The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to stop calculating the monetary value of lives saved and healthcare savings attributed to air pollution regulations targeting two harmful pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. This decision has sparked concern among environmental and public health advocates, who view it as a dangerous abdication of the EPA's core mission to protect public health and the environment.
The EPA's new approach, under the leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin, aligns with the Trump administration's business-friendly agenda, which has included the rollback of various policies aimed at safeguarding human health and the environment. Critics argue that this shift could lead to increased air pollution, with communities and families bearing the brunt of the consequences in the form of asthma attacks, heart disease, and premature deaths.
The controversy arises from the EPA's decision to prioritize industry costs over public health benefits. John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, describes this change as "reckless, dangerous, and illegal." He emphasizes that the EPA's mandate is to protect public health, not to ignore scientific evidence that clean air safeguards save lives.
The EPA's new stance on monetizing health benefits is part of a broader shift in approach, including the rollback of a rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution. The agency argues that the Biden administration lacked the authority to set stricter pollution standards from tailpipes, smokestacks, and other industrial sources. However, the EPA acknowledges the clear benefits of reducing PM2.5 and ozone, even if it chooses not to monetize them.
This change in calculation methods has been criticized for its potential impact on environmental regulations. W. Kip Viscusi, a Vanderbilt Law School professor, warns that if the EPA stops using statistics to measure risks to human life, it will undermine the rationale for all health, safety, and environmental regulations. The air regulations in question have historically accounted for a significant portion of the mortality benefits of EPA regulations, making the Trump administration's use of a zero value for expected lives saved unprecedented.
Despite the controversy, the EPA remains committed to its core mission, as stated by spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch. However, the decision to stop monetizing health benefits has raised concerns about the agency's commitment to protecting human health and the environment.
