As the U.S. grapples with rising health threats like wildfire smoke, intense heat waves, and increased asthma cases, the last thing we need is to roll back protections for air quality.
Yet, that seems to be the plan under the Trump administration, which is suggesting the repeal of key scientific findings that form the foundation of air quality regulations. These findings have played a crucial role in saving lives and advancing both environmental and public health standards.
The EPA’s administrator, Lee Zeldin, recently announced the agency’s intention to rescind its long-established stance on the health risks posed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If this occurs, the federal government will struggle to enforce laws aimed at fighting climate change and safeguarding public health.
The Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, stands as a notable example of effective public health legislation in the U.S.
This law has been instrumental in reducing six major air pollutants, saving countless lives—over 230,000 early deaths—and leading to nearly 80% fewer emergency room visits annually. It’s also tied to decreased rates of chronic bronchitis, lower infant mortality, and improved asthma management.
These figures come not from speculation, but from the EPA’s own data—ironically, the same agency attempting to undo these significant achievements.
Zeldin claims that his proposals would reverse an overreaching regulatory framework worth $1 trillion. However, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have vastly exceeded that figure, generating an estimated $2 trillion by reducing hospital visits, sick days, and medical treatments for respiratory diseases.
Moreover, the clean energy sector is quickly becoming a robust source of job creation. The Department of Energy recently revealed that employment in renewable energy has been growing over twice as quickly as in other sectors of the job market this year.
Research consistently underscores that clean air is vital for public health. The EPA has noted that pollutants like ozone and particulate matter lead to increased lung and heart problems.
Additionally, communities of color disproportionately bear the brunt of these pollutants. A study from the Milken Public Health Institute in 2024 showed that marginalized communities are eight times more likely to experience early death from childhood asthma and 30% more likely to die from pollution-related causes.
The study attributes these health disparities to the proximity of these communities to industrial plants. Just imagine how those statistics could worsen if the current findings regarding dangers were overturned, crippling the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
Zeldin referred to the EPA’s actions as an attempt to eliminate regulations linked to climate change. However, such actions could lead to more diseases, further straining the healthcare system by escalating emergency room visits and chronic illness costs.
Health advocacy groups agree that increased exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases would be detrimental. Organizations like the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the World Wildlife Fund, along with several medical associations, are firmly against the proposed changes by the EPA.
Zeldin’s recent announcement follows another puzzling effort by the EPA to relax regulations, which included reintroducing the herbicide DiCamba, banned last year due to health concerns. Despite evidence suggesting associations between dicamba exposure and certain cancers, the EPA claims it has not identified significant health risks.
The government’s primary role is to ensure the safety and health of its citizens. The Clean Air Act has proven it is possible to protect lives while fostering economic growth.
Eliminating these safety measures could lead to dire consequences for the health and well-being of many Americans.
