Under Trump's EPA, a New Math on Human Health Emerges
The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing to redefine how it calculates the value of human health in terms of dollars and cents.
In recent months, the agency has begun phasing out the practice of assigning monetary values to lives saved and hospital visits avoided by air pollution regulations. This shift towards a new math puts people over profits, but critics fear it may come at a cost to public health.
The decision comes as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to weaken environmental regulations. As one former EPA official put it, "It really illustrates what the ulterior motive is – and that's to mute or mask the true impact of [particulate matter] exposure."
The agency will no longer tally up the dollar value of lives saved when setting pollution limits for pollutants like fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and ozone.
Instead, the EPA is expected to ignore the economic benefits of regulations and focus solely on their costs. Experts warn this new approach will likely skew the balance towards less stringent rules, allowing industries to operate with greater impunity.
"This change in math is part of a broader pattern at the EPA – and across the federal government – of just measuring and counting fewer things under the second Trump Administration," said one expert. "With less data on science and economics, agencies like the EPA have less accountability for their actions as they face more pressure from the White House to cut regulations."
Critics argue that this shift in approach could lead to worsening air quality and a significant increase in premature deaths due to pollution.
"Every year in the United States alone, air pollution pushes 135,000 people into early graves," said Janet McCabe, who served as the EPA's deputy administrator under President Joe Biden. "There is a lot of science that shows very clearly that being exposed to increasing levels of PM2.5 has significant health impacts."
As the EPA continues down this path, it seems increasingly likely that air pollution will escalate and public health will suffer.
The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing to redefine how it calculates the value of human health in terms of dollars and cents.
In recent months, the agency has begun phasing out the practice of assigning monetary values to lives saved and hospital visits avoided by air pollution regulations. This shift towards a new math puts people over profits, but critics fear it may come at a cost to public health.
The decision comes as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to weaken environmental regulations. As one former EPA official put it, "It really illustrates what the ulterior motive is – and that's to mute or mask the true impact of [particulate matter] exposure."
The agency will no longer tally up the dollar value of lives saved when setting pollution limits for pollutants like fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and ozone.
Instead, the EPA is expected to ignore the economic benefits of regulations and focus solely on their costs. Experts warn this new approach will likely skew the balance towards less stringent rules, allowing industries to operate with greater impunity.
"This change in math is part of a broader pattern at the EPA – and across the federal government – of just measuring and counting fewer things under the second Trump Administration," said one expert. "With less data on science and economics, agencies like the EPA have less accountability for their actions as they face more pressure from the White House to cut regulations."
Critics argue that this shift in approach could lead to worsening air quality and a significant increase in premature deaths due to pollution.
"Every year in the United States alone, air pollution pushes 135,000 people into early graves," said Janet McCabe, who served as the EPA's deputy administrator under President Joe Biden. "There is a lot of science that shows very clearly that being exposed to increasing levels of PM2.5 has significant health impacts."
As the EPA continues down this path, it seems increasingly likely that air pollution will escalate and public health will suffer.
I'm not sure if this new approach by the EPA is a step forward or backwards 
. On one hand, acknowledging the value of human health over profits can't be a bad thing 
. But on the other hand, it's scary to think that air pollution could escalate and public health suffer 
. We've seen what happens when we prioritize industries over people 
. I hope they're being realistic about the impact this change will have 
. It's not like they haven't done the science already 
. I just wish they'd consider all sides of the equation 
before making decisions that affect our health and wellbeing 
.
. So basically what's happening is they're cutting out the part where you assign a dollar value to saving lives from pollution, which means less regulations? It sounds like a win for industries but a lose for us regular folks who just wanna breathe clean air without dying 
. I mean, come on, we know pollution kills people. Janet McCabe's stats are, like, super eye-opening - 135k premature deaths each year in the US alone is not a number to mess with 
. It seems like they're just prioritizing profits over public health now, and it's just not right 
. I mean, what's the point of weakening environmental regulations if we're just gonna see more people suffering from pollution? 
. It feels like we're being pawns in a game where profits take priority over people's lives 
. Can't they just stick to the science and prioritize our health? 
. I mean, what even is the point of having an agency like the EPA if not to protect people's health? It's like they're more concerned with letting polluters off the hook and saving them some cash 
. And don't even get me started on those 135,000 early deaths a year... it's just unconscionable 
. We need to hold our politicians accountable for doing what's right by the people, not just lining their pockets 
.
. 135,000 premature deaths every year from air pollution is a staggering number - we need the EPA to be working towards solutions, not just ignoring problems 
? The EPA should be all about keeping us safe and healthy, not just the corporations who make money from polluting our air 
. I'm all for transparency and accountability, but this new approach is just a cover-up 
.