The Trump administration is planning to push its Affordable Clean Energy plan by claiming it will lead to fewer premature deaths than it previously estimated. (Photo: Jack Sem, Semtrio.com/Flickr/cc)
Pushing Pro-Coal Proposal, Trump's EPA to Downplay Plan's Danger Using Scientifically-Unproven Method
"This cynicism and disregard for life is on brand for this administration."
In its latest effort to manipulate how the human impact of its pro-business policies are perceived, the Trump administration is preparing to throw out decades-old methodology used to determine the danger of air pollution. The EPA will now favor a new method under which it would drastically undercount the number of premature deaths that pollution causes, critics say.
The New York Times reported Monday that as the White House prepares to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) plan, the Trump administration will bolster its case for the regulatory rollback by effectively rescinding the EPA's own estimate that it could lead to 1,400 premature deaths per year.
That estimate was made using a peer-reviewed methodology under which the existence of fine particles of chemicals--also known as particulate matter--in the air were found to be dangerous even if they were below the level considered to be toxic. Under the EPA's new plan, only particulate matter which reaches that level will be considered a public health risk which could lead to premature deaths.
As Lisa Friedman reported in the Times, "The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires," allowing the EPA to estimate that the continued operation of coal plants under the ACE plan would not lead to more deaths from respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and other conditions linked to air pollution.
The shift represents a "monumental departure" from the sound science used over several decades, environmental law expert Richard Revesz told the Times.
"It could be an enormously significant impact," Revesz said. "Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths."
In addition to making the ACE plan easier for the Trump administration to defend, the shift in methodology would make further regulatory rollbacks more likely.
The understanding of particulate matter that scientists at the EPA have held for decades is that even if the existence of particulate matter is under the safety limit of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, it can still endanger people breathing the air.
"Most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits," reported Friedman. "On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety. But that doesn't mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 miles per hour, or even 25."
The EPA's interest in changing the mathematical calculations it uses to determine whether the air is safe comes just two weeks after the Trump administration revealed plans to raise the poverty line--resulting in fewer Americans officially living in poverty, even though the number of households struggling to afford basic necessities will not change.
The League of Conservation Voters called the EPA's plan to change the public's perception of the dangers of air pollution "on brand" for the Trump administration.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In its latest effort to manipulate how the human impact of its pro-business policies are perceived, the Trump administration is preparing to throw out decades-old methodology used to determine the danger of air pollution. The EPA will now favor a new method under which it would drastically undercount the number of premature deaths that pollution causes, critics say.
The New York Times reported Monday that as the White House prepares to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) plan, the Trump administration will bolster its case for the regulatory rollback by effectively rescinding the EPA's own estimate that it could lead to 1,400 premature deaths per year.
That estimate was made using a peer-reviewed methodology under which the existence of fine particles of chemicals--also known as particulate matter--in the air were found to be dangerous even if they were below the level considered to be toxic. Under the EPA's new plan, only particulate matter which reaches that level will be considered a public health risk which could lead to premature deaths.
As Lisa Friedman reported in the Times, "The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires," allowing the EPA to estimate that the continued operation of coal plants under the ACE plan would not lead to more deaths from respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and other conditions linked to air pollution.
The shift represents a "monumental departure" from the sound science used over several decades, environmental law expert Richard Revesz told the Times.
"It could be an enormously significant impact," Revesz said. "Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths."
In addition to making the ACE plan easier for the Trump administration to defend, the shift in methodology would make further regulatory rollbacks more likely.
The understanding of particulate matter that scientists at the EPA have held for decades is that even if the existence of particulate matter is under the safety limit of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, it can still endanger people breathing the air.
"Most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits," reported Friedman. "On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety. But that doesn't mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 miles per hour, or even 25."
The EPA's interest in changing the mathematical calculations it uses to determine whether the air is safe comes just two weeks after the Trump administration revealed plans to raise the poverty line--resulting in fewer Americans officially living in poverty, even though the number of households struggling to afford basic necessities will not change.
The League of Conservation Voters called the EPA's plan to change the public's perception of the dangers of air pollution "on brand" for the Trump administration.
In its latest effort to manipulate how the human impact of its pro-business policies are perceived, the Trump administration is preparing to throw out decades-old methodology used to determine the danger of air pollution. The EPA will now favor a new method under which it would drastically undercount the number of premature deaths that pollution causes, critics say.
The New York Times reported Monday that as the White House prepares to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) plan, the Trump administration will bolster its case for the regulatory rollback by effectively rescinding the EPA's own estimate that it could lead to 1,400 premature deaths per year.
That estimate was made using a peer-reviewed methodology under which the existence of fine particles of chemicals--also known as particulate matter--in the air were found to be dangerous even if they were below the level considered to be toxic. Under the EPA's new plan, only particulate matter which reaches that level will be considered a public health risk which could lead to premature deaths.
As Lisa Friedman reported in the Times, "The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires," allowing the EPA to estimate that the continued operation of coal plants under the ACE plan would not lead to more deaths from respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and other conditions linked to air pollution.
The shift represents a "monumental departure" from the sound science used over several decades, environmental law expert Richard Revesz told the Times.
"It could be an enormously significant impact," Revesz said. "Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths."
In addition to making the ACE plan easier for the Trump administration to defend, the shift in methodology would make further regulatory rollbacks more likely.
The understanding of particulate matter that scientists at the EPA have held for decades is that even if the existence of particulate matter is under the safety limit of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, it can still endanger people breathing the air.
"Most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits," reported Friedman. "On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety. But that doesn't mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 miles per hour, or even 25."
The EPA's interest in changing the mathematical calculations it uses to determine whether the air is safe comes just two weeks after the Trump administration revealed plans to raise the poverty line--resulting in fewer Americans officially living in poverty, even though the number of households struggling to afford basic necessities will not change.
The League of Conservation Voters called the EPA's plan to change the public's perception of the dangers of air pollution "on brand" for the Trump administration.