Home Business How the EPA’s new regulation plans how decades violate the health and...

How the EPA’s new regulation plans how decades violate the health and economic benefits

4
0
How the EPA’s new regulation plans how decades violate the health and economic benefits

Trump management was announced on March 12, 2025 “Revalking” to the rules of more than 30 air pollution In a number of actions that can affect air quality in the United States.

“Review” is a term used to review or change the regulation of government. Environmental Protection Agency Manager Lee Zeldin provides several details, the width of the re-evaluated rules affects all Americans. These include rules that make restrictions for contaminants that can damage human health ozone, particle and volatile organic carbon.

Zeldin wrote that the regulation of his regulation will give “the trilons to the regulatory costs and secret taxes with taxes.” But this is only part of the story.

Zeldin did not say that the benefits of the economic and health of the Federal Cleaner Air Rules for decades are very high. Some calculations returned $ 1 to health and economic benefits spent on each $ 1 on the rules of fresh air.

How far America has been moving because of the statute

In the early 1970s concentration American cities and Pickle rain peeled woods naked from northeast to Midwest.

Weather pollution was not just a concern – it was a public health emergency. However, for decades, he has been surrounded by one of the most successful environmental turars in the United States.

Thanks to more powerful air quality rules, pollution levels delayprevents Hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. And despite the early predictions of these rules Crip up the economycontrasted the right thing: US economy It was growing during pollution that the clean air and economic growth can hand in hand and increased by hand in hand.

Numbers appear.

Analysis of the first 20th anniversary of the first 20th anniversary of the Clean Air Law, found the economic benefits of the rules in 1970-1990 in the 1990s 42 times more than costs.

This EPA is subsequently estimated The value of air quality rules in the United States in 2020 would be $ 65 billion, primarily health and growing workership productivity, $ 2 trillion. Other studies make rich found similar benefits.

More than 1 in 1 to 1, the clean air is the best supply of one of the best investments in the clean air.

Science-based rules Even the playground

Came with the passage of the turning point Clean air act since 1970Serious rules for pollutants from industry, vehicles and power plants.

These rules targeted the main sinners: particle items that make lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and contributions Asthma, heart disease and premature deaths. It was an instance Lead removalthose who can damage the brain and other organs and gasoline. O single change Resulted in lower levels of remote In the blood of people, including a 70% drops Children’s blood lead levels in the United States.

The results were emergency. Six basic air pollutants have been wasting since 1980 78% decreasedEven as the US economy It has increased twice in size. Stay like Los Angeles, Houston and Pittsburgh, the cities that are once popular for drowning fogs Look at the air cleaner away, while lakes and the forests devastated from the acid rain in the northeast Reviewed.

Most importantly, life was rescued. Clean air movement EPA requires periodically Estimate the costs and benefits Air Quality Rules. In 2011, in the latest estimates, EPA predicted that the weather quality will improve Prevent death before 230,000 In 2020, this means a fewer ambulance and more ambulances for asthma and a million American Americans for a few asthma and millions of Americans.

Economic payment

There are critics of air quality rules had an argument for a long time Rules are very expensive for businesses and consumers. But the information tells a very different story.

EPA studies have confirmed the rules of fresh air Improve air quality by time. Other things showed that Health benefits exceed the costs. This pays for the economy. Fewer diseases means less health care costs and healthy employees are higher productivity and less abducted workdays.

EPA estimated that the United States spends every $ 1 spent in responding to air quality rules $ 9 in benefits. In 2024, a separate investigation by the National Economic Research Bureau of National Economic Research estimated that each of the air pollution was spent US Economy at least $ 10 benefits. When considering the long-term impact on human health and climate stability, the return is even greater.

The next chapter in the fresh air

Air Americans are more clean, healthier and more secure than several decades.

However, despite this significant progress, air pollution remains a problem in some parts of the country. Some city neighborhoods remain was stubbornly contaminated due to vehicle waste and industrial pollution. Although urban pollution decreases, wild flame smoke had more impact on weak air quality throughout the nation.

This means that EPA still tries to do.

If the agency works with environmental scientists, public health professionals and industry, and the consensus of honest scientific can continue to protect public health. At the same time, future generations can ensure that the rules will enjoy the same fresh air and welfare.

Instead of reviewing the rules of clean air, EPA doubts examples of countless scientists who determine the decades of decades to determine the standards designed to protect human life. In many cases, industrial areas will not want to return to past pollutants, but the future investment in the future investment of clean air rules cannot be protective. This increases the uncertainty of future regulation for industries.

The past offers a clear lesson: investing in fresh air, not good for public health – good for the economy. The rules of air quality remains one of the greatest policy success stories in American history, to save the ladies and provide trillion dollar benefits.

Richard E. Peltier is a professor of the environmental health sciences Umass Amherst.

This article is republished Conversation Under the Creative Commons license. Read original article.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here