Fwd: Air pollution denial is now EPA policy
Svet Zabelin
Это предложение звучит ненормально, потому что так оно и есть. Но, честное слово, это также логика, лежащая в основе нового подхода администрации Трампа к регулированию загрязнения воздуха, который ежегодно убивает больше американцев, чем автомобильные аварии.
В понедельник газета New York Times сообщила, что Агентство по охране окружающей среды планирует оценивать все будущие нормы по загрязнению воздуха исключительно по их стоимости для промышленности, а не по количеству госпитализаций, хронических заболеваний и смертей, которые они предотвращают. Максин Джозелоу сообщает:
Согласно внутренним электронным письмам агентства и документам, с которыми ознакомилась New York Times, при президенте Трампе агентство по охране окружающей среды планирует прекратить подсчитывать выгоды для здоровья, связанные с ограничением двух наиболее распространенных смертельных загрязнителей воздуха - мелкодисперсных частиц и озона, при регулировании промышленности. …
Как следует из электронных писем и документов, это изменение может облегчить отмену ограничений на выбросы этих загрязняющих веществ на угольных электростанциях, нефтеперерабатывающих заводах, сталелитейных заводах и других промышленных объектах по всей стране. Это, скорее всего, снизит издержки компаний, но приведет к загрязнению воздуха.
От: HEATED <hea...@substack.com>
Date: вт, 13 янв. 2026 г. в 14:13
Subject: Air pollution denial is now EPA policy
To: <svet...@gmail.com>
Welcome back to HEATED, a newsletter for people who are pissed off about the climate crisis. Air pollution denial is now EPA policyDirty air may kill people, but Trump's EPA won't count the bodies.
Did you know? Air pollution regulations actually do more harm than good if you ignore all the lives they save. That sentence sounds deranged because it is. But it’s also the honest-to-God logic behind the Trump administration’s new approach to regulating air pollution, which kills more Americans every year than car accidents.
“Dirtier air” may sound dangerous. But if you don’t acknowledge what it actually does to people, it’s really nothing to worry about—at least according to Trump’s EPA. Make no mistake: this is air pollution denial, a phenomenon the Trump administration has been advancing since 2017. It’s taken different forms over the years: Attacking the science linking particulate pollution to premature death, minimizing the harms, arguing the evidence was too uncertain to justify federal policy. But the goal was always the same: to stop regulatory agencies from treating air pollution as a public health problem. The Trump EPA has now reached that endpoint. You don’t ever need to pay for HEATED—it’s free. But if you’re in a position to help us sustain our ad-free, paywall-free business model, a paid subscription would mean a lot. The first casualty: nitrogen oxide limits for gas plantsThe EPA’s new approach to air pollution regulations is already being used to justify allowing the fossil fuel industry to pollute more. In 2024, the Biden EPA proposed strict limits on nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from new gas-fired power plants. To justify the rule, Biden’s EPA estimated that reducing this pollution would save anywhere from $27 million to $92 million per year in avoided doctor visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. (Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide form PM2.5 and ozone—the main ingredients of smog—which damage lungs, hearts, and brains). Trump’s EPA is, of course, trying to weaken this rule. And on Monday, the Trump EPA posted a cost-benefit analysis of its proposal. Instead of updating the math on how many illnesses and deaths the rule would prevent (which would have been alarming, because it would have been a lot less) the agency just… did not count those health benefits at all. It only counted how much the new rule would cost the fossil fuel industry. Turns out, it was a lot less! The EPA says it’s doing this because they disagree with the Biden administration’s methodology for calculating the health benefits of reducing deadly air pollutants. And this is, for the record, a longstanding partisan fight. For decades, Republicans have argued that Democrats overvalue health benefits to justify regulation, while Democrats have argued that Republicans undervalue health benefits to make regulation look unnecessary. But even amid those fights, both sides have always agreed that the EPA has to make some calculation of health benefits—because the agency’s mission is literally to “protect human health and the environment.” In the past, there has had to be some semblance of adhering to that mission, no matter which party held power. But mostly, it’s horrifying. Air pollution causes more than 200,000 early deaths each year in America. It drives up rates of asthma, heart disease, and stroke. It disproportionately harms children, low-income communities, and communities of color—the people who have the least structural power to fight the industries doing the polluting. Those harms remain real whether or not the EPA bothers to count them. And the decision to stop counting them tells you everything you need to know about who is in charge. Catch of the Day: New York City is impressive to some, but not our dear boy Fish, who also lost a shoe.
Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? Send a picture and some words to catcho...@heated.world. You're currently a free subscriber to HEATED. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
© 2026 Emily Atkin
|
Ecology BY
Он стандартно и постоянно применяется на пространстве СНГ. Причём в ещё более явном виде.
Ограничивающие нормы вводятся после "согласования с заинтересованными". Читай, после получения явного согласия от них.
Под заинтересованными понимаются исключительно субъекты хозяйствования – загрязнители.
В итоге ограничения вводятся постольку, поскольку они не будут мешать "business as usual".
Подсчитывать выгоды для здоровья – этого либо не делается вовсе, либо делается для уже согласованных с загрязнителями ограничений.
С уважением,
Григорий Фёдоров.