The Hidden Cost of Overregulation: How Productivity Saves Lives
Why ignoring the life-saving power of industry and energy leads to policies that harm the very people they claim to protect.
In today’s policy debates, the mantra of safety is often used to justify sweeping government regulations. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in environmental policy, where new rules are regularly proposed with the promise of protecting public health and saving lives. But as energy expert Alex Epstein points out, there’s a critical truth missing from this conversation: productivity itself saves lives.
This insight has profound implications. Modern industry, powered by abundant and affordable energy, has given us cleaner water, safer food, better healthcare, and longer life expectancies. When regulators impose harsh restrictions that suppress productivity — whether through bans, costly compliance mandates, or energy rationing — they are not simply inconveniencing businesses. They are undermining the very engine of human flourishing.
Consider the real-world examples. In developing countries, access to cheap, reliable energy has consistently led to rapid improvements in sanitation, medical care, and overall life expectancy. Conversely, Europe’s recent energy crisis, driven in part by aggressive regulatory constraints on fossil fuels, forced families to choose between heating their homes and affording groceries. These are not abstract tradeoffs. They are matters of life and death, especially in the developing world.
Yet much of the government’s so-called analysis of environmental regulations ignores this reality. These analyses routinely assume enormous health benefits from marginal reductions in pollution, often using speculative models that inflate risks. At the same time, they assume zero or negligible harm from the economic consequences of regulation, as though lost jobs, higher energy costs, and stunted industrial growth have no impact on people’s well-being.
This is a dangerous fallacy. Economic productivity is not an abstract statistic; it is the means by which societies generate the wealth and technology that make life safer and more comfortable. For example, the affordable energy that powers hospitals, heats homes in winter, and fuels transportation systems is directly responsible for saving countless lives. When regulations make energy more expensive or scarce, the resulting harm — from increased poverty to reduced access to life-saving services — is real and measurable.
Critics might argue that regulations spur innovation or create "green jobs." While innovation is vital, it cannot be forced into existence by mandates that destroy more than they create. Green jobs funded by subsidies or mandates often come at the expense of more productive sectors, distorting the economy and weakening the foundations of prosperity.
Moreover, this isn't an argument against all regulation. Reasonable, clearly defined, and outcome-focused regulations play a crucial role in modern governance. But when regulators ignore or dismiss the productive value of the very industries they seek to constrain, they create policies that are self-defeating.
If we value human flourishing — the ability of people to live long, healthy, fulfilling lives — then we must value the systems that make such lives possible. This includes fossil fuels, industrial manufacturing, and large-scale agriculture. Demonizing these sectors without acknowledging their indispensable benefits is not just misguided; it is unethical.
To reform our regulatory systems, policymakers should be required to conduct full-spectrum cost-benefit analyses that include productivity impacts. They should also incorporate a “Productivity Impact Statement” akin to an Environmental Impact Statement, assessing how proposed regulations will affect human welfare through changes in industrial output, job creation, and energy access. Additionally, regulations should be subject to regular review and sunset provisions, ensuring they adapt to new data and technologies.
The proper way to evaluate environmental regulations is not through one-sided claims about pollution reductions but through a balanced analysis that weighs both the benefits and the costs, including the critical life-saving role of productivity. Ignoring this balance leads to policies that may feel virtuous but ultimately make people poorer, less safe, and less free.
If we care about human life, we must stop treating productivity as a secondary concern. It is, in fact, the foundation upon which modern safety and health are built. Regulations that ignore this truth risk sacrificing real human well-being on the altar of theoretical risks. That is a tradeoff society should not accept.
The next time a new regulation is proposed in the name of safety, we should ask: How many lives will it save — and how many will it cost?
Below is a great discussion, which touches on what I discussed above.