For nearly 20 years, thousands of industrial plants across the U.S. have been tracking and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions. This reporting program, started during George W. Bush’s presidency, is now under threat. The Trump administration plans to end it, claiming it burdens businesses with excessive costs. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin argues that terminating this program could save U.S. companies up to $2.4 billion.
However, many worry about the consequences. Without these reports, state regulators may struggle to measure climate progress, making it harder for communities to know about emissions from nearby factories or power plants. Will Barrett, a clean air expert at the American Lung Association, emphasizes that understanding emissions is essential for addressing the serious effects of climate change, which can lead to severe weather and health crises.
The EPA’s current program requires around 8,000 facilities, including power plants and refineries, to report their emissions, covering about 90% of the nation’s total greenhouse gases. If the proposed changes go through, most large facilities and gas suppliers will no longer have to report emissions to the federal government. Critics argue that eliminating this program undermines critical efforts to combat climate change.
California stands out for its commitment to tracking emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) manages its own greenhouse gas reporting program that imposes stricter requirements. California’s regulations require large polluters to report emissions at lower thresholds than the federal level. This state-level program helps identify major sources of pollution, aiding local efforts to combat climate change.
John Balmes, a professor and member of the CARB board, highlights the state’s long-term commitment to monitoring emissions. California’s program supports its ambitious climate goals, including a plan for carbon neutrality by 2045. Recently, California lawmakers extended the cap-and-trade program, which limits emissions and allows companies to buy and sell allowances, for an additional 15 years. This direct link between emissions data and compliance is crucial for successful climate action.
Contrastingly, the federal proposal would ease regulatory burdens on large polluters. Zeldin asserts that the current reporting is more bureaucratic red tape than beneficial. Still, environmental advocates argue that monitoring emissions is vital for public health and accountability. Kate Wright, head of Climate Mayors, emphasizes the need for access to emissions data, stating that air pollution is responsible for around 135,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
While California implements robust climate policies, it faces significant air quality challenges, largely due to heavy traffic and geography that traps pollution. Los Angeles has been ranked the country’s smoggiest city for many years. These issues underscore the importance of effective pollution tracking.
The Trump administration has also attempted to weaken California’s emission standards, prompting legal challenges from the state. Critics of this trend, like the Environmental Protection Network, warn that rolling back such regulations could result in thousands of premature deaths and increase health issues among children.
The proposed end to the greenhouse gas reporting program raises concerns about the future of climate science and public health protections. As Barrett notes, these developments emphasize the importance of California’s ongoing leadership in climate and air quality initiatives.
The EPA plans to open a public comment period on its proposal. Stakeholders from various sectors will likely weigh in, highlighting the ongoing debate over how best to balance economic interests with environmental responsibilities.
Source link
