Recently, officials from the Trump administration described their reversal of a 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding on greenhouse gases as “the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the USA.” They claimed this change could save $1.3 trillion.
Experts at Northeastern University, however, expressed serious concerns about this decision. They argue that it prioritizes the interests of the fossil fuel and auto industries over public health. Julia Varshavsky, a public health professor, stated, “This isn’t about health. It’s about fossil fuels.” Sharmila Murthy, a law professor, echoed this sentiment, explaining that the administration is shifting the costs of climate change onto everyday Americans.
In 2009, after thorough research, the EPA determined that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger public health and the environment. This finding allowed for regulations under the Clean Air Act to control emissions from vehicles and power plants.
Murthy emphasized that this 2009 finding is crucial for regulating air pollution. It’s been a target for fossil fuel advocates who see such regulations as costly burdens. In March 2022, the EPA announced it would review this finding, claiming it was “flawed.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated their goal was to reduce living costs and promote American energy. In July, the administration moved to rescind the finding, citing a report from a review committee that questioned the impacts of greenhouse gases, although several committee members reject the consensus about human-driven climate change.
During a public comment period, 571,673 responses were submitted, largely opposing the repeal. Despite this, the White House persisted with the plan, claiming the earlier ruling lacked factual and legal support.
Northeastern experts believe the repeal could reverse significant U.S. climate policies. Varshavsky noted that research links pollution to various health issues, including asthma and heart disease. The loss of regulatory protections can rapidly escalate climate-related health risks. “We’d be running toward a worst-case scenario,” she warned.
Murthy highlighted that consumers can’t opt out of the effects of climate change—like flooding or extreme heat. “Regulations exist to protect us,” she said. There’s already significant pushback from environmental groups against the EPA’s actions, but legal challenges carry risks, especially with the current Supreme Court’s stance on environmental regulations.
If the Court rules that the Clean Air Act doesn’t empower the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, future administrations may be unable to address these critical issues effectively.
The debate over regulating greenhouse gases is far from over. This situation reminds us of a crucial fact: while the economy and regulatory frameworks are important, the health of our communities and environment should always come first.
Recent data from the World Health Organization shows that air pollution is a leading cause of respiratory diseases, reaffirming the urgency of addressing greenhouse gas emissions. As discussions continue, it’s essential that we keep public health at the forefront of the climate change conversation.
Source link
clean air act,Environmental Protection Agency,faculty,greenhouse gas emissions
