The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration has changed how it evaluates air pollution regulations. This change aims to eliminate inflated estimates of life-saving benefits based on questionable data. Critics, particularly from environmental groups, have reacted strongly to this decision.
1. New Methodology: The Trump EPA announced it will no longer use monetized benefits from supposed "saved lives" in air pollution rule evaluations. Instead, it will solely consider the costs to industry.
2. Media Reaction: The New York Times reported that the EPA would stop considering lives saved when setting air pollution rules. EPA chief Lee Zeldin refuted this, claiming the agency would still account for lives saved when creating regulations.
3. Historical Context:
• Cost-benefit analysis has been a standard practice in assessing new regulations since the Reagan era.
• Under the Clinton administration, the EPA began manipulating these analyses to introduce stricter air quality regulations, which helped contribute to significant regulations during the Obama administration.
4. Debate on PM2.5:
• The EPA's claims regarding PM2.5, a harmful air pollutant, have been highly controversial. Originally, the Clinton administration linked PM2.5 levels to possible premature deaths, significantly inflating the estimated benefits of regulation.
• The estimations of lives saved and monetary benefits have evolved, with claims escalating from 20,000 premature deaths prevented per year to 570,000 under the Obama administration, along with increases in the monetary value assigned to lives saved.
5. Skepticism of EPA Claims:
• Many experts, including the author, Steve Milloy, argue that the scientific basis for the EPA's death claims related to PM2.5 is weak and exaggerated.
• There are claims of a lack of evidence connecting PM2.5 exposure to actual premature deaths, alongside experiments showing that high exposure did not harm subjects.
6. Valuation Method:
• The $5 million value assigned to each avoided premature death was reportedly derived using questionable survey methods, leading to criticisms of its credibility and validity.
• The author contrasts this EPA method with how real lives (such as soldiers) are valued under government guidelines, highlighting inconsistencies.
The Trump EPA's decision to omit the monetization of presumed PM2.5 deaths from regulatory evaluations represents a significant shift in environmental policy. This change is intended to streamline regulations based on realistic cost considerations rather than inflated claims of benefits, stirring strong reactions from environmental advocates. The debate continues over the methodology and accuracy of air quality assessments and the implications for future regulations.
No comments:
Post a Comment