Recent articles and letters to the editor have castigated economist Todd Schatzki for his EFSEC testimony. Sure, it’s crazy to think a crude oil spill would be a benefit to our economy.
The problem is that Schatzki never claimed an accident would be a benefit. Sensible readers knew that claim was fiction.
Schatzki commented on the calculation of economic harm found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. When accidents cause job losses, history shows that workers who are affected don’t just sit home moping the rest of their lives. They go find other ways to be productive. Some of those people get hired to repair what was damaged in the accident. All of that work reduces the economic losses from the accident.
An accident would be harmful. Schatzki agrees. Where the DEIS predicts how harmful, an important part of the analysis is missing: how people actually respond to hardship. That was Schatzki’s point. Look at the risks, but look at them factually.
