See, and that's why I actively, deeply despise most of the people who call themselves " neo-classical economists" (and related heroes of humanity. Neo-cons, Neo-libs, the whole gang.) Because to some degree (usually well hidden between a lot of talk about the economy, as if it was a living thing that needs to be tended to, at the expense of people when necessary) that's what their logic really comes down to.

Who cares about the poor? They are not what drives GDP. That's what counts. Obviously. What? You think the economy is there to serve the people?! People exist to act as fuel for the economy, stupid!

I am happily going to predict that we have people in this community who would support the use of "economic modelling" as described in the article. Because from a real economist's point of view, those numbers really are all that exists. Everything else is "externalities".

The mere fact that the cost of not polluting the air is compared to the cost of polluting the air (as measured in ruined environments ruining the lifes of living beings) and whichever seems cheaper wins... should be reason enough for every sane human being to demand that everyone involved in these calculations be kicked out of whatever office or capacity they're holding.