You perpetuate a well-worn economic fallacy in arguing that tightening pollution regulations would help the economy because “money spent on reducing emissions does not disappear into a vacuum: pollution control is a business, too” (Nature 477, 249; 2011). As economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out in 1850, “The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody” (Essays on Political Economy Provost, 1874).
If it costs money to reduce pollution, that is because we must pay to divert people and equipment away from other activities that also benefit society. The benefits of pollution control may be worth the costs, but it is pure doublethink to claim that costs are benefits.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Contributions Correspondence may be sent to correspondence@nature.com after consulting the author guidelines at http://go.nature.com/cmchno . Readers are also welcome to comment online: http://www.nature.com/nature .
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hockley, N. Fallacy in costs of pollution control. Nature 478, 188 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/478188d
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/478188d