Trump’s EPA Places No Monetary Value on Human Health

New policies from the Environmental Protection Agency lean in favor of polluters by eliminating the monetary valuation of human health improvements from air quality regulations.

The EPA intends to modify its economic assessment processes by no longer quantifying the financial worth of lives preserved and medical visits averted due to air pollution controls.

A shift in the EPA’s approach to evaluating rules for tiny air contaminants, PM2.5, and ozone is underway, yet all financial burdens will remain in cost evaluations. The agency argues that the traditional methods for calculating economic benefits are too uncertain and create an illusion of accuracy.

As part of this new approach, the EPA will cease calculating these advantages until there is more confidence in their economic assessment models.

The New York Times brought attention to this development, prompting a response from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, who refuted the claims, suggesting that benefits continue to be part of regulatory considerations.

Implications of Benefits Exclusion

This change raises questions about future air quality and the potential adverse effects on public health, according to experts, including former EPA personnel.

The agency, responsible for controlling harmful emissions, acknowledges the well-documented harmful impacts of pollutants like PM2.5 on health, such as provoking heart and asthma attacks. In the U.S. alone, air pollution results in approximately 135,000 premature deaths annually.

According to Janet McCabe, an ex-deputy chief of the EPA, exposure to elevated levels of PM2.5 is strongly linked to serious health repercussions.

Analysis of Costs Absent Benefits

When setting new limits, such as mercury emissions from power plants, the EPA evaluates potential business expenses, like installing advanced technology, against public health advancements, such as reduced hospital admissions.

However, estimating these numbers is somewhat imprecise, with the potential to inflate costs if industry shifts purchase to a few suppliers. The value of preventing hypothetical medical crises is also hard to quantify.

Despite these challenges, imperfect figures can still help verify the efficacy of new environmental standards, as public insights into regulatory choices are informed by this data.

Under previous administration policies, applying stricter standards for PM2.5 was projected to deliver $46 billion in health advantages by 2032, greatly outweighing compliance costs.

Shift Towards Reduced Regulation Strings

Without financial figures representing the health benefits, a biased preference against new environmental rules emerges, as emphasized by Christa Hasenkopf from the Clean Air Program at the University of Chicago.

This shift parallels broader tendencies in the Trump administration, which includes the closure of crucial scientific entities like the Office of Research and Development, reducing data that safeguard accountability in policy-making.

This movement weakens critical legal foundations like the Clean Air Act as EPA responses to administrative pressure to diminish regulatory measures.

Continued Concerns

Joseph Goffman, previously in charge of EPA air quality, sees these adjustments as part of a systematic effort to downplay the significance and benefits of reducing PM exposure.

He contends that the disregard of monetary values aligning with reduced PM concentrations fits Zeldin’s agenda to relax environmental standards.

If the agency does not reinvest in evaluating the health benefits of regulations, we could see stagnation in air quality progression or even degradation.

According to Hasenkopf, an increase in PM2.5 levels across the nation is a likely outcome of these policy changes.