Did the EPA Get It Wrong On Pollution Regulation?

Subscribe in a reader

A few weeks ago we wrote about the supreme court's ruling on the EPA pollution regulations.  This article presents the opposite perspective that says Supreme Court got it right.  Controversial huh?   

Regardless of race, nationality or political affiliation, most people tend to have similar core values: Do good. Don’t hurt people.  Help others in need.  How those values get applied, or enforced by the government is where we often get into disagreements.  So without taking a side, this article is meant to explain the opposite position on the Supreme Court ruling so you can have both perspectives.

The Supreme Court’s Surprise Ruling

Basically, a few weeks ago, the supreme court ruled that the EPA overstepped its boundaries when it outlined new pollution regulations.  The EPA relied heavily on the assumption that with a reduction in pollution, there will be widespread health benefits to society.  Sounds like common sense right?  

The supreme court found that their basis for health claims was not well-founded enough and therefore they placed an unfair burden on the power suppliers. Too much so to impose these regulations.

Why The EPA Wanted More Regulation

The EPA admits that these new regulations could cost the power industry 10 billion dollars (which is of course going to get passed on to consumers).  However, if society as a whole benefits by 100 billion dollars, then the regulations actually have huge savings for everyone.  

For example: What if your electric bill went up by 10% per month.  That could cost you $200-500 per year.  But what if your insurance costs fell by 10%?  That could save you $2000-5000 per year.   While the numbers we used are made up, this is essentially how the EPA made its recommendations.

Why Did The EPA Get It Wrong?

The Institute For Energy Research took a pass at explaining this in more detail.  (Yes, you can probably guess which side the institute for energy research sided with, but the argument is interesting.)  

Their conclusion was that the EPA way overstated the health benefits of the regulations because pollution has been going down for decades, but asthma and allergies have continued to rise.  

The law by the EPA specific regulates chemicals like NO2. It concludes that a reduction of NO2 will result in a lot less symptoms of asthma and if we have 100,000 fewer cases of asthma, then that will save society a lot of money.

Existing Data Does Not Match The Claim

The problem according to the Institute For Energy Research, is that NO2 has already been going down for 20 years while asthma has been skyrocketing!   So there is something else at play, or some other cause that we have not discovered yet.  

Sources: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)

For all of the Charts, see the article here:  Canada Free Press

Who knows, maybe these charts are telling us that we need to drastically increase our pollution output to counteract the uptrend in asthma cases.  (Just kidding.)

Whatever your position is regarding the regulations and the supreme court decision, this analysis provides an interesting perspective regarding the two different viewpoints.

Taking Matters Into Your Own Hands

If you are worried about pollution in your environment, you may not have 10 years to wait around while the EPA, power companies, & supreme court sort this all out.  One thing you can do in the short term is talk to our air quality specialists about air purifier solutions to pollution.  Many of our units contain 20-30 lbs of activated carbon that is excellent at removing smoke, chemicals, or pollution from the air.

See our Best Air Purifiers For Pollution and Chemicals

Or chat/call our specialists.

External Sources:  Canada Free Press

← previous post next post →


Leave a comment