Last week the Trump Administration announced it is removing – perhaps ignoring – scientific findings that claim climate change is a threat to public health. The new interpretation is intended to restrict the federal government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The move is a rejection of an earlier consensus that dates back nearly two decades. The following is from The New York Times:
At issue is what’s known as the endangerment finding, a 2009 scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to Americans’ health and welfare. The finding was based on more than 200 pages of research and evidence.
The repeal of the endangerment finding is expected to increase the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent over the next 30 years, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group.
The added pollution could lead to as many as 58,000 premature deaths and an increase of 37 million asthma attacks between now and 2055, the group said.
Environmental protection is a worthy goal, which both Democrats and Republicans all agree on. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act are both landmark laws that went into effect in the early 1970s with bipartisan support. The progress since the 1970s has been tremendous by any measure. Reducing lead levels in gasoline, while banning lead from paint and numerous other products increased the IQ of more than a generation of children at risk for lead poisoning. The air is much cleaner. Water is much cleaner. You may recall that the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969. In fact, it was not the first time the river caught fire. Smithsonian Magazine claims it has happened at least a dozen times, but nobody cared until 1969.
Using public health as an argument to tighten regulations for carbon dioxide emissions is something of a reach. Claiming people will die from carbon dioxide is difficult to prove. To the extent it occurs, the victims will be impossible to identify from other causes. When a lack of air conditioning leads to fatal heat exhaustion was a death due to CO2 or poverty? Air conditioners are highly regulated, including the refrigerant, the power consumption and minimum efficiency standards. Claiming CO2 results in death due to higher temperatures and the banning cheap air conditioners (as bad for the environment) is operating at cross purposes.
Does CO2 kill? Yes and no. If you were to fall into a vat of actively brewing beer you could potentially be overcome by CO2 due to its ability to displace oxygen (i.e. CO2 is heavier than air). Yet plants require CO2. We breathe CO2, we exhale CO2. Our beverages are carbonated with CO2. I buy CO2 refills in 5-pound canisters to carbonate the reverse osmosis water my wife and I drink. More from NYT:
Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, revived a debunked myth to sum up how the Trump administration views carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. “CO2 was never a pollutant,” he said. “When we breathe, we emit CO2. Plants need CO2 to survive and grow. They thrive with more CO2.”
Is more CO2 better or worse for the environment. It’s a fair question.
While carbon dioxide can help plants grow, the extraordinarily high levels in the atmosphere are overwhelming natural processes and increasing the frequency and severity of drought, heat waves and other damaging events, according to scientists.
It is debatable whether Americans can effect a change in atmospheric CO2 levels unilaterally without other large, emerging economies – mainly China and India – agreeing to limit CO2 emissions as well. Lower middle-class Chinese and Indians would also enjoy driving cars and living in climate control homes as their incomes rise. Whether you believe CO2 is bad or good (it’s both) arguing for higher regulation of CO2 emissions based on public health lacks credibility. Public health advocates have a habit of trying to expand public health to things far removed from the traditional definition of public health. Historically public health delt with things such as communicable diseases, contaminated drinking water, vaccinations, recognizing smoking as a health hazard among others. Even seatbelts reduced a major risk to public health. To suggest CO2 gas should be included in the public health wheelhouse is well beyond what public health advocates should control.
Read more at New York Times: Trump Repeals Key Greenhouse Gas Finding, Erasing EPA’s Power to Fight Climate Change