Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a decision-making technique that examines the advantages and costs of an activity or project to decide whether it is worthwhile to pursue. It is done from an economic standpoint. Businesses use the approach to make crucial commercial decisions, while government agencies use it to determine if a given project is viable or not. By employing CBA, three fundamental assumptions are made. To begin with, an act cannot be performed if the costs outweigh the benefits. Second, to allow for comparison, all benefits and expenses are measured using the same scale. Finally, it is important to warrant the decision makers the expense to gather necessary data to improve the cost-benefit estimates as well as the political efforts required to give the activity higher priority than other activities (Luft, 438). The following essay applies cost-benefit analysis in environmental racism to prove that it is effective in setting government regulations.

Environmental Racism

Racial minorities in the United States as well people of color across the world have been subjects of environmental racism in which certain practices expose them to disproportionate shares of environmental hazards. They include toxic chemicals from the factories, radiation from the mining of uranium, toxic herbicide, and pesticide in agriculture lead paint on older buildings as well as toxic waste illegally dumped or legally stored (Wenz, 596). Using the cost-benefit analysis, the academic paper examines the current practices associated with toxic waste legally stored and illegally dumped.

The Defense of Current Practices

The current practices are defended in the sense that because of economic considerations account for disproportionate impacts of nonwhites meaning that the practices are neither racist nor doctrine of double effect. The principle of double effect that harm caused by an action that was only incidental to is blameless even if the harm had been predicted (Wenz, 597). A good example to explain the doctrine is a case of a woman with a uterine cancer is treated using hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is associated with ending the pregnancy the same way as abortion. However, it is not considered as abortion since it was incidental to hysterectomy which is morally accepted since it treats uterine cancer. The defenders of current regulations governing waste illegally dumped or legally stored argue that the racial effects cannot be blamed since they are not sought as the ends in themselves and are not meant to achieve a certain goal (Wenz, 597). The argument is that people who can afford to leave places in which the toxic materials are buried do so and are replaced by people who cannot afford other desirable places. This defense is significant in America considering that racism is illegal but economic discrimination is allowed. In other words, racism is not associated with disproportionate exposure of the people of color into the toxic waste, but their poverty is to blamed since they cannot afford a desirable place.

An Alternative Solution

On the other hand, another alternative that complies with acceptable principles of distributive justice other than the double effect principle would solve the environmental racism issue. A perfect solution can be analyzed using the cot benefit analysis. The CBA assumes that the action or policy with more benefits should be adopted (Luft, 440). Every action has both benefits and limitations. Therefore, the one that derives enough benefits should sustain commensurate limitations or burdens (Wenz, 599). The burden of work is usually associated with benefits of receiving money that is why money is regarded as a reward for solving somebody’s problem. Besides, the burdens of monetary payments and liability for tort are associated with the benefit of ownership. However, there is an exception to the rule that money is a reward for solving someone’s problem for those who inherit money without working for it, or those transfers of property ownership are passed to them without purchasing the property. Similarly, the benefit of ownership can be disassociated with the liability of tort in the case of tax money. The government uses the tax money to protect its citizens from hazards that have to do with the private property as well as when it supports the unemployed citizens the benefit of money is disassociated with work.

The Justification of Government Interventions

When the government uses revenue from tax which is collected from public to protect the public from dangers or harm linked to private property, it is as much justifiable as encouraging private industries and commerce to improve the health of the public. Besides, tax money can be used in supporting those who are unemployed to promote economic equality as well as equal opportunities. As far as the benefit and burden of toxic waste are concerned, it should be established that the benefits accrued from the processes that create the hazards should more than the ill health associated with the hazards. Nothing can be more beneficial than the health of a person. Therefore, there is no justification for exposing the people of color to toxic waste.

Benefits and Costs of Existing Practices

To determine the benefits and costs of the existing practices that allow disproportion distribution of waste, it is important to consider the benefits that come with the generation of the toxic materials. With the rise in living standards, there is the greater release of toxic substances since the society has become a consumer-oriented one where everyone is buying and disposing of individually owned items (Wenz, 600). That way, we can relate the numerical value of the dollar we spent on items at our disposal with the standards of living. Standards of living mean people are having a better life and can buy whatever they need meaning that the generation of toxic material is as a result of people living better lives. Besides, the high demand associated with items that can be grouped as luxury has resulted in consumers worrying about how to find such items.

Conclusion

Considering the fact that people are afraid of being ill and dying early increases the health expenditure such that it consumes more of the gross domestic product. The principle of commensurate burdens and benefits requires that the people who benefit more from an action should bear the most burden Toxic generation is associated with wealthy and rich people because they are the ones who buy such items whose disposal causes harm to racial minorities and people of color who are poor. Conclusively, the people who should bear the burden associated with the toxic chemicals from legally stored and illegally dumped wealth should be the wealthy and the rich rather than the have-nots (Wenz, 600). From the analysis, it is evident that analyzing the benefits and costs of an action and allowing those who benefit more from the action to bear the burdens associated with the action, then the issue of environmental racism will be solved since the wealth should be the one to shoulder the burden associated with toxic substances.

Works Cited

Luft, Harold S. “Benefit-cost analysis and public policy implementation: from normative to positive analysis.” Public Policy 24.4 (1975): 437-462.

Wenz, Peter S. “Just garbage: The problem of environmental racism.” Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application (2015): 596-601.