Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan — a serious policy adopted by the Obama administration to curb air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, both of which threaten health and the planet’s climate system — and replace it with an ill-advised policy that will seriously make air pollution worse and accelerate climate change. Named the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, the proposal is neither “clean” nor “affordable” because of its emphasis on expanding coal mining and reliance on coal-fired power plants. The president’s pronouncements aside, there is nothing “beautiful” or “clean” about coal, and the so-called “war on coal” has been almost entirely market driven, given that mining and generating electricity from coal is vastly more expensive than cheaper natural gas (another fossil fuel that is quickly wearing out its welcome) and renewable energy (mostly wind and solar). Current policy under the Clean Power Plan (its implementation is being blocked for the time being by a lawsuit filed by the EPA) is expected to prevent 1,500 to 3,600 premature deaths due to air pollution exposure each year by 2030 and reduce the number of missed school days in children by 180,000. (We should pause here and remind ourselves that about 7 million people around the world die prematurely as a result of air pollution, including tens of thousands of Americans who are exposed to poor air quality, according to a 2014 study by the World Health Organization.) In contrast, the new proposal proposed by the EPA makes things much worse, says Lisa Friedman:
The administration’s own analysis, however, revealed on Tuesday that the new rules could also lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 from an increase in the extremely fine particulate matter that is linked to heart and lung disease, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days.
The administration’s analysis also expects 48,000 excess asthma exacerbations each year as a result of this new rule. (It is estimated that 8-9% of American children have asthma; recent research from Pediatric Alliance’s Deborah Gentile, M.D. found that in some Pittsburgh neighborhoods, that rate was much higher in school-age children.)
The bottom line — and make no mistake: the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule is all about the “bottom line” — is that the Trump administration, even after using their own analysis, is perfectly content with more Americans being sick and dying prematurely as a result of worsening air pollution. Are you okay with this? The American Academy of Pediatrics is not okay with it. Not by a long shot:
“The plan unveiled today by the Trump administration to reverse the Clean Power Plan and undo critical protections for public health will hurt children. By lifting limits on the carbon emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, which are the largest source of these emissions in the United States, the new plan is a clear departure from the important work needed to ensure clean air and protect children, families and communities from the changing climate.”
But the AAP — a champion for children’s environmental health that represents and speaks for most practicing pediatricians — wasn’t done:
“According to the World Health Organization, more than 80 percent of the current health burden resulting from the changing climate occurs in children younger than 5 years old. Children breathe faster than adults, spend more time outside and have lungs that are still developing, which means environmental changes have a more significant impact on them. For children who suffer from asthma, poor air quality can turn playing outdoors into a real risk to their health. Children will disproportionately bear the burden of dirty air, increased incidence of vector-borne illnesses, increased natural disasters, heat-induced illness and death.
“All children should be able to breathe clean air, and their ability to do so should not be determined by where they live. As pediatricians, we see how the changes in the environment impact our patients’ health, and we are disappointed in the reversal of a policy that recognized this connection and protected child health. Children deserve policies that ensure a safe environment and promote clean air.”
The Medical Society Consortium for Climate and Health is also highly critical of this new proposal to roll back the Clean Power Plan, which becomes law if American voters roll over:
“The plan unveiled today by the Trump administration to reverse the Clean Power Plan and undo critical protections for public health will hurt children. By lifting limits on the carbon emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, which are the largest source of these emissions in the United States, the new plan is a clear departure from the important work needed to ensure clean air and protect children, families and communities from the changing climate.”
The Medical Society Consortium is a coalition of 21 medical societies and academies, including the AAP (pediatrics), ACP (internal medicine), AAFP (family practice), ACOG (obstetricians/gynecologists), APA (psychiatrists), and the AMA (American Medical Association), representing more than 500,000 doctors who, as a general rule, favor facts and transparency:
“According to the World Health Organization, more than 80 percent of the current health burden resulting from the changing climate occurs in children younger than 5 years old. Children breathe faster than adults, spend more time outside and have lungs that are still developing, which means environmental changes have a more significant impact on them. For children who suffer from asthma, poor air quality can turn playing outdoors into a real risk to their health. Children will disproportionately bear the burden of dirty air, increased incidence of vector-borne illnesses, increased natural disasters, heat-induced illness and death.
“All children should be able to breathe clean air, and their ability to do so should not be determined by where they live. As pediatricians, we see how the changes in the environment impact our patients’ health, and we are disappointed in the reversal of a policy that recognized this connection and protected child health. Children deserve policies that ensure a safe environment and promote clean air.”
Other groups working to improve health in the U.S. are also opposed to the new plan. The American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, HealthCare Without Harm, the Children’s Environmental Health Network, and others call the plan “dangerous” and “harmful”:
“EPA’s proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan is not just inadequate, it is dangerous. The urgency of protecting public health from the impacts of climate change increases with each passing day—and so does the necessity of implementing and enforcing strong limits on carbon pollution from power plants as outlined in the Clean Power Plan. Our organizations urge EPA to reject the proposed rule and implement the Clean Power Plan.”
“In addition to the immediate damage that this proposal would cause to human health, failing to address the pollution causing climate change will have lasting health consequences. The longer our nation’s leaders delay action to clean up the pollutants driving climate change, the greater the health costs will be from wildfires, hurricanes and other extreme weather events.
“Our organizations strongly oppose this dangerous proposal and urge EPA to reject it in order to protect the health of Americans.”
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) clearly prefers the public health protections contained in the Clean Power Plan for the benefit of their patients, which the Trump administration cynically wants to repeal:
“The Clean Power Plan would save lives. By the Trump administration’s own estimates, the Clean Power Plan could prevent as many as 4,500 premature deaths each year by 2030. Furthermore, the Clean Power Plan would hasten the United States’ transition to clean renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. These healthy and cost-effective energy sources not only reduce dangerous carbon pollution, but also sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and soot (particulate matter).
It is safe to say that if you ask your primary care doctors and specialists (and you should, by all means), they will tell you their own reasons why increasing air pollution is bad for their patients’ health and why failing to decrease carbon emissions with a national policy that transitions away from fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy solutions is bad for everyone’s health, including those who haven’t even been born yet. As you can see by the responses above, many public health advocacy groups and most medical societies and academies — and the doctors they represent (my doctors, and yours too) — feel pretty strongly about this and are speaking out loudly with one voice. If you find one that doesn’t, ask him or her if they are okay with policies that damage people’s health and kill them before their time.