Statement Of Phil Coleman

Environmental Protection Agency
Aging Initiative Public Listening Session
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
April 23, 2003

Phil Coleman
Chair
Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club

Good morning, my name is Phil Coleman. I am chair of the Pennsylvania chapter Sierra Club. I am 71. Thank you for allowing me to testify on environmental health issues affecting senior citizens. I¹m here today to condemn the Bush Administration¹s belief that when it comes to protecting people from pollution, senior citizens aren't worth as much as younger people. According to the Bush Administration's new proposal for calculating the benefits of cutting life-threatening pollution, none of us are worth what we used to be, and a 70 year-old's life is worth 37% less than that of a younger person.

Using this mathematical trick, the Bush Administration would re-write the way the government calculates the value of pollution safeguards, because an air-pollution filter that saves lives may not be worth installing if it only saves the lives of senior citizens.

Typically, government agencies attribute a $6.1 million value to each human life when evaluating new rules. However, the Bush Administration changed this calculation and reduced the value of a life to $3.7 million per person, and only $2.3 million for anybody over the age of 70. This biased form of cost-benefit analysis makes environmental safeguards appear less worthwhile by lowering the hypothetical monetary value of human life. The EPA has used the new cost-benefit assumptions to justify the reduced public health protections contained in the Administration¹s air pollution bill introduced in Congress last month. The decision to devalue the life of a senior is based on a single 1982 study, now disavowed by its author.

A recent study has found Pennsylvania to be one of five worst producers of air pollution in the western hemissphere. Western Pennsylvania is particularly bad. Coal fired power plants smudge the landscape. Hatfield Ferry, Elrama, and Mitchell plants are the worst. They should clean up or shut down. But your standards will permit them to continue poisoning young and old alike.

Lessening the value we place on human life so that polluting companies can avoid environmental safeguards is morally wrong and scientifically reckless. With modern technology, it¹s easier than ever to protect families from air pollution. So why is the Bush Administration allowing polluting corporations to rewrite environmental laws, escape their responsibilities and benefit at our expense?

I note that EPA just settled a lawsuit with West Virginia and Virginia power companies by getting them to reduce their pollution by 70%. This is a suit initiated by the Clinton Administration. Under the proposed rules changes, such a suit would not be possible. Southwestern Pennsylvania will remain dirty while the air that floats into Washinton D C and New York City -- homes of the rich and powerful -- will be cleaned up a bit. How nice for them.

For decades, people filed lawsutis against tobacco companies to no avail. Then, about ten years ago, they began to win. Tobacco companies are now paying big bucks in settlements. What will happen when people begin filing lawsuits against coal companies, power plants, and federal enforcers who haven't enforced? We older people, those of us who have survived, will cough all the way to the bank.

I like breathing clean air today as much as I did when I was young. Instead of manipulating math to make more pollution seem acceptable, the Bush Administration should assign priority to protecting the health and safety of Americans of all ages. My grandchildren deserve clean air. And so do I.

Aging Initiative Home

Statement Of Phil Coleman

Local Navigation