In a move that has sparked widespread criticism, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration has released a new proposed ruling suggesting that emissions from fossil fuel-powered plants do not significantly contribute to harmful air pollution. This proposition comes despite a firm consensus within the scientific community about the detrimental impacts of such emissions on global climate patterns. Over thirty experts in fields related to climate, health, and economics were consulted on the validity of this proposal, with nineteen responding to dismiss it as scientifically baseless and misleading.
Zeke Hausfather, a respected climate scientist affiliated with the tech company Stripe and Berkeley Earth, likened the proposal to denying the well-known link between smoking and lung cancer, emphasizing that the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming has been scientifically recognized since the late 1800s. He categorically dismissed the notion that carbon emissions from power plants do not significantly influence climate change, noting how coal burning remains the primary contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions.
Echoing these concerns, Michael Mann, a climate scientist from the University of Pennsylvania, drew a drastic comparison to consuming arsenic, asserting the dangers posed by emissions. Similarly, Dr. Howard Frumkin, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, reiterated the established facts: the earth’s shape, the sun’s trajectory, and the significant role coal and gas power plants play in exacerbating climate change—along with the resulting proliferation of health threats such as heatwaves and infectious diseases.
R. Daniel Bressler, a climate economist from Columbia University, pointed out that tools like climate economics reveal the extensive impacts of emissions, including deaths and damages worth billions due to temperature rise. Highlighting decades of global scientific consensus, Kathy Jacobs of the University of Arizona criticized the administration’s statement, which contradicts copious evidence provided by researchers worldwide.
The basic chemistry of fossil fuel combustion releasing carbon dioxide and the ensuing warming effect has been established since the mid-19th century, a point raised by Oregon State’s Phil Mote. In an even more severe charge, Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria and former Canadian parliament member, suggested that President Trump could face international scrutiny for allegedly endangering future generations by rejecting fundamental scientific principles.
Stanford’s climate scientist Chris Field, who has previously coordinated global reports linking extreme weather events to climate change, described the decision as incredibly shortsighted. He criticized prioritizing the oil and gas industries’ immediate benefits over the pressing long-term needs of future generations. The EPA’s stance appears set to trigger legal and environmental debates, with experts unanimously calling for action rooted in scientific evidence and global consensus.