The EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency, has long been an entity that holds companies accountable for pollution and other acts that harm the environment. Established in 1970, the EPA has set and enforced numerous national pollution control standards.
However, a recent proposal that the EPA drafted is unsettling, to say the least. The proposal is to completely lift restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants. This change is because the pollution from these industries “does not substantially contribute” to public health or climate change.
The Current Standards
U.S. power plants have historically had to align to standards on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama and Biden administrations needed coal and natural gas plants to leverage technology to reduce carbon pollution by 90%.
These restrictions ensure that public and wildlife health are at minimal risk to pollutants.
EPA’s Reasoning
The EPA’s justification for its new proposal concerns the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon dioxide that U.S. power plants generate.
It claims that these levels are inconsequential to the global greenhouse gases, meaning they have little impact on public health and climate change.
Scientific Opinion
While the EPA has its opinion, the scientific community worldwide has its own consensus—greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are a major cause of climate change. Nearly a third of the pollution fueling global warming is from power plants.
Many leading organizations have stressed the importance of reducing these emissions to minimize climate change’s effects. Otherwise, there could be huge ramifications for the world.
Health Impacts
Reducing power plant emissions is important not only for climate change but also for the health of communities across the United States. Residents risk exposure to mercury, fine particles, and other toxins that power plants release.
People exposed can show symptoms ranging from respiratory illnesses to heart diseases. These pollutants account for many premature deaths every year.
Economic Arguments
There are pros to raising restrictions, and supporters of the proposal claim that the power sector will save billions annually, lower overall energy costs, and let American energy production reach its potential.
While this could boost economic growth, the price would not be worth it. Millions of residents would experience a worse quality of life, and vulnerable populations could face serious illnesses.
Political Context
The Trump administration has been rolling back various climate protections in favor of boosting support for fossil fuels. This means that policies introduced by previous administrations could be undermined as many believe progress is reversed.
Supporters discuss solutions to economic downturns and frame the proposal as a return to energy and economic traditions. Critics see it as innovation at the expense of public health and the entire planet.
Environmental Justice
Power plant pollution has historically hit communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. The proposal could only exacerbate this disparity in these regions, dismissing years of environmental justice efforts.
Removing protections to help balance the health disparity of neighborhoods living near industrial areas will only widen the inequality gap.
What’s Next?
The proposal has not been approved yet and must be reviewed by multiple agencies. This is an important process and allows people from multiple sectors to speak out, including industry reps, scientists, and even the general public.
Given the high stakes, the proposal will most likely be met with legal battles and public debate. The outcome could reshape America and the health of the planet forever.
Far Too Many Consequences
Taking away the important restrictions on power plant emissions is a gamble with far too many consequences to justify the economic benefits that could come with it. There might be more money, but it will come at the cost of public and environmental health.
The proposal will be a hot topic as those for and against it make their case. The question on everybody’s mind – is whether the economic gain is worth environmental harm and human health risks.
