Cleaning Up the Air We Breathe Has Been a Successful Undertaking: We Must Not Gut the EPA

No one likes unnecessary rules and regulations, and we all agree that government bureaucracies can sometimes create cumbersome policies. But the US clean air rules are not among them. In fact, laws and regulations to reduce air pollution turn out to be incredibly successful and cost-effective. It is impossible to understand the reasoning behind current plans to massively scale them back.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established by Congress in 1970 during the administration of Republican President Richard Nixon. That same year the landmark Clean Air Act was passed, setting in motion a series of legislative actions to control pollution. Since then, according to University of Massachusetts  Professor of Environmental Health Sciences Richard E. Peltier, the US “has engineered one of the most successful environmental turnarounds in history.” He explains that before the EPA was established “thick smog blanketed American cities and acid rain stripped forests bare from the Northeast to the Midwest.” Since the Clean Air Act, the improvement in air quality has been remarkable and in 2011 the EPA estimated that its air pollution regulations could  save as many as 230,000 lives annually. Levels of pollutants in the air we breathe have decreased dramatically in the last 50 years thanks to EPA guidelines.

Moreover, as Peltier outlines, contrary to claims that environmental regulations inhibit economic growth, US air pollution regulations have proven remarkably cost effective. Since 1970 the US economy has grown substantially, and a 2024 study by the non-partisan  National Bureau of Economic Research found that for every dollar spent on air pollution regulation the country reaps $10 in benefits. These economic benefits come mostly from reduced healthcare costs and increased worker productivity. Air pollution is the  second leading cause of human death globally, so reducing air pollution has major effects on improving health and reducing the burden of serious and life-threatening illness.

Plans Underway to Gut the EPA

Given that the EPA’s air pollution regulations are both incredibly effective and save money, why would any politician try to impair their ability to function? Yet that is exactly what current EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is  promising to do. Among his most troubling pronouncements is a challenge to a critical document called the  endangerment finding. In the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that under the Clean Air Act the EPA was obligated to determine whether six pollutants posed a danger to public health. The result was the EPA’s endangerment finding, which indeed found that these pollutants are dangerous, leading EPA to obey the Supreme Court’s order to regulate them. The endangerment finding has been upheld numerous times since then by federal courts and is the basis for much of the country’s environmental policy. In March, however, Zeldin pledged to  reconsider the endangerment finding and stated that “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.” As we have seen, however, the evidence contradicts Zeldin’s contention: the American economy has been robust to say the least since the EPA was created in 1970 and clean air laws and regulations benefit the economy.

Sadly, preparations are now underway to  replace the members of two important EPA scientific advisory committees and to eliminate the EPA Office of Research and Development. The EPA is also drawing up plans to stop collecting  greenhouse emissions data from many major polluters. There are also plans to eliminate most climate and environmental research at another federal agency, the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). North Carolina State University Professor H. Christopher Frey notes that EPA and other federal agencies are by law supposed to use the  “best available science” in making their regulatory determinations. But science requires data to reach conclusions and by gutting federal scientific advisory boards, review committees, and whole research departments there will be no data and no experts to figure out the best ways to continue to improve the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink and to stave off the ravages of climate change we are all witnessing and many, sadly, are already experiencing.

Will Market Forces Intervene?

Surprisingly, market forces may make it difficult to ratchet down environmental protections.  Three Vanderbilt University scholars recently pointed out that many companies “have strong financial incentives to continue to reduce their emissions and their own climate risks.” Many projects to manage climate change and increase the use of sustainable energy are already underway and businesses are not likely to walk away from these investments.” Companies recognize that climate change costs them money and puts their businesses at risk. “Companies estimate climate-related supply chain risks at $162 billion, nearly three times the cost of mitigating those risks,” the scholars wrote last month. “Many companies therefore have incentives to reduce emissions and their exposure to related hazards.”

In March, Dahlia Rockowitz of the climate advocacy organization Dayenu wrote “Americans support environmental protection and climate action, with poll after poll showing deep support for measures to combat the crisis and invest in clean energy solutions.” Some combination of public protest and commercial interests must now come together to stop the gutting of the EPA and restore its ability to make reasoned, evidence-based rules that protect our air and water. Our health depends on it.