EPA Claims Power Plant Carbon Emissions Are Safe: 30 Scientists Weigh In on the Truth

EPA’s Controversial Proposal on Carbon Emissions

The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently made headlines with a bold new proposal. They claimed that carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants "do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution." This raised eyebrows and sparked debate among scientists across various fields.

To delve into the scientific community’s response, the Associated Press reached out to 30 experts in climate science, health, and economics. Out of these experts, 19 responded, and nearly all agreed that the EPA’s assertion is scientifically unfounded.

Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather pointed out, "Saying carbon emissions don’t affect climate is like saying smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer." The link between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures has been clear for over a century, with coal being the largest contributor.

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, compared the EPA’s claim to saying arsenic isn’t harmful. He emphasized that the facts are indisputable: coal and gas-fired power plants play a significant role in climate change, which exacerbates heat waves and increases health risks.

Dr. Howard Frumkin, as former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, reinforced that these are established truths in science. He noted that climate change leads to severe health challenges like heat-related illnesses and infectious diseases.

Economist R. Daniel Bressler from Columbia University added an important perspective. He explained how the social cost of carbon can help quantify the impact of these emissions. In his research, he found that pollution from an average coal plant could lead to nearly 1,000 temperature-related deaths and over $1 billion in climate damages annually.

Other experts echoed similar sentiments. Kathy Jacobs from the University of Arizona criticized the EPA’s statement, calling it a contradiction to the decades of evidence from thousands of scientists around the world. Oregon State’s Phil Mote highlighted that the chemistry behind carbon emissions and their warming effects is basic knowledge established since the mid-1800s.

Former MP Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria expressed concern that denying climate science could lead to severe consequences for future generations. He suggested that such claims might have legal ramifications.

In particular, Chris Field, a climate scientist at Stanford, highlighted the dire consequences of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability. He remarked that the decision to disregard climate science could harm future generations.

In today’s world, public sentiment is shifting. Many individuals and organizations are advocating for sustainable practices and holding governments accountable. Social media is filled with discussions on climate action, reflecting a growing urgency to address this crisis.

The scientific community’s strong reaction to the EPA’s latest proposal underscores a consensus: there is no debate among experts about the need for urgent action on climate change. The evidence is clear, and the time to address these challenges is now.

For more insights on climate change and its impacts, you can visit resources like the World Meteorological Organization which tracks climate data and trends.

Source link

Donald Trump, Climate science, General news, Associated Press, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Energy industry, Washington news, Zeke Hausfather, Climate and environment, District of Columbia, Science, Climate change, United States government, Pollution, Michael Mann, Health, Kathy Jacobs, Politics, Misinformation, Andrew Weaver, U.S. news, Medical technology, Chris Field, Phil Mote, U.S. News