Why read this: This article asks an uncomfortable but important question: how should governments decide how much to spend on cleaner air, when the benefit is fewer people getting sick or dying? It introduces students to cost-benefit analysis, a key idea in economics and public policy, and shows how economists have tried — and sometimes failed — to put a number on a human life. The piece will help your students see that policy choices about pollution, healthcare, and safety are not just moral debates but also problems of measurement, and that a difficult number is often more useful than no number at all.
What to notice: Encourage students to track the writer's argument across the article rather than judging single sentences. Notice how the opening question ("How much is fresh air really worth?") returns at the end, but with a much firmer answer. Watch for hedging language such as "may," "might," "could," and "perhaps," which signals that the writer is being careful and tentative. Pay attention to two named methods — the human-capital method and the value of a statistical life — and what each one fails to do. Students should also notice the writer's use of contrast: officials versus critics, then versus now, perfect answers versus useful ones.
Skills practised: Reading at this level practises following a multi-step argument across several paragraphs without losing the thread. Students will work with subordinate clauses ("...because it gave a value of zero to anyone without a paid job"), passive forms ("a figure called the value of a statistical life"), and modal hedging. The text introduces five key economic terms — cost-benefit analysis, regulation, red tape, human-capital method, and value of a statistical life — that students will meet again in social studies, economics, and current-affairs reading. Comprehension tasks ask students to identify reasons in the text, evaluate an idea using evidence, and recognise the writer's overall stance.
How do you put a price on a human life?
It sounds uncomfortable, but the alternative may be worse
Tap any green word in the article to see its meaning.
How much is fresh air really worth? Standing on a mountain top, breathing deeplydeeply: To a great extent; profoundly; intensely. — 深深地；强烈地, you might say the answer is “everything”. Yet cleaning up dirty air costs real money. Factories must buy new equipment, some industries may need to shrinkshrink: to become or make something smaller in size, amount, or value — 缩小；收缩；减少, and householdshousehold: Collectively, all the persons who live in a given house; a family including attendants, servants etc.; a domestic or family establishment — 家庭 need cleaner ways of cooking and heating. The benefit, on the other side, is that fewer people get sick from breathing polluted air, especially children, the old, and those already ill. Deciding how much to spend on clean air is therefore a classicclassic: Judged over time to be of the highest quality; typical and representative. — 经典的；典型的 problem of cost-benefit analysis: an economic method that compares the money spent on something with the benefits gained, to decide if it is worth doing — 成本效益分析, in which one side of the argument must be weighed against the other. But how do you measure a benefit that means avoiding sickness or early death? Pricing fresh air becomes an even harder question: how do you put a value on a human life?
This is a question that America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now decided to stop asking. Last month it announced that, when judging new pollution rules, it would no longer try to put a price on the health benefits of cleaner air. Officialsofficial: An office holder invested with powers and authorities — 官员 argued there was simply too much uncertaintyuncertainty: The state of being uncertain; something that is not known or definite. — 不确定性；不确定 about what those benefits are worth. Criticscritic: A person who expresses an unfavourable opinion; a professional reviewer of art, literature, or music. — 批评家；评论家, however, see this as a quiet way to water down: to weaken something (usually a rule or statement) by making it less strict — 削弱 / 打折扣 regulationregulation: A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority — 规定；条例；法规. As the old saying goes, what is not counted does not count.
The American government has required this kind of analysis since 1981, when President Ronald Reagan ordered federalfederal: Relating to or denoting a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and individual states. — 联邦的 agenciesagency: An organisation or business that provides a particular service, often on behalf of others. — 机构；代理公司 to weigh the costs of new rules against their benefits. His aim was to cut red tape: excessive bureaucratic rules and procedures that slow things down — 繁文缛节 / 官僚程序 that, in his view, cost businesses more than it was worth. If a pollution rule saved only a few lives but spent a great deal of money, the argument went, the same money might save more lives elsewhereelsewhere: In, at, or to some other place or places. — 在别处；到其他地方 — fundingfunding: Money provided for a particular purpose, especially by an organisation or government. — 资金；资助 hospitals, for example. Critics replied that no honest number could be placed on a human life. Oddly, today’s EPA sounds rather like those critics from forty years ago.
Earlier economistseconomist: An expert in economics. — 经济学家 had tried to solve the problem with what became known as the human-capital method: an older approach that priced a person's life as their remaining lifetime earnings, later rejected because it assigned zero value to non-earners — 人力资本法. A person’s life, they suggested, could be valued at the wageswage: A fixed regular payment earned for work or services, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis. — 工资；薪水 they would have earned if they had lived. Wages, after all, roughlyroughly: Approximately; in a way that lacks precision or gentleness. — 大约；粗略地 show what people are willingwilling: Ready, eager, or prepared to do something. — 愿意的；乐意的 to accept for the hours of their working lives. The approachapproach: A way of dealing with a situation or problem; a method — 方法；途径 was eventually rejected, because it gave a value of zero to anyone without a paid job — retired people, the sick, and parents caring for children at home. Lifetimelifetime: The duration of a person's life; a very long time. — 一生；终身 earningsearnings: Money obtained in return for labour or services; a company's profits or income. — 收入；收益；利润, it turned out, are not the same as a lifetime’s value.
A better idea came from Thomas Schelling, who later won a Nobel prize in economicseconomics: The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. — 经济学. Schelling pointed out that we all take small risks of dying every day. Driving a car, for example, carries some chance of a fatalfatal: Causing death, or leading to failure or disaster. — 致命的；灾难性的 crash, and spending a little more on safety features lowerslower: To move something to a less high position; to reduce in amount or degree. — 降低；减少 that chance. By measuring how much people are willing to pay to reduce their risk of death by a tiny amount, economists can work out a figure called the value of a statisticalstatistical: Of or pertaining to statistics — 统计的 life. If 100,000 people each pay $100 to avoid a one-in-100,000 chance of dying, then $10 million has effectively been spent to prevent one expected death. The figure does not say what a life is worth; it shows what people will pay to protect it. The EPA itself has long used a figure of around twelve million dollars per statistical life.
None of these methods give a perfect answer, and perhaps no method ever will. Yet the value of a life is clearly not zero. People generally want to stay alive, and they are willing to pay something to do so. Regulatorsregulator: A person or group that sets standards of practice, especially those established by law — 监管机构 need a benchmarkbenchmark: A standard or point of reference against which things may be compared or assessed — 基准；标杆；参考标准, even an imperfectimperfect: Not perfect — 不完美的 one, against which the costs of their decisions can be measured. Economists are sometimes accusedaccuse: To charge someone with an offence or claim that they have done something wrong. — 指控；指责 of cold-heartedness for asking how much a life is worth. Refusing to ask the question, however, would be far worse.
How much is fresh air really worth? Standing on a mountain top, breathing deeplydeeply: To a great extent; profoundly; intensely. — 深深地；强烈地, you might say the answer is “everything”. Yet cleaning up dirty air costs real money. Factories must buy new equipment, some industries may need to shrinkshrink: to become or make something smaller in size, amount, or value — 缩小；收缩；减少, and householdshousehold: Collectively, all the persons who live in a given house; a family including attendants, servants etc.; a domestic or family establishment — 家庭 need cleaner ways of cooking and heating. The benefit, on the other side, is that fewer people get sick from breathing polluted air, especially children, the old, and those already ill. Deciding how much to spend on clean air is therefore a classicclassic: Judged over time to be of the highest quality; typical and representative. — 经典的；典型的 problem of cost-benefit analysis: an economic method that compares the money spent on something with the benefits gained, to decide if it is worth doing — 成本效益分析, in which one side of the argument must be weighed against the other. But how do you measure a benefit that means avoiding sickness or early death? Pricing fresh air becomes an even harder question: how do you put a value on a human life?
This is a question that America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now decided to stop asking. Last month it announced that, when judging new pollution rules, it would no longer try to put a price on the health benefits of cleaner air. Officialsofficial: An office holder invested with powers and authorities — 官员 argued there was simply too much uncertaintyuncertainty: The state of being uncertain; something that is not known or definite. — 不确定性；不确定 about what those benefits are worth. Criticscritic: A person who expresses an unfavourable opinion; a professional reviewer of art, literature, or music. — 批评家；评论家, however, see this as a quiet way to water down: to weaken something (usually a rule or statement) by making it less strict — 削弱 / 打折扣 regulationregulation: A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority — 规定；条例；法规. As the old saying goes, what is not counted does not count.
The American government has required this kind of analysis since 1981, when President Ronald Reagan ordered federalfederal: Relating to or denoting a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and individual states. — 联邦的 agenciesagency: An organisation or business that provides a particular service, often on behalf of others. — 机构；代理公司 to weigh the costs of new rules against their benefits. His aim was to cut red tape: excessive bureaucratic rules and procedures that slow things down — 繁文缛节 / 官僚程序 that, in his view, cost businesses more than it was worth. If a pollution rule saved only a few lives but spent a great deal of money, the argument went, the same money might save more lives elsewhereelsewhere: In, at, or to some other place or places. — 在别处；到其他地方 — fundingfunding: Money provided for a particular purpose, especially by an organisation or government. — 资金；资助 hospitals, for example. Critics replied that no honest number could be placed on a human life. Oddly, today’s EPA sounds rather like those critics from forty years ago.
Earlier economistseconomist: An expert in economics. — 经济学家 had tried to solve the problem with what became known as the human-capital method: an older approach that priced a person's life as their remaining lifetime earnings, later rejected because it assigned zero value to non-earners — 人力资本法. A person’s life, they suggested, could be valued at the wageswage: A fixed regular payment earned for work or services, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis. — 工资；薪水 they would have earned if they had lived. Wages, after all, roughlyroughly: Approximately; in a way that lacks precision or gentleness. — 大约；粗略地 show what people are willingwilling: Ready, eager, or prepared to do something. — 愿意的；乐意的 to accept for the hours of their working lives. The approachapproach: A way of dealing with a situation or problem; a method — 方法；途径 was eventually rejected, because it gave a value of zero to anyone without a paid job — retired people, the sick, and parents caring for children at home. Lifetimelifetime: The duration of a person's life; a very long time. — 一生；终身 earningsearnings: Money obtained in return for labour or services; a company's profits or income. — 收入；收益；利润, it turned out, are not the same as a lifetime’s value.
A better idea came from Thomas Schelling, who later won a Nobel prize in economicseconomics: The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. — 经济学. Schelling pointed out that we all take small risks of dying every day. Driving a car, for example, carries some chance of a fatalfatal: Causing death, or leading to failure or disaster. — 致命的；灾难性的 crash, and spending a little more on safety features lowerslower: To move something to a less high position; to reduce in amount or degree. — 降低；减少 that chance. By measuring how much people are willing to pay to reduce their risk of death by a tiny amount, economists can work out a figure called the value of a statisticalstatistical: Of or pertaining to statistics — 统计的 life. If 100,000 people each pay $100 to avoid a one-in-100,000 chance of dying, then $10 million has effectively been spent to prevent one expected death. The figure does not say what a life is worth; it shows what people will pay to protect it. The EPA itself has long used a figure of around twelve million dollars per statistical life.
None of these methods give a perfect answer, and perhaps no method ever will. Yet the value of a life is clearly not zero. People generally want to stay alive, and they are willing to pay something to do so. Regulatorsregulator: A person or group that sets standards of practice, especially those established by law — 监管机构 need a benchmarkbenchmark: A standard or point of reference against which things may be compared or assessed — 基准；标杆；参考标准, even an imperfectimperfect: Not perfect — 不完美的 one, against which the costs of their decisions can be measured. Economists are sometimes accusedaccuse: To charge someone with an offence or claim that they have done something wrong. — 指控；指责 of cold-heartedness for asking how much a life is worth. Refusing to ask the question, however, would be far worse.
Questions
Check your understanding
- 01
According to the article, why did the EPA say it would stop putting a price on the health benefits of cleaner air?
- 02
Why did economists eventually reject the human-capital method?
- 03
Which sentence best captures the article's main argument?
- 04
Explain why the writer suggests that today's EPA "sounds rather like" the critics of Reagan's 1981 order. What is similar about the two positions?
Suggested length: ~80 words
- 05
Evaluate Thomas Schelling's idea of the "value of a statistical life". What does it measure well, and what does it leave out?
Suggested length: ~80 words
Questions
Check your understanding
- 01
According to the article, why did the EPA say it would stop putting a price on the health benefits of cleaner air?
- 02
Why did economists eventually reject the human-capital method?
- 03
Which sentence best captures the article's main argument?
- 04
Explain why the writer suggests that today's EPA "sounds rather like" the critics of Reagan's 1981 order. What is similar about the two positions?
Suggested length: ~80 words
- 05
Evaluate Thomas Schelling's idea of the "value of a statistical life". What does it measure well, and what does it leave out?
Suggested length: ~80 words