On February 12, the Trump administration revoked the endangerment finding, a key decision that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate harmful greenhouse gases. This finding, established in 2009, identified gases like carbon dioxide and methane as threats to public health. It paved the way for cleaner regulations that helped reduce pollution, especially for vulnerable communities near highways and industrial areas.
Removing this finding limits the EPA’s ability to address climate change and protect health. Numerous studies continue to show that greenhouse gases pose serious health risks, such as asthma, heart disease, and lung issues, particularly in areas with high pollution. The claim that the EPA need not regulate these gases contradicts its fundamental mission to safeguard public health.
Historically, the Trump administration’s policies have undermined scientific research and health regulations, prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare. For instance, they announced they wouldn’t consider the health benefits of cleaner air, which include reduced rates of childhood asthma and improved heart health.
Short-Term and Long-Term Health Impacts
Without regulations, power plants and vehicles will emit more fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a dangerous pollutant linked to severe health problems. In the short term, this could mean higher rates of respiratory issues and heart diseases, particularly for children living near traffic.
In the long run, the risks grow as climate change leads to more extreme weather, increasing the incidence of wildfires, floods, and heatwaves. A recent study found that climate change-related wildfires caused around 15,000 excess deaths between 2006 and 2020. Such conditions disproportionately affect children, the elderly, and low-resource communities.
Expert Insight: Mary Rice, an environmental health expert, emphasizes the importance of ongoing research. She points out that scientific evidence shows reduced emissions lead to lower mortality rates among older adults and fewer asthma cases in children. Rolling back the endangerment finding could reverse these health benefits.
The Role of Researchers and the Public
Researchers can help by educating policymakers and the public about the health risks of air pollution and the benefits of clean air. Recent reports from the National Academies of Medicine stress the urgency of addressing climate change through health-centered policy decisions. The scientific community should advocate for stricter regulations and support legal efforts aimed at compelling the EPA to act.
The public can take action at the local level by advocating for improved public transit, greener communities, and cleaner energy sources. These efforts not only reduce reliance on fossil fuels but also support neighborhoods historically burdened by pollution.
In conclusion, maintaining the endangerment finding is crucial for safeguarding both public health and the environment. By working together—researchers, policymakers, and the public—we can pave the way for a healthier future.
For further reading about the endangerment finding, check out more detailed analyses on the EPA’s official site here.
