I previously posted on one way in which our government decides that many people should be killed for the Greater Good.

This essentially philosophical question – how to measure Costs v Benefits of policy – is what government is all about.

Especially when it comes to grand scale environmental policy.

Which counts the most? Likely environmental gains in a century’s time, or jobs or even lives now? And how to decide between likely modest environmental gains in a century’s time and possible larger environmental gains? And what gains are worth having anyway, all things considered?

In the USA they try diligently to measure such things in a coherent way.

Look at this interesting expert analysis of the likely impact of President Obama’s new environmental standards for cars across the USA:

Again, the point is not the precise estimates.  It’s the order of magnitude.  Please don’t tell me this model is flawed.  If you disagree with these calculations or this model, give me some numbers you think are better, and that lead to a different conclusion.

Imagine if the President had instead said today, “This new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions rule will slow the increase in future global temperature seven thousandths of a degree Celsius by the end of this century, and it means the sea will rise six tenths of a millimeter less than it otherwise would over the same timeframe.”  It loses some of its punch, no?

The author is Keith Hennessey, a former senior adviser to President Bush on economic issues. He is now blogging about the general policy process as seen from a (former) top insider’s perspective. Worth following.