Listen to the article
The Trump administration officially revoked a pivotal scientific finding last week, marking another significant step in its ongoing effort to dismantle Obama-era climate policies. The decision specifically targets the 2015 finding that had declared coal and oil-fired power plants posed serious public health risks, which served as the legal foundation for regulating toxic emissions from these facilities.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the measure on Thursday, effectively reversing the agency’s previous conclusion that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury and other harmful pollutants from power plants. The move represents one of the most consequential environmental rollbacks enacted during President Trump’s tenure.
During the announcement, Wheeler made several claims that warrant closer examination. He suggested the Obama administration had deliberately inflated the benefits of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule to justify compliance costs on the power industry. “Under the Obama administration, they did an analysis on the cost and benefits of the regulation,” Wheeler stated, “and they found that it was about $30 million of direct benefits from the hazardous air pollutant regulation.”
However, this characterization significantly misrepresents the comprehensive analysis conducted by the Obama EPA. While the agency did calculate approximately $30 million in direct benefits from reducing mercury emissions specifically, the overall health benefits were estimated at $80 billion annually. These broader benefits stem from the rule’s effectiveness in reducing particulate matter and other dangerous air pollutants that contribute to thousands of premature deaths and respiratory illnesses each year.
The coal industry, which has seen its market share decline dramatically due to competition from natural gas and renewable energy sources, has long opposed the mercury regulations. Robert Murray, founder of Murray Energy and a significant Trump donor, specifically listed the mercury rule as a priority for elimination in a memo he provided to the administration early in Trump’s presidency.
Ironically, the rule’s revocation comes at a time when the power sector has already largely complied with the regulations. Industry groups including the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, had urged the administration to leave the standards intact. Power companies have already invested more than $18 billion in pollution control equipment to meet the requirements, and mercury emissions from power plants have fallen by approximately 85 percent since 2006.
Environmental and public health experts have expressed alarm at the decision. Mercury is a neurotoxin that poses particularly severe risks to pregnant women and developing fetuses. Even low levels of exposure can cause irreversible damage to the nervous system and impair cognitive development in children.
“This is an attack on public health justified by a phony cost-benefit analysis that purposely inflates costs and undervalues the impact on people,” said Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA administrator under President Obama and now leads the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The administration’s approach to cost-benefit analysis represents a fundamental shift in how environmental regulations are evaluated. By focusing narrowly on the direct benefits of reducing a single pollutant rather than considering the full range of health improvements, the EPA is establishing a precedent that could make it more difficult to implement comprehensive environmental protections in the future.
Critics argue this methodology ignores the well-established concept of “co-benefits” – the additional positive outcomes that result from regulatory actions beyond their primary target. This approach has been used by administrations of both parties for decades when evaluating the impact of regulations.
The timing of the announcement, coming amid the global coronavirus pandemic that has strained healthcare systems nationwide, has also drawn criticism. Air pollution is known to exacerbate respiratory conditions, potentially making affected populations more vulnerable to COVID-19 complications.
While the immediate practical impact of the decision may be limited since most plants have already installed the necessary pollution controls, the legal implications could be far-reaching. The reversal provides a potential pathway for future challenges to other environmental regulations and signals the administration’s continued commitment to reducing regulatory oversight of fossil fuel industries, even as climate change concerns intensify globally.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
This rollback of the ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding is yet another example of the Trump administration’s disregard for science and public health. Undermining established environmental regulations without credible evidence is extremely concerning.
Absolutely. The EPA should be focused on using the best available science to inform its decisions, not bowing to political pressure and industry interests. This move sets a worrying precedent for the agency’s future direction.
This decision raises serious concerns about the Trump administration’s commitment to science-based policymaking. Overturning a key public health finding without a sound evidentiary basis sets a troubling precedent.
I agree, this appears to be another example of the administration prioritizing industry interests over public welfare. The long-term health impacts of this rollback could be quite severe.
It’s deeply troubling to see the Trump administration continue its assault on science-based policymaking. Revoking important public health protections based on dubious claims is a dangerous precedent.
Absolutely. This decision erodes public trust in the EPA’s ability to fulfill its mandate. The long-term ramifications for human health and the environment could be severe if this trend continues.
The administration’s claims about the previous administration’s cost-benefit analysis seem highly dubious. Overturning a well-established scientific finding without a robust evidentiary basis is deeply troubling.
I agree. This decision appears to be more about ideology than sound policymaking. Weakening critical environmental protections based on questionable justifications is a dangerous path forward.
The reversal of the ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding is a worrying step backwards. Weakening mercury and toxics regulations puts vulnerable communities at risk. I hope there is strong pushback against this decision.
Me too. Rolling back hard-won environmental protections is short-sighted and ignores the broader public interest. Rigorous cost-benefit analysis should be the basis, not political ideology.
The administration’s justification for this rollback seems highly questionable. Undermining established scientific findings to benefit industry runs counter to the EPA’s core purpose of protecting the public.
I agree. Transparent, evidence-based policymaking should be the top priority, not political calculations that ignore public welfare. This decision sets a worrying tone for the agency’s future direction.
This decision seems to contradict the EPA’s core mission of safeguarding public health and the environment. Reversing a key scientific finding without credible evidence is extremely concerning.
Agreed. The EPA should be focused on using the best available science to inform policy, not catering to industry interests. This move appears to undermine the agency’s fundamental purpose.
This move appears to be another example of the Trump administration’s disregard for science and environmental safeguards. Revoking a key public health finding without credible evidence is extremely concerning.
Absolutely. The EPA should be focused on using the best available science to protect public health and the environment, not catering to industry interests. This decision undermines the agency’s core purpose.
It’s concerning to see the EPA Administrator making unsubstantiated claims about the previous administration’s analysis. Robust scientific evidence should be the foundation for environmental regulations, not political posturing.
Absolutely. Transparent, evidence-based decision-making is critical, especially when it comes to public health protections. This move seems to undermine that core principle.