Experts criticize EPA’s stance on climate threat denial

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to reverse a significant finding regarding climate change’s threat to human health and welfare. According to 11 scientists and climate experts, all it takes is observing the current state of the world to understand the worsening impact of global warming. These experts have pointed to frequent extreme weather events and new scientific research that underscore the damage climate change inflicts on Earth and its inhabitants. They are urging the administration to substantiate its plans with scientific evidence.

Brown University climate scientist, Kim Cobb, highlights that greenhouse gases inevitably pose a risk to public health. She cites the conflict between basic physics, physiology, and biology, and the constraints of current infrastructure in protecting humans from climate-induced extremes.

Discussions have emerged within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about revising its previous conclusion from 2009 that recognized greenhouse gases as a public danger. This decision has been crucial for enacting regulations on emissions from fossil fuel consumption. Dr. Howard Frumkin from the University of Washington emphasizes that carbon dioxide is notably a perilous air pollutant, underscoring a worsening scenario since the initial findings, marked by heatwaves, infectious diseases, and other factors detrimental to public health.

A reassessment of the 2009 decision was undertaken by a team of 15 scientists, who affirmed increased scientific confidence in the dangers climate change presents across various sectors, including air quality, water, and food security. They identified additional areas such as national security, economic health, and ocean acidification as being adversely impacted by greenhouse gas emissions.

In warning about national security, the team referred to statements by former U.S. defense leaders and legislative actions highlighting potential GDP reductions due to warming. Economic studies forecast significant financial costs due to climate change by the end of the century.

Chris Field from Stanford University, an author of a recent analysis in “Science,” states that evidence supporting the malice of greenhouse gases has grown robust since 2009. The consensus is clear: greenhouse gases threaten public well-being.

Emergency room physician Dr. Courtney Howard and climate scientist Kristie Ebi discuss the numerous health challenges climate change poses—from respiratory and heart diseases to nutrition deficiencies in crops grown under heightened carbon dioxide levels. These indirect impacts on public health are extensive and alarming, as noted by Katharine Hayhoe from Texas Tech University.

The scientific community remains skeptical of the administration’s ability to assemble credible evidence arguing against the threat posed by greenhouse gases. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University comments that the administration may encounter difficulty in contesting established scientific consensus.