Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Trump administration has hailed its overhaul of federal pollution restrictions on coal-burning power plants as creating new jobs, eliminating burdensome government regulations and ending what President Trump has long described as a “war on coal.”
The administration’s own analysis, however, revealed on Tuesday that the new rules could also lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 from an increase in the extremely fine particulate matter that is linked to heart and lung disease, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days.
Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, which crafted the regulation, said that other rules governing pollution could be used to reduce those numbers.
“We love clean, beautiful West Virginia coal,” Mr. Trump said at a political rally Tuesday evening in West Virginia, the heart of American coal country. “And you know, that’s indestructible stuff. In times of war, in times of conflict, you can blow up those windmills, they fall down real quick. You can blow up pipelines, they go like this,” he said, making a hand gesture. “You can do a lot of things to those solar panels, but you know what you can’t hurt? Coal.”
Nevertheless, Tuesday’s release of the rule along with hundreds of pages of technical analysis for the first time acknowledged that the rollback of the pollution controls would also reverse the expected health gains from the tougher regulations.
A similar analysis by the E.P.A. of the existing rules, which were adopted by the Obama administration, calculated that they would prevent between 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths per year by 2030, and would reduce the number of school days missed by 180,000 annually.
The Trump administration proposal, called the Affordable Clean Energy rule, would replace the stricter Obama-era regulations that were designed to fight global warming by forcing utilities to switch to greener power sources, but which Mr. Trump, the coal industry and electrical utilities have criticized as overly restrictive.
But the supporting documents show that the E.P.A. expects it to allow far more pollutants into the atmosphere than the regulation it would supersede, the Clean Power Plan.
The Trump administration has made deregulation a centerpiece of its political strategy, and the E.P.A. has led the charge. The proposed weakening of the rules on coal-burning plants follows a plan to let cars emit more pollution . Transportation and the power sector are the two largest contributors of carbon emissions.
The data detailing the health effects of the coal-plant rules is the product of a longstanding E.P.A. requirement that new regulatory proposals go through a rigorous assessment. But as the agency works to roll back regulations on industry, it has also taken steps to sharply restrict the way it uses data to assess its own proposals.
Critics say that these changes could make it more difficult to perform calculations like the one that the E.P.A. made public on Tuesday. As a result, the costs and benefits of sweeping new rules like these would be harder to assess.
The numbers in both the analysis of the Clean Power Plan and its likely successor, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, are derived from an intricate three-part modeling system that the E.P.A. has used for decades to calculate the benefits and drawbacks of pollution regulation. The premature mortality numbers used in those models draw from a landmark Harvard University study, known as Six Cities, that definitively linked air pollution to premature deaths.
Ultimately that study formed the backbone of the kind of federal air pollution regulations now being weakened. Today, however, the Six Cities study itself is under attack at the E.P.A.
The agency is considering a separate rule that would restrict the use of any study for which the raw, underlying data cannot be made public for review. The argument for the rule is that the research work isn’t sufficiently transparent if the data behind it isn’t available for analysis.
The list shows dozens of environmental policies that the Trump administration has targeted, often in an effort to ease burdens on the fossil fuel industry.
But scientists overwhelmingly oppose the move, pointing out that participants in long-term health studies typically agree to take part only if their personal health information won’t be made public.
If the E.P.A. finalizes that rule, it would restrict the use of one of the main pieces of research that ties pollution to premature death, potentially making it easier for future E.P.A. assessments of health impact to assign a lower premature death rate by instead using other research.
“What it would do is change the understanding of the benefits, or in this case the disbenefits, of a particular rule-making,” said Paul Billings, senior vice president for public policy at the American Lung Association. “It would exclude that important piece of information.”
The E.P.A.’s analysis of the new Trump administration plan does include premature death calculations based on studies that are considered less comprehensive than the Six Cities study. Those analyses start at the possibility of an extra eight to 25 deaths a year under Mr. Trump’s climate plan.
The E.P.A. didn’t respond to questions about its proposal to limit the scientific research used in its assessment.
At its heart, the administration’s Affordable Clean Energy rule will give individual states vast authority to set more modest goals and to regulate emissions from coal plants as they see fit. Critics assailed it on Tuesday as a shortsighted effort that could set back the effort to tame global warming.
“The Trump administration sees political value in this rollback, but our health and the economic promise of clean energy is at stake,” former Vice President Al Gore said in a statement.
Trump administration officials say the Clean Power Plan, in its effort to reduce carbon emissions, illegally tried to force electric utilities to use greener energy sources. The new plan, they said, would achieve many of the benefits sought by the Obama administration but in a way that is legal and allows states greater flexibility.
“However much people may want E.P.A. to regulate power grids, however much people may want E.P.A. to demand that renewables be built instead of coal plants, we do not have that authority,” said William J. Wehrum, the E.P.A.’s air chief, on Tuesday.
A former coal industry attorney , Mr. Wehrum said that the agency had the authority only to “regulate emissions from things that emit” and not try to direct the broader direction of energy development.
Andrew R. Wheeler, the E.P.A.’s acting administrator, said on Tuesday: “We are proposing a better plan. It respects the rule of law and will enable states to build affordable, clean, reliable energy portfolios.”
The administration’s proposal lays out several possible pathways that individual states might use for regulating coal-fired power plants, and what the consequences would be for pollution and human health in each case. In the scenario the E.P.A. has pegged as the most likely to occur, the health effects would be significant.
It is in that scenario where the E.P.A. estimates its plan will see between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 because of increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5, which are dangerous because of their link to heart and lung disease as well as their ability to trigger chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis.
The Trump administration analysis also found that its plan would see 48,000 new cases of what it described as “exacerbated asthma,” and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030 because of an increase of pollutants in the atmosphere.
Mr. Wehrum acknowledged Tuesday that there would be “collateral effects” on traditional pollutants compared to what the Clean Power Plan might have achieved. But, he said, “We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.”
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
So people will die! Who cares? They're just ordinary people, so they don't count for shit.
OTOH, the shareholders in coal operations will make lots of money, and that is what is important.
Why do I have the feeling that our "leaders" haven't the foggiest idea of what they're doing?
Maybe because they are thinking more about ideology than we the people.
I'd prefer that ideology was involved, rather that the simpler truth: money!
In my mind here is the hierarchy:
1. Big Umbrella = Money
2. Next smaller umbrellas = Ideology
Of primary focus;
2.a. Ideology L has their own selfish interests
2.b. Ideology R has their own selfish interests
We need another ideology that works for we the people.
Exactly.
Greedy executives and others who make money from things like this are motivated by . . . greed!
Of course some have some strong ideological views. Others not so much. But if and when it comes to a choice between the two-- money wins!
Which is why they're rich-- and we're not (they know when to ditch ideology in favour of profits-- its all about them, not what they perceive to be "the good of humanity").
A pErfect example: the Koch Brothers. Longtime ultra right-wingers. Ardent Trump supporters. But recently they've had some no so pleasant words with Trump. Why the sudden shift? Because they're greed trimped their ideology-- they're really upset by Trump's tariffs. Nothing to do with ideology-- rather they know that tariffs are bad for business profits!!!
(So where is ideology important? In the minds of the average citizen. Politicians, media, lobbies-- all those with vested interests-- making big bucks-- successfully use ideology to brainwash the average person...who is usually extremely uninformed and very gullible).
It doesn't matter.
The Krugman piece I seeded today is on this topic:
Coal fueled power plants aren't susceptible to war????
Tell that to the Germans and the Japanese
Nobody is going to be building new coal-fired power plants or opening mines because the payoff point for either is more than 15 years. People see that the energy market is changing permanently and that Trump is not going to change those facts. Coal is dying (almost dead) and Trump isn't going to change that fact by pandering to a few supporters in Appalachia and a few utilities. The most that we will see is some plants not being fitted with updated emissions controls that would have been and a few utilities still holding on to coal-fired plants instead of either changing them over to gas or shutting them down.
Solar, wind and fracked natural gas are the stable power sources with some input by nuclear.
Exactly!
Even the most successful technologies and/or industries over time fade away as new methods and needs appear.
One example used on Wall St:
At one time there were companies that specialized in making Buggy Whips. But soon smart stock market traders realized they were no longer a good investment-- the " horseless carriage" (AKA the automobile) was the death of what had been the very lucrative business of manufacturing buggy whips!)
Coal mining is obsolete-- but like many outmoded things that passing away, its going to its death kicking and screaming.
(What smart investor would buy coal stocks today? Unless you're a day-trader ....)
My father worked for Babcock and Wilcox designing and building coal-fired power plants. The division of what is now McDermott is a shell of what it used to be because nobody is building coal-fired plants. Existing coal-fired plants are being converted to frac' gas.
The Australian coal mining industry has collapsed because they were a major supplier of steam coal to China and India and both nations are converting to cleaner fuels at a rapid pace.
Giggity.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
At least gas burning is cleaner.
The power plant that supplies electricity for my computer and my other toys switched over from coal to frac'd gas about 2 years ago. It's cleaner and quieter because the streets are no longer clogged with semis hauling coal. I saved the customers over 8 million dollars in required emission upgrades and EPA fines.
"1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths per year by 2030"
When it reaches 40,000 deaths per year, let me know.
Oh....by the way, that number is from simply driving.
Liberal types are so "Melodramatic" when they set their own sites on ONE THING !
"During the September 11 attacks of 2001, 2,996 people were killed."
I take it you felt the same about the apparently acceptable number of deaths on 9/11?
"When it reaches 40,000 deaths per year, let me know."
"There were 951 total homicide convictions in Texas in 2015 . Of those, native-born Americans were convicted of 885 homicides, illegal immigrants were convicted of 51 homicides , and legal immigrants were convicted of 15 homicides."
So by your thinking, the few hundred people that are likely killed every year in the US by undocumented immigrants shouldn't even be on the political radar due to it being such an insignificant amount, right?
If your looking for perfection, your on the wrong planet.
My point was....Deaths occur, no matter what is tried.
Are cars not supposed to be safer than they were before, but at the price of a house ?
Did it change anything ?
True !!
But, working toward a safer environment IMO is a smart thing to do.
Going overboard on everything is also a ill of our government though, so a medium needs to be reached.
The old saying, "Moderation in everything" may and probably should be applied to everything our government does as well. Unfortunately, is isn't.
Horse and Buggy ?
No Industry ?
Back to just running clear streams and blue skies, while one hunts for their own food (guns needed) ? There were "Shortfalls" even then.
LOL.. Ya made me laugh, you have no idea how many times I've pulled out those same words.
No of course there no need to go backwards in fact as you stated many safety improvements have been made. I say keep researching and making stuff safer just dont go overboard on stuff. Moderation in everything sounds much more reasonable and responsible to me.
In 1968, the year that we passed the first seatbelt law for private passenger vehicles, we had 26.27 auto fatalities per 100,000 Americans. In 2016 that number was down to 11.5 fatalities per 100,000. Even with many more vehicles on the road, the number of fatalities per capita has gone down dramatically. That's because we adopted safety protocols to address and mitigate a specific risk. What would be so horrible about doing the same when it comes to producing cleaner energy?
And yet.....folks STILL die !
Some just "WANT" things...…."NOW" !
Sound Familiar ?
?
While I agree perfection is an illusion, working to make things better is most of the time attainable. What people Want Now isn't always the best for all involved.
Sounds familiar ?
Yes....Yes it does.
So your argument would be that because we haven't completely eliminated all auto fatalities, we should ditch seat belts, air bags, safety glass and all other safety features we've developed to mitigate fatalities? That is the excuse you're using on removing any safety restrictions on dirty coal, right? Since we can't eliminate all the problems, let's just get rid of any of the safety protocols we've adopted to reduce the deaths we do see, right? It seems the same as the rights stance on gun control, because you can't eliminate all illegal use and can't prevent every criminal or mentally unstable person from getting their hands on a weapon of mass murder, why bother to have universal background checks or any gun restrictions at all, right? I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to such a pointless fatalistic world view.
Not even close to what I was saying, but think what you need to.
"1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths per year by 2030"
"When it reaches 40,000 deaths per year, let me know."
It seems you're making the case for little or no E.P.A. coal rules that could help prevent 1,500 to 3,600 premature deaths annually because it's such a small number. Then when faced with the mitigation used in auto fatalities which has successfully reduced those fatalities, your answer was "And yet.....folks STILL die !". That would seem to be claiming the mitigation is useless since it didn't stop all those deaths. If you're trying to make a different point, then do so. As it stands you have clearly defended not implementing safety protocols because either the deaths are too miniscule to you or that we can't prevent all of them so why even try.
I wonder if anyone here (except for Bob) is aware of how toxic Mercury is?
I do not know it it is true anymore, but mercury was once used for tooth filling.
With that in mind, when I was at Ft Detrick, for a period of time part of a team I worked with were housed in office space in a building that had been converted from a dental clinic.
When that building was demolished, yellow tape was put up around the area.
oops !
I wouldn't have been none to happy about that shit !
A lot of people were.
This is with regards to mercury, so I hope it is not off topic.
Not long ago I watch a docu-video about life of some of Native peoples in the Amazon area who had grown a little closer to "civilization". They would set up mini gold mining/sifting operations on the banks of rivers and streams.
The sifted material would be put into a 55gal drum and mixed with a good amount of water.
The last step involved dumping a good sized packet of mercury into the mix. Then someone with shorts and no shoes would then stomp the mixture, much like stomping grapes into wine. I do not understand how or why, but this process, after a period of time resulted in all the gold flakes in the mixture to come together into a single large nugget.
So, some guy has been stomping in the mercury contaminated mixture for who knows how long and then all the left over is dumped into the stream/river.
They have no idea how harmful this is. But they are rewarded for turning in the gold for money. Again no warnings given to them.
Native peoples in the Amazon area who had grown a little closer to "civilization"
Wow.
Unfortunately it's unlikely a warning or even outlawing in some way the practice of obtaining the gold the way they are would stop what or how they are doing it.
Not only would they probably not comprehend the damage they are causing or even the overall scope of the world. Coming form their environment liely they know little about much of anything expect their way of life and their environment.
Humans seem do what they need to survive even thru changes of culture. At This time this seems to be their answer to their survival, til that changes I doubt they will either.
He who has the gold makes the rules, he who doesn't will break the rules to get the gold.
PS: My apologies for being off topic as well. Thanks for letting us have the time and space.
That is true all to often.
So terrible Bob.
IMNAAHO, everyone should have this image engraved into their brains.
So your solution is to do nothing? not even try? Not bother trying to improve things?
You said something about "melodrama" before?
That sounds nice. Certainly something to strive for. No reason it can't be achieved through improving technology and industrial processes and raising awareness.
Bows and arrows can work too. Also spears if one is up for a challenge.
Just use an atlatl.
I'm making the case that "MORE" EPA stuff isn't needed. It's the same crap argument on "Guns". The laws are already there, and have been there. ENFORCE THEM ! No new rules NEEDED !
Yes, every safety measure sure as hell has saved lives. I dare say enough for even you to be impressed.
As proven by the Trump EPA, the 'law' is up to the agencies interpretation.
So chemical companies, miners and energy extractors come up with new ways every year to fuck over the environment but the EPA shouldn't address them. Got ya.
What's your excuse "Pre-Trump".
My excuse for what exactly? Please be specific.
I understand.
Doubtful.
You asked a question.
Well you didn't answer.
Answer what ?
NWOR.
Cool !
OK-- in that case I've got something to sell you. Nope-- not a bridge. Rather-- how about a big investment in a coal mining company?
(Like the proverbial bridge-- you can't go wrong! Coal will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams... /sarc).
Wanna bite? (Put yer money where yer mouth is...to coin a phrase
Gee...lets see...invest in a company that get's chastised by MSM/Liberal crybabies every chance they get. hmmmmmmmm.
Ain't it great when "Holier-than-thou" folks crash other folks so they can have "Good Feelings" about themselves ?
He's got ya, Krishna!
How can you possibly argue with Reality TV?
Removed
Reality crept in, Oh My. This "generalization" thingy is out of hand. Makes it look like "Safe Space" closets are the "IN" thing here.