It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency has calculated the health benefits of reducing air pollution, using the cost estimates of avoided asthma attacks and premature deaths to justify clean-air rules.
Not anymore.
Under President Trump, the E.P.A. plans to stop tallying gains from the health benefits caused by curbing two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants, fine particulate matter and ozone, when regulating industry, according to internal agency emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times. It’s a seismic shift that runs counter to the E.P.A.’s mission statement, which says the agency’s core responsibility is to protect human health and the environment, environmental law experts said.
The change could make it easier to repeal limits on these pollutants from coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, steel mills and other industrial facilities across the country, the emails and documents show. That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, refers to particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream. Ozone is a smog-causing gas that forms when nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds are emitted from power plants, factories and vehicles and mix in the air on hot, sunny days.
Long-term exposure to both pollutants is linked to asthma, heart and lung disease, and premature death. Even moderate exposure to PM2.5 can damage the lungs about as much as smoking. Under the Biden administration, the E.P.A. tightened the amount of PM2.5 that could be emitted by industrial facilities. It estimated that the rule would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays in 2032 alone. For every $1 spent on reducing PM2.5, the agency said, there could be as much as $77 in health benefits.
But the Trump administration contends that these estimates are doubtful and said the E.P.A. would no longer take health effects into account in the cost-benefit analyses necessary for clean-air regulations, according to the documents. Instead, the agency would estimate only the costs to businesses of complying with the rules. Over the past four decades, different administrations have used different estimates of the monetary value of a human life in cost-benefit analyses. But until now, no administration has counted it as zero.
In a Dec. 11 email reviewed by The Times, an E.P.A. supervisor wrote to his employees that political appointees in the Office of Air and Radiation planned to insert language about the “uncertain” benefits of reducing PM2.5 and ozone in all new clean-air rules. The language states that “historically, the E.P.A.’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone.” It says that “to rectify this error, the E.P.A. is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
A version of the language already appeared in a regulatory impact analysis posted online on Monday. The document accompanied a final rule that would weaken limits on nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from combustion turbines used at gas-burning power plants.
The head of the E.P.A.’s air and radiation office, Aaron Szabo, said at his Senate confirmation hearing that he had a personal stake in clean-air rules because he suffers from cystic fibrosis. “Because of my lung disease, I have always been acutely aware of air quality,” he said. Mr. Szabo is a former registered lobbyist for the oil and chemical industries. His clients at the firm CGCN Group included the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade association for oil refiners that has opposed stricter PM2.5 standards.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla