[jacoblyles]

Sure, it's hard to measure some costs and some benefits. It's hard, even impossible, to objectively compare them. But it is important to acknowledge that trade-offs exist, and foolish to ignore them. The cost-benefit framework is useful for the reason that it forces people to look at the trade-offs.

It is foolish to give infinite value to the benefit of preserving nature. If we are willing to preserve nature at any price, then we ought to shut down industrial civilization, kill off 5.8 billion people, and go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, few people think that cost would be worth the resulting benefits to the environment.

Ignoring the costs of environmental activism is short-sighted. Environmental restrictions are not free. They cause real deprivations. We ought to acknowledge these deprivations and consider whether or not they are worth the benefits, even if there is no objective "right" answer.

Sometimes we will decide environmental rules are worth it. Banning CFCs was probably a smart idea. Sometimes, however, we will decide environmental rules are not worth the cost. The Kyoto treaty would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to implement but only push off warming by a few years.

As for the rest of your posts, sorry I just can't follow the logic. I do think cost-benefit analysis is worthwhile, though.