The Trump administration’s Environment Protection Agency introduced a new proposal suggesting that carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not significantly contribute to dangerous air pollution. This statement has been met with widespread criticism from climate and health experts. Out of 30 scientists consulted by the Associated Press, 19 responded, all denouncing the proposal as scientifically inaccurate.
Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, compared the ruling to implying that smoking does not lead to lung cancer. He emphasized the long-established connection between CO2 emissions and global temperatures, identifying coal as the leading contributor to these emissions. Similarly, University of Pennsylvania’s Michael Mann labeled the proposal as absurd, likening it to denying the dangers of arsenic consumption.
Several experts underscored the clear relationship between emissions and climate change, asserting that this ruling contradicts decades of scientific evidence. Howard Frumkin, a former public health professor, noted that coal and gas-fired plants are significant contributors to climate-related risks, such as extreme weather and health threats.
Economist R. Daniel Bressler highlighted the potential human cost of these emissions, stating that emissions from an average-sized coal plant could result in hundreds of temperature-related deaths annually. Experts like Kathy Jacobs and Phil Mote reaffirmed fundamental principles of chemistry and physics that prove the warming effects of burning fossil fuels.
Andrew Weaver called out the potential long-term consequences of such denial, indicating that it could lead to international repercussions for neglecting climate science. Chris Field, a Stanford scientist, lamented the prioritization of short-term corporate interests over the well-being of future generations.
The overwhelming consensus among the scientific community is that carbon emissions significantly impact climate change and air quality. This proposal raises serious ethical concerns regarding the protection of public health and the environment. Moving forward, it becomes crucial for policy discussions to reflect and incorporate established scientific understanding to safeguard the planet for future generations.