The Trump administration is rolling back critical climate regulations, claiming it will save Americans money. But these claims don’t hold up when you look at the numbers. A recent analysis shows that gas prices could actually rise, making the supposed savings questionable.
Recently, President Trump and EPA head Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the endangerment finding—a key legal basis for federal climate regulations. They promised this rollback would save the U.S. $1.3 trillion by 2055, with $1.1 trillion coming from lower vehicle prices and $200 billion from less spending on electric cars and charging stations.
However, the same analysis also reveals that the U.S. will face $1.4 trillion in extra costs related to fuel purchases, vehicle repairs, insurance, and traffic issues through 2055. Adding to that, an extra $40 billion will arise from reduced energy security and increased refueling times. In total, the repeal could impose $1.5 trillion in costs—outweighing the promised savings.
Kathy Harris from the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out that the administration’s own analysis demonstrates the costs exceed the benefits. She argued that the EPA’s claims are misleading. They rely on unrealistic scenarios to justify their decision, especially when it comes to projected lower fuel prices.
A report from the Energy Information Administration, included in the analysis, discusses scenarios with unusually low oil prices. However, Harris highlights that those scenarios don’t consider the global factors that really drive oil prices, suggesting those forecasts lack real-world applicability.
The analysis also neglects the broader costs of climate change. Experts estimate that the rollback could increase greenhouse gas emissions by 10% by 2055, potentially leading to $4.7 trillion in climate-related damages. This disproportionately impacts lower-income households and marginalized communities, raising concerns about social justice and environmental equity.
This situation reflects a growing divide in society. Many fear that the rollback primarily serves the interests of wealthy fossil fuel companies instead of everyday Americans. The NAACP’s climate justice director, Abre’ Conner, emphasized this disconnect, stating the administration seems more loyal to big oil donors than to constituents facing the consequences of climate inaction.
In summary, while the administration promotes economic savings, the reality suggests these changes could lead to higher expenses and further environmental degradation. For those interested in understanding the real impacts of such policies, these issues are more than just numbers—they affect lives, livelihoods, and the future of the planet.
Source link
