A recent article in the NYT, “Fossil Fuels’ Hidden Cost Is in Billions, Study Says” by Matthew L. Wald, described a study that Congress ordered to be conducted “to measure the costs not incorporated into the price of a kilowatt-hour or a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel.” The study ended up measuring only those costs associated with “excess mortality — increased human deaths as a result of criteria air pollutants emitted by power plants and vehicles.” The study concluded that [emphasis is mine]

Nearly 20,000 people die prematurely each year from such causes, according to the study’s authors, who valued each life at $6 million based on the dollar in 2000.

The idea of putting a value on human life is nothing new. According to Wikipedia:

The value of life (or price of life) is an economic value assigned to life in general, or to specific living organisms. In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. As such, it is a statistical term, the cost of reducing the (average) number of deaths by one. It is an important issue in a wide range of disciplines including economics, health care, adoption, political economy, insurance, worker safety, environmental impact assessment, and globalization.

The value of a human life is particularly relevant today, because it enters into the discussions on health care reform – how much money should society spend on healthcare to save or prolong someone’s life? – and discussions on the environment – how much money should society spend to decrease pollution?

Of course, the greater is the value of a life, then the more of society's resources the government is justified, if not obligated, to utilize to prevent its loss. However, if the government deems the value of a life to be greater than private (non-government) society does, then the government will end up falsely justifying over-expansive programs and policies aimed at decreasing the loss of life. And it appears that this is exactly what is happening.