How Mandatory Emission Reporting Helped Reduce Planet-Warming Pollution – And Why the EPA Wants to Change That

In a small Indiana town, Abbie Brockman, an English teacher, is making waves in the fight for clean air. Her classroom features images of a serene blue sky, but outside, the reality is often different. Haze from nearby coal-fired power plants clouds the atmosphere. This pollution impacts health, and that’s why Brockman has joined forces with a local environmental group to install monitors that track air and water quality in her community.

Brockman recognizes her limitations but believes even small actions can spark change. “Industry and government are powerful,” she says, “but I want to help.”

Her efforts reflect a significant drop in emissions from four local coal plants, which have decreased by 60% since new EPA rules took effect in 2010. However, these regulations are under threat. The current administration argues that they burden industries. Experts warn that rolling back such requirements could lead to increased emissions and make it harder to combat climate change.

Jeremy Symons, a former EPA adviser, emphasizes the importance of knowing emission levels. “We can’t fix climate change without this data,” he states. Major polluters have historically reported their emissions, helping to hold them accountable and contributing to a 20% decline since 2009.

Interestingly, even unusual sources of emissions, such as college campuses and amusement parks, are included in the reporting. For example, Walt Disney World has reduced its pollution by 62% since 2010. This might seem strange, but it shows how a variety of institutions contribute to overall emissions.

Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson adds that while the registry is not the only factor in emissions reduction, it provides valuable pressure on companies to report accurately. Gina McCarthy, an advocate for strong climate policies, points out that transparency leads to competition among facilities to lower their emissions.

Despite these efforts, a significant portion of the U.S. remains under-monitored for air quality. According to recent studies, about 40% of the nation is lacking sufficient data, particularly poorer and rural areas. This absence of information can have dire consequences for public health, as pollutants are linked to serious health issues like asthma and cardiovascular diseases.

Moreover, the EPA is attempting to withdraw funding for air quality monitoring in some regions, hindering efforts to improve conditions. In Charlotte, NC, a community group is fighting back against this cut, asserting that access to clean air is a matter of human rights.

Brockman, amidst managing her classroom, understands the complexities. Many families depend on jobs from the coal industry, making community conversations challenging. “But we can’t ignore the health risks,” she reflects.

This battle for clean air is not just local; it’s a national issue that echoes concerns around environmental justice. As communities push for accountability, they remind us that while industrial progress is vital, it should not come at the cost of people’s health and well-being.

For ongoing discussions on climate and health, organizations like the Environmental Protection Network continue to advocate for transparency and accountability.

Source link