Why the EPA’s Claims on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Miss the Mark: Uncovering the Truth

Last Friday, while many were gearing up for the weekend, the Trump administration made a surprising move regarding environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to eliminate the requirement for about 8,000 facilities, like refineries and power plants, to report their greenhouse gas emissions. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin described this reporting as “red tape” that doesn’t improve air quality. However, this perspective misses a crucial point.

Greenhouse gas emissions are indeed linked to health risks, even if they don’t visibly pollute the air. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this view, recognizing these emissions as an endangerment to public health. Many can relate to the smoky air seen in parts of North America and Southern Europe, driven by severe wildfires—events that are becoming more frequent due to climate change.

According to the World Meteorological Organization, between 1970 and 2021, climate-related disasters led to over two million deaths and more than $4.3 trillion in economic losses. As the planet warms, these figures are likely to grow. Research from the Institute for Sustainable Finance suggests that climate-related losses in Canada could reach between $2.8 trillion and $5.5 trillion, depending on future temperature rises.

Collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions is not just a bureaucratic task; it’s essential for holding businesses accountable. Investors and companies need accurate information to manage and direct funds wisely. Without it, everyone is left guessing. Effective action toward a sustainable economy hinges on having the right data.

The Climate Policy Initiative reveals that global climate finance has surged to over $2 trillion in 2024, significantly up from $812 billion in 2018, despite challenges in the U.S. around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. As the U.S. restricts its climate strategies, other nations are likely to attract investments aimed at fostering sustainable innovations.

This recent announcement from the EPA fits into a larger pattern of the Trump administration rolling back climate regulations. Past efforts included trying to overturn the “endangerment finding” that supported these regulations, exiting the Paris agreement, and plans to dismantle NASA’s GHG-monitoring satellites. Now, they’re attempting to cut off the data that informs policies and business decisions.

Avoiding emissions reporting doesn’t eliminate the emissions themselves. The costs—lost homes, damaged supply chains, and health risks—will eventually catch up to us all. In time, the economic and human toll could be staggering.

Industry players are aware of the risks posed by the EPA’s decision. The Carbon Capture Coalition has expressed concern, stating that the proposal threatens investments from American businesses. Transparency in emissions data is crucial for fostering innovation, not hindering it.

What’s at stake is significant. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program tracks emissions from some of the highest polluters in the U.S. Dismantling this program is akin to driving a car without a dashboard. Just as we wouldn’t tolerate ending financial reporting because of perceived burdens, we shouldn’t accept the end of crucial emissions data that guides our economic future.

The EPA has a vital role: to protect public health and the environment. This data not only informs the public but also helps investors make wise decisions. By choosing to cut this program, the EPA risks failing in its mission. Transparency isn’t a hindrance; it’s the foundation for accountability, innovation, and a sustainable economy.

Yrjö Koskinen is the director of research at the Institute for Sustainable Finance at Queen’s University and holds the BMO Chair in Sustainable and Transition Finance at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary.

Source link

Donald Trump,EPA,GHG,Greenhouse gases