EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin criticized the New York Times for spreading inaccurate reports about the agency’s approach to measuring “lives saved” in its regulations.
Zeldin claimed, “This is just another dishonest narrative from the New York Times. In reality, the opposite of their headline is true. The EPA indeed continues to factor in lives saved when establishing pollution standards.” He expressed frustration over the media’s role in undermining journalism, referencing a Times article that asserted the EPA would stop considering health benefits linked to air pollution regulations, based on certain internal documents.
The Times report stated that the EPA intends to disregard the health advantages of reducing pollutants like fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and ozone when regulating industries. An EPA spokesperson countered this, assuring that the agency remains dedicated to utilizing only the most accurate and current scientific data in its rule-making processes.
The spokesperson emphasized, “We’re committed to employing the gold standard of science in our decisions. The outdated models currently used to assign a monetary value to human health are inadequate.” They further stated that the ongoing evaluation of the health effects of PM 2.5 and ozone remains crucial to the agency’s mission, reassuring that the decision to pause monetization impacts does not signal a shift away from prioritizing public health and environmental protection.
Continuing, the spokesperson asserted that the EPA is steadfast in its goal to enforce clean air regulations that are transparent and uphold legal standards for all Americans. They recognized the importance of advancements in reducing PM 2.5 and ozone levels, noting reductions of 37 percent and 12 percent since 2000, respectively.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA focus on calculating emissions and reductions rather than simply assigning dollar values to those reductions. Interestingly, the Biden administration also faced challenges in monetizing reductions for various pollutants.
Two years ago, the administration did not attempt to monetize reductions in PM 2.5 and ozone in certain regulatory measures regarding oil and natural gas.
In defense of its reporting, New York Times Public Relations Officer Charlie Stadlander stated, “Our findings indicate that the EPA has ceased calculating the health benefits of pollutant reductions in its clean air regulations. An EPA spokesperson did not dispute this, confirming the accuracy of our report.”
The discussion of monetizing human life has long been contentious, drawing mixed reviews from experts. Granger Morgan, a former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Committee, remarked, “This kind of number crunching is more like numerology than an actual science.”
Steve Milloy, who was involved in the EPA during Trump’s term and now edits Junk Science magazine, criticized the practice of monetizing mortality, stating it has historically been a significant aspect of the agency’s regulations. He reflected on past instances where such models were utilized to impose stringent regulations on the coal industry.
