How Clean Energy Rollbacks Could Cost the Economy $1.1 Trillion by 2035: What You Need to Know

This week, the Trump administration pushed ahead with plans to roll back U.S. climate policies. A recent analysis from the University of Maryland revealed the potential fallout: a staggering $1.1 trillion loss in the U.S. gross domestic product by 2035. The study emphasizes that the economic benefits touted by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lee Zeldin, estimated at $1.2 billion annually just from the power plant policy rollback, pale in comparison to the impending damage from increased air pollution.

Alicia Zhao, the study’s lead author, explained, “While some states might gain from fossil fuel, the overall impact results in greater GDP losses. The benefits from clean energy heavily outweigh any fossil fuel uptick.”

As Congress debates “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which includes tax cuts and potential cuts to clean energy incentives, some Republican senators advocate for maintaining tax breaks for renewable energy. However, their commitment is uncertain, especially with pressure to finalize the package before the July 4 holiday.

On a pivotal day at the EPA, Zeldin proposed eliminating key regulations, including greenhouse gas rules. He claimed this would save the industry $19 billion over twenty years. Yet, the EPA’s own cost-benefit analysis suggests that these changes could lead to a public health cost increase of $130 billion, including premature deaths and respiratory issues from pollution.

When pressed about these health concerns, Zeldin deflected, arguing that the intent of the Biden administration was to destroy industries he claims are misaligned with their “climate zealotry.”

Historical context shows that regulatory measures often have broad impacts. For example, the regulations introduced under the Obama administration in 2012 aimed at limiting air toxins ultimately faced significant opposition and legal challenges. Zeldin argued that previous estimates may have been inflated, highlighting a tension between political views and scientific data.

A deeper dive into the University of Maryland study reveals that states reliant on fossil fuels, such as West Virginia and North Dakota, could see a 13-14% increase in air pollution-related health issues by 2035. Conversely, states with ambitious clean energy policies tend to fare better. California, for instance, remains largely insulated from these negative repercussions.

Experts warn that by ending current clean energy initiatives, the U.S. could face 22,800 premature deaths and a cumulative loss of $160 billion in income over the next decade. Energy costs for households could rise by an average of $206 by 2035 compared to what they would be under stable climate policies.

Meanwhile, the EPA projects a modest decrease in retail electricity prices but forecasts a significant rise in coal production. This trend stands in stark contrast to the urgent recommendations from scientists who stress the need for drastic reductions in carbon emissions to avoid severe climate impacts.

The debate continues, revealing a stark divide over the future of U.S. energy policy and its implications for public health and the economy in the years to come.

Source link