EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the move at the G20 Energy Abundance Ministerial in Houston, Texas, on Sept. 14. The EPA will now hold a public hearing for the proposal over a 15 day period, and have a 45-day public comment period.
The move comes at a time when the United Nations warns that the world is set to overshoot the 1.5°C goal to limit warming—and that the world will reach 1.8°C of warming unless immediate changes are made to reduce global emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere.
The Biden Administration predicted that the rule would have prevented up to 1,200 premature deaths, 360,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 48,000 school absence days, and 57,000 lost work days in 2035 alone. It also projected up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades.
The Trump Administration has also made a number of moves to keep polluting coal plants alive—even though coal is among the most costly power sources and the air pollution it generates has been linked to a number of adverse health effects, including increased risk of asthma and cancer. In February, the Energy Department ordered several coal-burning plants that had been slated for retirement to stay open. Also that month, Trump loosened Biden-era restrictions on coal burning plants, known as Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants, and ordered the Pentagon to purchase more coal-based electricity. The Department of Energy was also directed to allocate $175 million in funding for six projects to upgrade coal plants in four states.
What health impacts are associated with greenhouse gases from power plants?
“The science is very clear,” says Jim Zhang, professor of global and environmental health at Duke University. “It all shows that these pollutants cause cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, exacerbates asthma, exacerbates heart disease, and are associated with increased deaths and emergency room visits.”
“If you take away the regulation, then that pollution is going to happen, and these health effects are going to happen,” says Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
While the U.S. is repealing these standards, the health impacts will transcend borders. “The health damage is not at local level but global level,” says Zhang.
The environmental and health impacts will be felt—despite what the EPA might say. “It is certainly possible to have policies that assume climate change will have no impacts, and that is what we are doing,” says Michael Greenstone, director of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth at the University of Chicago. “But the atmosphere and the climate don't recognize those misstatements, and we will be stuck with a nastier, more virulent form of climate change.”
Hence then, the article about here s what the science really says about the health and climate risks of carbon pollution was published today ( ) and is available on Time ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Here’s What the Science Really Says About the Health and Climate Risks of Carbon Pollution )
Also on site :
- Internet shutdown crosses 100 days in Pakistan-administered Kashmir
- Most Memorable Moments at 2026 Emmys, From Taylor Swift’s Cameo to Mariska Hargitay Recreating Nicole Kidman’s AMC Ad
- Stephen Colbert Says ‘Free Speech Is Alive and Well’ After Emmy Win Despite CBS Cancellation: Late Night Is ‘Just as Vital as it Ever Has Been’