’s audience is Texans that care for the environment, but not only that, also that want change that may not benefit the state this instant, but will have a domino effect on budget and safety eventually. However, the writer also knows that “Texas is in denial” so the writer knows the audience is not addressing the problem and therefore, definitely not wanting a solution.  The author though obviously bias towards wanting the new EAP regulations, establishes credibility by providing links on the important key words such as Environmental Protection Agency, Rick Perry and Texas Republicans. The links provide the audience the ability to investigate for themselves the new regulations, Pick Perry’s response and the Texas Republicans’ reaction.  The comments also are continuously shifting back to the safety of Texans and the state. The author undoubtedly cares of the people and articulates the regulations as a future progression that will save thousands of lives even at some millions of dollars cost.  The writer is frustrated with the response of the Texas governor, Rick Perry and the Republicans who do not see a similar view and only focusing on the cost. However, the author makes a cost vs. benefit table at the end of the editorial that discusses that the regulations would cost Texas about $800 million annually and its effects would be $120 to $240 billion in health benefits annually with thousands of premature deaths saved, fewer hospital visits and less days lost from occupations. The passion and logic that the writer describes the need for the EAP regulations, you would think no one could argue. Yet this is one of the comments to the editorial, “You can breathe clean air and lose your job, or go to work and breathe a little bit of smoke. That's the choice we're faced with. Texas chose to pay the bills - and as a result we're better off economically and employment-wise than the rest of the country, if just a little bit dirtier.” Truly, Texas must be in denial!