This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/climate/coronavirus-soot-clean-air-regulations.html
The article has changed 23 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 21 | Version 22 |
|---|---|
| ‘Unbelievable’ Timing: As Coronavirus Rages, Trump Disregards Advice to Tighten Clean Air Rules | ‘Unbelievable’ Timing: As Coronavirus Rages, Trump Disregards Advice to Tighten Clean Air Rules |
| (5 days later) | |
| WASHINGTON — Disregarding an emerging scientific link between dirty air and Covid-19 death rates, the Trump administration declined on Tuesday to tighten a regulation on industrial soot emissions that came up for review ahead of the coronavirus pandemic. | WASHINGTON — Disregarding an emerging scientific link between dirty air and Covid-19 death rates, the Trump administration declined on Tuesday to tighten a regulation on industrial soot emissions that came up for review ahead of the coronavirus pandemic. |
| Andrew R. Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said his agency will not impose stricter controls on the tiny, lung-damaging industrial particles, known as PM 2.5, a regulatory action that has been in the works for months. The scientific evidence, he said, was insufficient to merit tightening the current emissions standard. | Andrew R. Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said his agency will not impose stricter controls on the tiny, lung-damaging industrial particles, known as PM 2.5, a regulatory action that has been in the works for months. The scientific evidence, he said, was insufficient to merit tightening the current emissions standard. |
| “We believe the current standard is protective of public health,” Mr. Wheeler said in a telephone call with reporters Tuesday morning. “Through the 5-year review process we’ve identified a lot of uncertainties. Through those uncertainties we’ve identified that the current standard does not need to be changed.” | “We believe the current standard is protective of public health,” Mr. Wheeler said in a telephone call with reporters Tuesday morning. “Through the 5-year review process we’ve identified a lot of uncertainties. Through those uncertainties we’ve identified that the current standard does not need to be changed.” |
| The published proposal says that Mr. Wheeler places “little weight on quantitative estimates” of the mortality risk associated with fine soot pollution. | The published proposal says that Mr. Wheeler places “little weight on quantitative estimates” of the mortality risk associated with fine soot pollution. |
| The decision brought praise from Republican lawmakers and the nation’s oil companies and manufacturers, which had said a tighter regulation on smokestack emissions of fine soot would harm their economic viability — even before the global health crisis cratered the global economy. | The decision brought praise from Republican lawmakers and the nation’s oil companies and manufacturers, which had said a tighter regulation on smokestack emissions of fine soot would harm their economic viability — even before the global health crisis cratered the global economy. |
| “The certainty of holding these standards steady allows businesses in Oklahoma to plan, comply and hopefully, grow after this incredibly difficult economic period,” said Kenneth Wagner, the energy secretary of Oklahoma, a major oil and gas producing state which has long pushed for looser environmental rules. | “The certainty of holding these standards steady allows businesses in Oklahoma to plan, comply and hopefully, grow after this incredibly difficult economic period,” said Kenneth Wagner, the energy secretary of Oklahoma, a major oil and gas producing state which has long pushed for looser environmental rules. |
| But public health experts say that the move defies scientific research, including the work of the E.P.A.’s own public health experts, which indicates that PM 2.5 pollution contributes to tens of thousands of premature deaths annually, and that even a slight tightening of controls on fine soot could save thousands of American lives. | But public health experts say that the move defies scientific research, including the work of the E.P.A.’s own public health experts, which indicates that PM 2.5 pollution contributes to tens of thousands of premature deaths annually, and that even a slight tightening of controls on fine soot could save thousands of American lives. |
| Updated Aug. 31, 2020 | |
| Here’s what you need to know this week: | Here’s what you need to know this week: |
| Just last week, researchers at Harvard released the first nationwide study linking long-term exposure to PM 2.5 and Covid-19 death rates. The study found that a person living for decades in a county with high levels of fine particulate matter is 15 percent more likely to die from the coronavirus than someone in a region with one unit less of the fine particulate pollution. | Just last week, researchers at Harvard released the first nationwide study linking long-term exposure to PM 2.5 and Covid-19 death rates. The study found that a person living for decades in a county with high levels of fine particulate matter is 15 percent more likely to die from the coronavirus than someone in a region with one unit less of the fine particulate pollution. |
| “The timing of this is unbelievable,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “There’s this big study that just came out linking this pollutant to Covid. This seems like a colossal mistake on the administration’s part.” | “The timing of this is unbelievable,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “There’s this big study that just came out linking this pollutant to Covid. This seems like a colossal mistake on the administration’s part.” |
| Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association, noted that the Harvard study came on top of other reports that linked the pollutant to premature deaths. “This pollution already kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. This is an affirmation of a standard that already does not provide adequate safeguards to public health,” he said. | Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association, noted that the Harvard study came on top of other reports that linked the pollutant to premature deaths. “This pollution already kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. This is an affirmation of a standard that already does not provide adequate safeguards to public health,” he said. |
| Because the Harvard study was only published last week, after White House lawyers had already largely completed a lengthy review of the proposed rule, Mr. Wheeler said that its findings were not included in the E.P.A.’s legal rationale. | Because the Harvard study was only published last week, after White House lawyers had already largely completed a lengthy review of the proposed rule, Mr. Wheeler said that its findings were not included in the E.P.A.’s legal rationale. |
| “The Harvard study has just been released. It has not been yet been peer reviewed or fully vetted,” said Mr. Wheeler. He added, “We think the information is interesting, and we want to know more about it.” | “The Harvard study has just been released. It has not been yet been peer reviewed or fully vetted,” said Mr. Wheeler. He added, “We think the information is interesting, and we want to know more about it.” |
| But he also took aim at its authors, some of whom have publicly criticized decisions made by the Trump administration. | But he also took aim at its authors, some of whom have publicly criticized decisions made by the Trump administration. |
| “The scientists seem to have a bias,” he said. | “The scientists seem to have a bias,” he said. |
| Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at Harvard who led the study, said she was “disappointed but not surprised” by the administration’s announcement. | Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at Harvard who led the study, said she was “disappointed but not surprised” by the administration’s announcement. |
| She added, “it is an unwise decision in light of the pandemic. There has been a constant tactic over the last few years by the administration to dismiss science in general.” | She added, “it is an unwise decision in light of the pandemic. There has been a constant tactic over the last few years by the administration to dismiss science in general.” |
| Mr. Lazarus, the Harvard lawyer, said that he expected that E.P.A. would ultimately be legally forced to incorporate the findings of the Harvard study into the rationale for the rule before it is made final, likely later this year. “It will eventually be part of the legal record,” he said. “Historically, Harvard’s public health studies have been central to E.P.A. public health rules.” | Mr. Lazarus, the Harvard lawyer, said that he expected that E.P.A. would ultimately be legally forced to incorporate the findings of the Harvard study into the rationale for the rule before it is made final, likely later this year. “It will eventually be part of the legal record,” he said. “Historically, Harvard’s public health studies have been central to E.P.A. public health rules.” |
| In a letter to Mr. Wheeler, 13 Senate Democrats wrote, “Today, E.P.A. announced its decision to maintain current national ambient air quality standards that E.P.A.’s own scientists say fail to protect public health — and that research links with higher Covid-19 mortality.” The letter, signed by Senators Thomas Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Environment Committee, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, among others, demanded answers to several questions, including “How will this link between air quality and Covid-19 patient outcomes impact future E.P.A. decision-making?” | In a letter to Mr. Wheeler, 13 Senate Democrats wrote, “Today, E.P.A. announced its decision to maintain current national ambient air quality standards that E.P.A.’s own scientists say fail to protect public health — and that research links with higher Covid-19 mortality.” The letter, signed by Senators Thomas Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Environment Committee, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, among others, demanded answers to several questions, including “How will this link between air quality and Covid-19 patient outcomes impact future E.P.A. decision-making?” |
| The proposed rule, which will be open to public comment for 60 days before being reviewed by the White House and made final, retains a standard enacted in 2012. That rule limited the pollution of industrial fine soot particles — each about 1/30th the width of a human hair, but associated with heart attacks, strokes and premature deaths — to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. By law, the E.P.A. is required every five years to review the latest science and update that standard. | The proposed rule, which will be open to public comment for 60 days before being reviewed by the White House and made final, retains a standard enacted in 2012. That rule limited the pollution of industrial fine soot particles — each about 1/30th the width of a human hair, but associated with heart attacks, strokes and premature deaths — to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. By law, the E.P.A. is required every five years to review the latest science and update that standard. |
| When E.P.A. scientists conducted that mandatory review, many concluded that if the federal government tightened that standard to about nine micrograms per cubic meter, more than 10,000 American lives could be saved a year. | When E.P.A. scientists conducted that mandatory review, many concluded that if the federal government tightened that standard to about nine micrograms per cubic meter, more than 10,000 American lives could be saved a year. |
| In a draft 457-page scientific assessment of the risks associated with keeping or strengthening the fine soot pollution rule, career scientists at the E.P.A. estimated that the current standard is “associated with 45,000 deaths” annually. The scientists wrote that if the rule were tightened to nine micrograms per cubic meter, annual deaths would fall by about 27 percent, or 12,150 people a year. | In a draft 457-page scientific assessment of the risks associated with keeping or strengthening the fine soot pollution rule, career scientists at the E.P.A. estimated that the current standard is “associated with 45,000 deaths” annually. The scientists wrote that if the rule were tightened to nine micrograms per cubic meter, annual deaths would fall by about 27 percent, or 12,150 people a year. |
| “The E.P.A.’s own scientific report is overwhelmingly in support of a tougher standard. It over and over again shows that the evidence of harmful public health effects from PM 2.5 are much greater than were previously known,” said Mr. Lazarus. | “The E.P.A.’s own scientific report is overwhelmingly in support of a tougher standard. It over and over again shows that the evidence of harmful public health effects from PM 2.5 are much greater than were previously known,” said Mr. Lazarus. |
| After the publication of that report, numerous industries, including oil and coal companies, automakers and chemical manufacturers, urged the Trump administration to disregard the findings and not tighten the rule. | After the publication of that report, numerous industries, including oil and coal companies, automakers and chemical manufacturers, urged the Trump administration to disregard the findings and not tighten the rule. |
| In a November 2019 public comment submitted by 13 industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry representatives wrote, “significant uncertainty remains about the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and adverse effects on public health.” | In a November 2019 public comment submitted by 13 industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry representatives wrote, “significant uncertainty remains about the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 and adverse effects on public health.” |
| The E.P.A.’s leaders agreed with the industries’ assessment. In December of last year, a seven-member E.P.A. advisory panel, composed mostly of members appointed by Trump administration, told Mr. Wheeler the career scientists’ findings were not conclusive enough to support tightening the rule. A final version of the scientists’ report, published in January to preview the still-unpublished rule, does say the rule as it stands contributes to 45,000 deaths annually, but it also says only that tightening it would reduce “health risks,” not deaths. | The E.P.A.’s leaders agreed with the industries’ assessment. In December of last year, a seven-member E.P.A. advisory panel, composed mostly of members appointed by Trump administration, told Mr. Wheeler the career scientists’ findings were not conclusive enough to support tightening the rule. A final version of the scientists’ report, published in January to preview the still-unpublished rule, does say the rule as it stands contributes to 45,000 deaths annually, but it also says only that tightening it would reduce “health risks,” not deaths. |