On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on West Virginia v. EPA. The nation’s highest judicial body dropped the Clean Energy Plan (CPP), reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) capacity to enact cap and trade programs under the Environmental Protection Act. -Clean air (CAA).
These programs are aimed at reducing air pollution by putting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and creating a market for companies to buy and sell allowances for a given amount of emissions. This gives companies a financial incentive to reduce the amount of pollution they generate.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra described the move as one that “takes us back to a time when we needed to be making the most of progress,” noting that the the most vulnerable populations tend to be hardest hit.
Becerra went on to mention the benefits of reducing air pollution, such as improving air quality, preventing premature deaths, helping people with asthma, and reducing days. of school and work lost due to illness.
He concluded his statement by promising that the Biden-Harris administration would do everything in its power to protect public health and combat climate change.
Kelly Eskew, a clinical professor of business law and ethics at Indiana University, said she sees two key ways to limit EPA’s power to regulate emissions from power plants could have an impact. on health.
The first is the effect that emissions can have on health directly.
Chemicals such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter are respiratory irritants that can aggravate asthma and other lung conditions, he explained.
In addition, smaller particulate matter can lead to higher levels of heart attacks, heart failure, strokes, blood clots, lung cancer and Parkinson’s disease.
Eskew goes on to cite a 2019 study in Nature Sustainability that indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide can cause many problems, including “inflammation, decreased cognitive abilities, bone demineralization, kidney calcification.” , oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction. “
Finally, mercury can damage the lungs, cause neurological and behavioral disorders, and damage the thyroid and kidneys.
The second way emissions can affect health is through their impact on the climate.
People in urban areas where there are fewer green spaces are more likely to see temperature rises because of the island’s heat effect, Eskew said. This effect is created by pavement, buildings, and other heat-absorbing and re-emitting infrastructure, according to the EPA. It can potentially lead to temperatures as high as 7 ° F.
In rural areas, extreme weather events such as droughts, storms, and floods can have devastating impacts on infrastructure as well as the economy, she said.
In addition, when agriculture is affected, it can lead to food insecurity, both because there is less food available and because prices will rise.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), climate change can also influence the risk of flea, tick and tick-borne diseases. nemus. As temperatures rise, these organisms can thrive in areas where they are not normally found. They can also reproduce in greater numbers.
The poorest and most marginalized people are among the most affected populations, according to Catherine Kling, PhD, an environmental economist and expert in water quality modeling who has served on the Advisory Board for 10 years. EPA Science.
“Low-income and disadvantaged people are less able to protect themselves from floods, excessive heat, and the many health consequences of disasters and rising temperatures (including heat exhaustion, mental health, increased crime and violence, homelessness, and unsanitary living conditions), ”said Kling.
Jeff Freedman, PhD, a research associate at the University at the Albany Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, agrees, explaining that these groups do not have the resources needed to cope with the rapid change. Nor are governments always able or willing to help.
“In the United States, a large percentage of people of color and other marginalized groups tend to live in poorer urban areas with limited access to air conditioning or clean air,” Freedman said. “Climate change is making these problems worse.”
Freedman also pointed to poor communities in rural areas that are also prone to other climate change-related issues such as prolonged drought, lack of clean water supplies, coastal flooding, and extreme weather events such as hurricanes. and widespread fires.
Shahir Masri, ScD, an assistant specialist in assessing exposure to air pollution and epidemiology at the University of California, Irvine, said that, while the decision feels a blow, it may have no impact. immediate on health.
“This is because U.S. action on climate change has been at a standstill for decades,” Masri said, “and the decision of West Virginia v. EPA essentially applies only to powers that the EPA is not even currently exercising. “
“Obviously, hand-tie the EPA in the future,” he added. “But it’s unclear whether EPA’s hands will ever be put to work, at least in the time it takes to address the climate crisis.”
Masri noted that the current decision represents a “continuing stalemate” with the decision now being passed back to Congress to provide explicit carbon dioxide regulation in the manner proposed by the EPA.
“If there’s one positive thing that comes from the Supreme Court’s decision,” Masri added, “it’s that the court affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to the public.”
He said it was now up to the public to pay attention and make climate change an issue in the upcoming midterm elections.
Freedman said that, as a nation, it is important to confront climate change aggressively.
This can be done by transitioning to a new energy economy, powered by renewable energy, he explained.
It is also vital to enact mitigation measures such as more green space, hardening of flood protection infrastructure, and more adaptable agricultural practices such as crops and livestock that use less water.
“It’s all about scales,” he explained. “Large-scale changes require support from the national (federal) government. Local change is the product of people investing in their communities. ”
Kling added, “The most important thing people can do to protect themselves and their families is to support policy change and vote for policy makers who understand the severity of the problem and that they are willing to pass legislation to address the problem. “
