In the small town of Leopold, Indiana, an inspiring effort to monitor environmental quality is underway in an unlikely place – a middle school English classroom. As students study under fluorescent lights adorned with images of a picturesque blue sky, teacher Abbie Brockman is keenly aware of the stark contrast to the often hazy skies outside, a result of pollution from nearby coal-fired power plants. Brockman’s passion for the environment has led her to collaborate with a local organization striving to measure and improve air and water quality in their community.
Brockman, acknowledging the immense power wielded by industry and government, refuses to feel powerless. “I’m just an English teacher,” she admits, yet she is determined to make a positive impact. Her efforts in environmental monitoring mirror the data-collection initiatives once federally mandated for large polluters. Emissions from local coal-fired plants have seen a 60% reduction since regulations were implemented over a decade ago.
These regulations face potential revocation, as President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers them too burdensome for industries. Experts warn that removing such requirements could lead to a surge in emissions, undermining transparency and hindering efforts to combat climate change. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, introduced in 2009 under President Barack Obama, is particularly at risk. This rule necessitates that major polluters disclose their emissions, contributing to a 20% decrease in greenhouse gases over time.
Key to understanding the national emission trends, the registry also includes institutions unexpected in this context, like universities, breweries, and even theme parks like Walt Disney World. With pollution dropping significantly, transparency encourages continued reductions. Jeremy Symons, previously an EPA climate adviser, emphasizes, “We can’t solve climate change without knowing how much pollution major facilities are emitting and how that’s changing over time.”
While companies may welcome the potential end of these reporting obligations, scientists highlight its importance. Stanford’s Rob Jackson, leading the Global Carbon Project, notes that the registry fosters accountability. Similarly, Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator, praises it for promoting healthy competition and achieving emissions reductions.
The potential loss of these reporting requirements coincides with concerns over insufficient air quality monitoring in much of the nation. Penn State’s Nelson Arley Roque points to significant gaps, particularly in underserved communities. These “monitoring deserts” often overlap with regions where vulnerable populations reside.
Additionally, the EPA is controversial for retracting funding designated for air quality monitoring. Affected organizations, like CleaneAIRE NC in North Carolina, have resorted to legal action, underscoring that access to clean air is a fundamental human right. Community groups stress the necessity of accurate data in vulnerable areas to address health risks linked to poor air quality, which include asthma and heart disease.
Despite Indiana’s claim of a strong environmental monitoring program, residents like Brockman remain unconvinced. They proactively manage their air and water quality monitors, tackling technical challenges in maintaining operations. The delicate balance between environmental activism and economic dependence on local industry shapes her community’s struggles.
Yet, for Brockman, the choice is clear. Helping students avoid the tragedy of preventable illnesses remains a driving force behind her environmental advocacy, even amid challenging circumstances. “You also don’t want to hear of another student that has a rare cancer,” she reflects, highlighting the personal stakes that underline her dedication.