The recent moves by the U.S. administration to roll back a key 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding are concerning. Just last month, the EPA proposed to challenge the ruling that regulates fossil fuel pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This proposal is currently under review by the White House.
In June, the administration announced its plan to remove limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by fossil fuels. These decisions seem to prioritize short-term economic gains, especially benefiting the fossil fuel industry, which plays a significant role in U.S. politics.
“By revoking this key scientific finding, our government is prioritizing Big Oil over sound science and public health,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign. He warned that these changes could harm people, wildlife, and future generations.
Environmental and public health experts are raising alarms about the impact of these proposals. Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, commented, “For the industries that contribute most to climate change, the message is ‘pollute more.’ For those suffering from climate disasters, it’s ‘you’re on your own.’”
Health professionals are clear: the climate crisis is already harming people’s health, especially in communities already facing pollution issues. “The science is clear — the climate crisis is affecting our health now,” said Emmie Mediate, chief program officer at Health Care Without Harm.
Additionally, EPA chief Lee Zeldin announced plans that could weaken wetland protections and loosen vehicle emissions standards. The proposed changes may even affect restrictions on dangerous pollutants like mercury. Zeldin mentioned in a statement that the agency’s mission is to safeguard health and the environment, but many believe the actions are counterproductive.
Lynn Goldman, dean of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, highlighted that reducing regulations on harmful pollution isn’t a long-term solution. “We need to tackle pollution with various strategies, and abandoning these avenues only leads to temporary profits for a few,” she expressed.
Moreover, the ramifications of these changes could extend to the economy. The ongoing tariff war could potentially raise energy prices for American families. Increased pollution could also lead to higher medical expenses. According to the Clean Air Act, for every dollar spent on emissions reduction, there’s a return of $9 in benefits to public health and overall productivity.
Margo Oge, former EPA director of transportation and air quality, warned that the retreat from environmental protections could lead to higher costs for consumers and harm economic growth. As she aptly pointed out, going backward on climate action won’t make America great — it will make Americans sicker.
These moves toward deregulation reflect a troubling trend prioritizing immediate economic interests over long-term health and environmental benefits. The growing consensus among experts suggests that regardless of political agendas, the science clearly supports the need for strong environmental protections now more than ever.
Source link
EPA proposal,Clean Air Act,climate actions
