EPA Abandons Monetizing Health Benefits, Leaving Communities Vulnerable
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will no longer calculate the economic value of health benefits from reducing air pollution. The move comes as part of a broader realignment towards a business-friendly approach under President Donald Trump's administration.
Critics say the decision is reckless and dangerous, leaving communities vulnerable to the devastating effects of air pollution. "The EPA's mandate is to protect public health, not to ignore the science in order to eliminate clean air safeguards that save lives," said John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Air pollution rules aimed at reducing fine particulate matter and ozone have been a cornerstone of the agency's efforts to safeguard human health and the environment. However, under the Trump administration, the EPA has rolled back multiple policies intended to mitigate climate change and protect public health.
The change in how public health benefits are calculated is seen as a significant shift towards prioritizing industry interests over environmental protection. "Not monetizing DOES NOT equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact," said Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson. However, critics argue that this decision ignores the scientific consensus on the dangers of air pollution and its devastating effects on public health.
Under previous administrations, the EPA had estimated that reducing particulate matter emissions could prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. The agency's new approach no longer includes these estimates, leaving it unclear how many lives are being saved or lost as a result of its policies.
Environmental groups have expressed alarm at the move, warning that it undermines the agency's core mission to protect human health and the environment. "The EPA is recklessly refusing to place any value on protecting the health of millions of Americans from nitrogen oxides pollution in the face of mountains of medical science," said Noha Haggag, a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund.
As the US continues to struggle with air pollution-related illnesses, critics say that the EPA's decision will have far-reaching and devastating consequences. "This is a dangerous abdication of one of its core missions," said John Walke.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will no longer calculate the economic value of health benefits from reducing air pollution. The move comes as part of a broader realignment towards a business-friendly approach under President Donald Trump's administration.
Critics say the decision is reckless and dangerous, leaving communities vulnerable to the devastating effects of air pollution. "The EPA's mandate is to protect public health, not to ignore the science in order to eliminate clean air safeguards that save lives," said John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Air pollution rules aimed at reducing fine particulate matter and ozone have been a cornerstone of the agency's efforts to safeguard human health and the environment. However, under the Trump administration, the EPA has rolled back multiple policies intended to mitigate climate change and protect public health.
The change in how public health benefits are calculated is seen as a significant shift towards prioritizing industry interests over environmental protection. "Not monetizing DOES NOT equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact," said Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson. However, critics argue that this decision ignores the scientific consensus on the dangers of air pollution and its devastating effects on public health.
Under previous administrations, the EPA had estimated that reducing particulate matter emissions could prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. The agency's new approach no longer includes these estimates, leaving it unclear how many lives are being saved or lost as a result of its policies.
Environmental groups have expressed alarm at the move, warning that it undermines the agency's core mission to protect human health and the environment. "The EPA is recklessly refusing to place any value on protecting the health of millions of Americans from nitrogen oxides pollution in the face of mountains of medical science," said Noha Haggag, a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund.
As the US continues to struggle with air pollution-related illnesses, critics say that the EPA's decision will have far-reaching and devastating consequences. "This is a dangerous abdication of one of its core missions," said John Walke.
. it seems like they're prioritizing industry interests over public health, which is just not okay 
. i mean, how can you not put a value on saving lives? the science is clear, air pollution is a huge threat to our health and environment, and we need strong policies in place to protect us 
. this decision feels like a step backwards 
, and it's alarming that they're ignoring all the medical evidence that shows the devastating effects of air pollution 
. communities are already struggling with air pollution-related illnesses, so what's next? more suffering for those who can least afford it 
the epa just threw public health under the bus 
and now our communities are gonna suffer for it 
i mean come on, we all know that air pollution is a major issue that kills tons of people every year 
but instead of taking action to stop it, they're gonna let industry profiteers run amok 
and who's gonna pay the price? 
not me, that's for sure 
. We need some common sense here and a focus on protecting our communities, not just making industries happy 
! so the epa is basically saying that air pollution doesn't matter anymore? like, what about all those ppl who are suffocating from smog and breathing in toxic fumes? this decision is literally life-threatening 
! the epa's job is to protect our health, not just line the pockets of corporations. we need to speak out and make some noise about this 
. has anyone else heard about this? let's get the word out 
i dont get why they're prioritizin industry interests over public health... that's just wrong.
. what's next, will they be giving away our lungs too? 
to communities that are already breathing dirty air. I think it's kinda crazy that they're ditching the whole health benefits thing just 'cause of industry pressure. Like, don't they get that clean air is a human right? 
Not being able to monetize the value of public health is still got some serious science behind it - those estimates from before weren't made outta thin air 
, they're basically saying they don't care about the science or the health benefits of reducing air pollution. I mean, come on, we already know that air pollution is bad news for our lungs and the planet... what's next? 
they're more worried about making friends with Big Industry than actually doing their job. And let's be real, who gets hurt by this decision? The people and the environment do 
without considering the consequences. We gotta take care of each other and the planet, not just line our pockets 
and making connections, and this news really got me thinking about health benefits vs industry interests 
. In the past, that second line was sloping downward 
, showing how reducing air pollution saved lives. Now, it's like someone pulled the plug 
and the slope just disappeared! 
. We should be looking at the number of premature deaths prevented vs the number of dollars saved 
or our bottom line 
.
. Monetizing health benefits isn't about ignoring science; it's about acknowledging the value of protecting people's lives.
.
. I mean, what's next? Not considering climate change effects on human health either? 
This decision feels super short-sighted and could lead to more people getting sick or even dying from air pollution 
. This move just reeks of a business-friendly approach gone wrong 
I'm really worried about this new move by the EPA! They're basically saying air pollution doesn't matter as much, and that's super concerning for me. I live in LA and we already have some crazy traffic problems, but at least our air quality isn't as bad as it is in other cities. But if they start watering down their rules on clean air, who knows what's gonna happen? We're talking about people's lives here! 
Air pollution is killing us and they're just gonna chill on the regulations 
Up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays are at stake 
This new policy is like playing Russian roulette with people's lives 
Environmental groups are freaking out and rightfully so 
need some answers from the epa what's up with this new approach??