Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Government

EPA To Stop Considering Lives Saved By Limiting Air Pollution (nytimes.com) 145

Posted by BeauHD from the no-longer-being-considered dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency has calculated the health benefits of reducing air pollution, using the cost estimates of avoided asthma attacks and premature deaths to justify clean-air rules. Not anymore. Under President Trump, the E.P.A. plans to stop tallying gains from the health benefits caused by curbing two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants, fine particulate matter and ozone, when regulating industry, according to internal agency emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times.

It's a seismic shift that runs counter to the E.P.A.'s mission statement, which says the agency's core responsibility is to protect human health and the environment, environmental law experts said. The change could make it easier to repeal limits on these pollutants from coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, steel mills and other industrial facilities across the country, the emails and documents show. That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air. "The idea that E.P.A. would not consider the public health benefits of its regulations is anathema to the very mission of E.P.A.," said Richard Revesz, the faculty director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

"If you're only considering the costs to industry and you're ignoring the benefits, then you can't justify any regulations that protect public health, which is the very reason that E.P.A. was set up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA To Stop Considering Lives Saved By Limiting Air Pollution More

EPA To Stop Considering Lives Saved By Limiting Air Pollution

Comments Filter:

  • Alternative story source: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Monday January 12, 2026 @11:36PM (#65919894)

    The one listed is paywalled. This one doesnt bring up a paywall for me. YMMV.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    I honestly dont get this type of thinking. The idea of assigning a dollar value to externalities is fairly fundamental economics. Straight up saying "We wont count the cost of injuries and deaths of humans seems baffling and ought be seen as evil under *any* political creed.

    Who benefits here? Well... I think I know....

    • Re:Alternative story source: (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Monday January 12, 2026 @11:50PM (#65919910) Journal

      Gift Link:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0... [nytimes.com]

    • The chief of the EPA said it is nonsense.

    • I believe the biggest problem here is variability and proving causality. A pollution emitter located deep inland releasing a gigaton of PM 2.5 will cause different asthma effects based on HOW that PM 2.5 is emitted, i.e. height of the smokestack. And if that same emitter was located on the east coast of the US all of the PM 2.5 would be carried out to the Atlantic Ocean, instead of over land due to established wind currents, further changing lives impacted. So it is an extremely difficult metric to use and

      • Re: Alternative story source: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cmseagle ( 1195671 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @05:45AM (#65920238)

        So we throw up our hands and give up because it's hard?

        Barring evidence that these pollutants aren't actually harmful, which it doesn't seem like anyone is seriously arguing, surely a more reasonable approach would be to refine the models to account for the sorts of factors you mention. (Assuming they aren't already accounted for. Given that I probably could have thought them up with a few minutes of brainstorming, I figure the people who do this for a living are probably ahead of us on that.)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rta ( 559125 )

          the NYT article says they're still going to take it into consideration, but not put a dollar amount on it.

          how you can then compare things, idk...

          That said the EPA "savings" numbers have always been ridiculously and unrealistically high.
          one reason is the "value of statistical life" concept they use which they set at $10mil and use with no age adjustment.

          so... elderly sick people (who are most likely to be pushed over the edge earlier by this) really inflate the savings artificially. in the end the benefits

          • Each life has to be valued the same. Once you start saying that older people's lives are worth less, the next logical step is to say that less educated lives are worth less, handicapped people count as a fraction, and people with severe mental handicaps have negative value. That ain't right. The only way to measure the value of a human life is to treat all the same.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jbengt ( 874751 )
              Civil courts already take into account factors such as age, earning ability, etc. when calculating damages to survivors in wrongful death cases. It's wrong on its' face, as life itself can't really be valued in dollars, but dollars are needed to to have consistent units for the calculation of balancing costs. To me, if you don't put a dollar value on loss of life, then you should count a life above any dollars in cost.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rta ( 559125 )

              The problem is that if some factor accelerates a death by 10 minutes , 10 years or 50 years it's all counted the same.

              the public health world uses DALYs to have a more realistic weighing of life years lost.
              (the somewhat inverse QALY , life years gained, is more popular in the US)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • We aren't changing allowable pollution levels, we're simply not treating a made-up number as if it were a real thing.

          Are you really saying more lives will be lost by merely not reporting a "lives saved" number?

          • Are you making an argument for real, or just delivering a rhetorical trick to earn Internet points?

    • "Lives Saved" is a made-up number. It may be based on some sound modeling, but at the end of the day, we can't verify or confirm the accuracy of the number of "lives saved".

      It reminds me of the equally made-up "Jobs Created or Saved" metric the Obama administration created.

    • I honestly dont get this type of thinking. The idea of assigning a dollar value to externalities is fairly fundamental economics.

      Actually, it's a perfectly rational stance if you're a Corporatist or a Fascist. (Did I repeat myself? Possibly). Anyway, the point is that when a government hinders, cripples, or even halts programs such as Meals on Wheels, pediatric cancer research, consumer protection, Social Security, free or even subsidized healthcare, and on and on and on - then said government isn't incurring the related expenses. They've signaled their intention to disavow any responsibility for, or even to, average citizens. So the

  • Luckiest Man on Earth (Score:5, Funny)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Monday January 12, 2026 @11:49PM (#65919906)

    Hey, looks like we're living in the Biff timeline after all.

    • Re:Luckiest Man on Earth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @12:00AM (#65919916)

      Could you imagine a country under president Kamala?

      No tariffs, no masked police going door to door, no bombing of fishing boats, a whitehouse with an intact wing, competent government leaders and not DEI hires...

      • Re:Luckiest Man on Earth (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @12:49AM (#65919950)

        Almost forgot, no talk of invading Greenland, no talk of annexing Canada, not invading a South American country for oil, not pardoning one drug lord. Oh fuck me it's been a long year.

        • Re:Luckiest Man on Earth (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @01:17AM (#65919976)

          And I expect Kamala Harris would have funded Ukraine's defense so Russia would be less significant than now. But now the US has kidnapped a foreign leader, for the oil, setting a favorable example for China to use as it plans to take over Taiwan, for the chips. Oh, and NATO's future looks uncertain.

        • Since were in the business of relabelling this, could we not just rename Mar a Lago to Greenland?

        • But but but she laughs! Can you imagine. Joy in a world leader! Unheard of! UNPRESIDENTIAL!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Much like hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, idocracy is actually a documentary that fell back through time.

    • Welcome to Mordor.

      Do enjoy the romantic view of the landscape burning around you at night.

    • Air pollution is a hoax perpetrated by scientist trying to get rich.

  • "Some of you may die- (Score:4, Funny)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @12:02AM (#65919920)
    -or, whatever."
  • s/Environmental Protection/Emolument Production/g

  • Trump's People: Complete Break from Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @01:49AM (#65920022) Homepage
    Trump's people are destroying America.

  • 42 USC Chapter 85 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @01:59AM (#65920036) Homepage

    42 USC Chapter 42 [cornell.edu] covers the EPA's responsibilities and authority regarding air pollution. These changes appear to violate practically every provision in it.

  • What people fail to grasp is that pollution controls and regulation don't actually reduce pollution at all unless they're enforced globally.

    Having tough regulations in the USA and other developed countries shuts down factories and other facilities, but since that capacity is still needed it just reopens somewhere else that doesn't have such regulations. The pollution output is the same it just happens somewhere else, and it's still our problem because we're still stuck on the same planet. In fact overall po

    • Re:Pollution controls (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sonofusion82 ( 1038268 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @05:56AM (#65920242)
      Yes, air pollution needs to be enforced globally for things like CO2 and other gases. However, there are also pollution where the impact is significantly local like microplastics, ashes, particulate matters. Those might be blown far away but the pollution density is usually much higher at the source. Why city air is so much more polluted than rural air?

      Also, it is interesting that China is actually improving in air quality control in recent years. In fact, they are improving much faster than most countries due to their push for renewable energy (their massive hydroelectric dams, solar farms and cheap EVs might have arguable benefits) but it has actually significantly improved their city air quality. https://earth.org/how-china-is... [earth.org]

      Meanwhile in Western world, the current generation have never experienced and forgotten how bad was the air pollution during their grandparent's generation. See Donora Smog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        China are pushing for cleaner energy, but not at the expense of other forms of energy. They also continue building coal and nuclear plants too.

        Their push towards EVs has pragmatic implications for them too - China is a major producer of batteries and many of the raw materials required for batteries, but is not a major source of oil. They would much rather countries are dependent on Chinese batteries than Saudi oil.

        China is an example of putting their own economy first and environment second. Any environment

      • Particulates from vehicles can be very localised. EPA has traditionally had a role on this. I can't outsource my trip to the beach to someone in China.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > how bad was the air pollution during their grandparent's generation.

        Yeah, it was bad back then, but much more recently I can still remember the smog in our major cities. Sure, it wasn't so bad you couldn't see, but it was bad enough that you really didn't want to be out in it - loads of people suffered because of it, either 'a bit' by just coughing it up, or worse by having an actual condition affecting their breathing long term. I also remember the resulting acid rain dissolving buildings and the like

    • There are some fallacies there. The first is that you cannot reduce pollution cost effectively and must set up dirty versions abroad, or that dirty plus shipping is always cheaper than clean and local. As has been shown through history, often clean can be cost effective. It's retrofitting that's difficult. Tax write offs for those can ameliorate that. In terms of worldwide regulations, then there are various import restriction options that can be used to exclude products from markets that don't meet require

      • you cannot reduce pollution cost effectively and must set up dirty versions abroad, or that dirty plus shipping is always cheaper than clean and local

        True, but IF it's cheaper to outsource pollution, companies almost always choose it over a cleaner option. Honestly, we have to blink first anyway. Create the regulations that outsource pollution and hope that everyone elsewhere does too so that it becomes easier and cheaper to not pollute. But there are countries that make the choice to be dirty as an alternative to economic suicide and...it's hard to say if that's a good or bad choice overall.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          Clean versus economically healthy is a false dichotomy. In general, industry is getting cleaner worldwide. Multilateral agreements can help drive that, but are hard to implement and imposing standards on imports is an alternative, but not without issues. Theoretically, consumers can exert choice but it requires both a willingness to engage as well as sufficient information.

    • What people fail to grasp is that pollution controls and regulation don't actually reduce pollution at all unless they're enforced globally.

      Nearly all "pollution" is a local phenomena. What you are talking about is a tiny miniscule subset that causes global warming. The fact you don't understand this is truly worrying.

      Hint: Next time you hear a story about New Delhi residents wearing masks and staying indoors look out your wonder and ask yourself why it is you can still see across the street. I'll let you have that experience before asking you to admit you just made a spectacularly stupid post.

    • What people fail to grasp is that pollution controls and regulation don't actually reduce pollution at all unless they're enforced globally.

      Believe it or not, air pollution can be quite localized. I recently had to investigate and report on the issue of air pollution in various countries and you're not going believe how much it matters. In Turkey, 25% of all medical treatment expenses are to treat people that are slowly dying as a direct result of the extremely poor air quality.

      The primary reasons for this poor air quality are:
      * Erdogan went all-in on mining and burning lignite for energy production. (idiotic)
      * They have stoves that burn some t

  • ... An agency that calculates how many extra deaths are due to Trump!

  • My schadenfreude circuitry can only handle so much current.

  • It's like USCSB reports without casualty number (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yanestra ( 526590 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @07:10AM (#65920306) Journal
    It's like the USCSB (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board) was not allowed to report the number of casualties anymore. (Actually the current US administration tries to kill off the USCSB completely.)

  • MAGA hates kids (Score:3)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @10:38AM (#65920666)

    Air pollution is bad for children. The data is clear. MAGA is going to hurt children.

    https://healthstudy.usc.edu/st... [usc.edu]

  • My grad school work was in the field of environmental economics, specifically how to do Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) when either or both benefits and costs are stochastic [jstor.org]. I've also spend a decade building software for various state EPAs to help automate the process of issuing air pollution permits and compliance monitoring [wyoming.gov]. It is pretty clear that EPA has simply chosen to ignore the law. I can't imagine this policy will stand up to court scrutiny.

    OTOH, I attended a fund raiser for then Senator Sherrod Brown

Slashdot Top Deals

You may call me by my name, Wirth, or by my value, Worth. - Nicklaus Wirth

Close