The US environmental protection agency (EPA) has lowered the value of a human life by nearly $1 million under George Bush’s administration, according to the U.K. Guardian::

The EPA’s estimate of the “value of a statistical life” was $6.9m as of this May - down from $7.8m five years ago - according to an Associated Press study released today.

Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences.

When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule.

The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation - such as the tighter restrictions on pollution that the EPA refused to impose today, effectively postponing any action on climate change until after Bush leaves office.

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 costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

Um, I bet it will be worth it for THE FAMILIES OF THOSE 2,500 PEOPLE!

Wow. Is this how government agencies really make policy decisions—with mathematical calculations?

I knew I should have listened better in algebra.

Perhaps in a related item …? From the Washington Post:

Under pressure from farmers, livestock producers and soaring food prices, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is weighing a policy change that could lead to the plowing of millions of acres of land that had been set aside for conservation.

At issue is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), under which the government has paid farmers to stop growing row crops, such as corn and soybeans, on 34 million acres across the country. Designed in the mid-1980s to hold down production and bolster commodity prices, the $1.8 billion-a-year program has turned into a major boon for conservation, with much of the acreage planted with perennial grasses or trees, or restored to wetlands.

But the ethanol boom, widespread flooding and high prices for feed crops have changed the equation. Livestock producers have been howling about the high price of animal feed. Pork producers say they are losing $30 per pig.

Hey, math guys: What’s the calculation for the life of a farm animal?

Barack Obama wins the UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE MILLENNIUM award.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama “told a potential donor to his campaign that Hillary Rodham Clinton is on his list of possible vice presidential running mates, but that her husband’s status as a former president makes matters ‘complicated.‘“

The potential donor, Jill Iscol, had been “an ardent supporter” of Hillary Clinton, and Obama “reached out to her because he heard she was unhappy about the way the New York senator had been treated by the Democratic Party and the media,“ the Times said.

Iscol turned their phone conversation Thursday to the vice presidency—something the Obama campaign has refused to discuss publicly. She said she told him that Clinton would be his best running mate.

Obama replied that she is on his list, Iscol recounted, and that it would be a mistake not to have her on such a list. But he also explained that he was thinking through a potential “complication”—Bill Clinton.

“He said once you’re a president, even if you’re a former president, you’re always a president,“ Iscol said.

Well said ... especially for a man who hasn’t been president.

Read the rest here.