Backpedaling on climate efforts harms common interests of all
What's really worrying about the United States administration's effort to overturn a key 2009 Environmental Protection Agency finding that pollutants from burning fossil fuels should be regulated under the Clean Air Act for the harm they cause to health is that it is propelled by short-term economic interests.
Late last month the EPA crafted a proposal that would undo the government's "endangerment finding" regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
In June, the US administration announced plans to repeal all limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
These moves serve to benefit the fossil fuel industry and related sectors that play an important role in US politics.
"By revoking this key scientific finding our government is putting fealty to Big Oil over sound science and people's health," Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said in a statement. "These proposals are a giant gift to oil companies that will do real damage to people, wildlife and future generations."
Although it might take years for the EPA proposal to be realized even if the courts don't stop it, environmental and public health organizations remain pessimistic.
"For the industries that contribute most to climate change, the message is 'pollute more'. For everyone feeling the pain of climate disasters, the message is 'you're on our own'," said Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice.
"Health professionals don't change their diagnoses based on politics. The science is clear, and only becoming clearer — the climate crisis is already harming people's health, especially in communities already burdened by pollution and inequities," Emmie Mediate, the US chief program officer of Health Care Without Harm, said in a statement.
Notably, EPA chief Lee Zeldin also announced plans to target 31 key regulations that would reduce wetland protection, loosen restrictions on pollution from vehicles and power plants, wastewater from coal plants, and air pollution from the energy and manufacturing sectors — including restrictions on mercury, a known neurotoxin. The administration also plans to overturn the "good neighbor rule" which requires states to address pollution carried downwind to other states.
Environmental health experts correctly warn that if the proposal and plans materialize, they will directly affect health.
"We need to confront the dangers of harmful pollution using a multitude of tools whether regulatory or via providing economic incentives. There seems to be an intention of willfully cutting off both of these avenues and putting our heads in the sand, while providing some with short-term profits. This is no solution to the challenge of climate change," Lynn Goldman, dean of the George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health and former EPA official, said in a statement to Health Policy Watch.
Although Zeldin tried to defend the agency's proposal in The Wall Street Journal, saying "the EPA's core mission remains safeguarding human health and the environment", it seems increasingly clear the agency is saying one thing and doing another.
Due to the tariff war waged by the US, the EPA move might also increase energy prices for US families. Meanwhile, the rising cost of medical care because of increased pollution must also be taken into account.
According to the Clean Air Act, emissions reduction efforts return $9 to public health, the environment and productivity for every $1 spent.
"The potential increase in health-related expenses, environmental degradation, and the stifling of innovation will lead to higher costs for consumers and impede economic growth," Margo Oge, former EPA director of transportation and air quality, said in a LinkedIn post.
As she said, backpedaling on its climate actions will not make America great — it will just make Americans sicker.
