The notion that a person can perform a cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulations is incoherent nonsense. But legal scholars can't be expected to know that in the face of economists who claim otherwise.
Here's the write up from the NYT about the Supreme Court striking down Clean Air Act regulations
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
Huh?
the university of Chicago came up with this. Scalia is just repeating it.
Cost Benefit Analysis as "Unacceptable Nonsense".