US President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken drastic steps in just one year, undoing nearly 70 years of environmental regulations and putting Americans at risk. The agency's actions, aimed at pleasing corporate interests, will lead to poorer air and water quality, increased exposure to toxic chemicals, and exacerbated climate change.
The EPA's efforts to loosen regulations on pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and formaldehyde have raised concerns among health experts. The agency has even reduced the monetary value of lives saved from restricting these pollutants, suggesting a lack of concern for public health.
In addition to environmental degradation, Trump's EPA is also rolling back rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A proposed repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which is the legal basis for federal climate regulations, could have catastrophic consequences for the planet. The move to delay enforcement regulations on methane and gut or repeal rules on coal- and gas-fired power plants will only exacerbate climate change.
Critics argue that Trump's EPA has abandoned its mission of protecting human health and the environment, instead serving corporate interests. "The Environmental Protection Agency is now the Environmental Pollution Agency," said former EPA policy adviser Jeremy Symons.
As a result of these actions, millions of Americans are at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals and poor air and water quality. The impact on vulnerable populations, such as children, low-income communities, and indigenous peoples, will be disproportionately severe.
The rollbacks have been met with fierce opposition from environmental groups and health experts. "These changes amount to a war on all fronts that this administration has launched against our health and the safety of our communities and the quality of our environment," said Matthew Tejada, former director of the EPA's environmental justice program.
With climate change already worsening, Trump's EPA rollbacks are a recipe for disaster. As one health expert noted, "If it has benefits to normal people, like fluoride and vaccines, the Trump administration are against it, and they believe in extremely low doses of exposure being harmful."
The EPA's efforts to loosen regulations on pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and formaldehyde have raised concerns among health experts. The agency has even reduced the monetary value of lives saved from restricting these pollutants, suggesting a lack of concern for public health.
In addition to environmental degradation, Trump's EPA is also rolling back rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A proposed repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which is the legal basis for federal climate regulations, could have catastrophic consequences for the planet. The move to delay enforcement regulations on methane and gut or repeal rules on coal- and gas-fired power plants will only exacerbate climate change.
Critics argue that Trump's EPA has abandoned its mission of protecting human health and the environment, instead serving corporate interests. "The Environmental Protection Agency is now the Environmental Pollution Agency," said former EPA policy adviser Jeremy Symons.
As a result of these actions, millions of Americans are at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals and poor air and water quality. The impact on vulnerable populations, such as children, low-income communities, and indigenous peoples, will be disproportionately severe.
The rollbacks have been met with fierce opposition from environmental groups and health experts. "These changes amount to a war on all fronts that this administration has launched against our health and the safety of our communities and the quality of our environment," said Matthew Tejada, former director of the EPA's environmental justice program.
With climate change already worsening, Trump's EPA rollbacks are a recipe for disaster. As one health expert noted, "If it has benefits to normal people, like fluoride and vaccines, the Trump administration are against it, and they believe in extremely low doses of exposure being harmful."