The White House argued Tuesday that climate change is hazardous to the public’s health, prompting critics of new EPA emission rules to call the argument “scare tactics” that ignore the economic impact of new regulations.
The administration outlined a new initiative to fight climate change’s effect on public health, including holding a summit later in the spring with medical professionals. It also includes several new actions, such as a study from the Environmental Protection Agency on the public health effects of climate change and an effort by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to devise solutions to combat the health impact of global warming.
But the new initiative distracts the public from the economic impact of new climate regulations on existing power plants, critics say. They argue that the power plant rules at the center of the administration’s climate agenda would harm the very people the administration’s climate-health initiative seeks to protect.
“It is deeply troubling this administration chooses to leverage the serious issue of public health to promote its own short-sighted political agenda,” said a spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an advocacy group that is fighting the new EPA climate regulations that would close coal plants while imposing new costs on consumers.
“Rather than focus on the questionable — and sensationalized — effects of climate change on public health, we need to protect Americans who are already struggling to heat and cool their homes and keep the darkness at bay from the dangerous impacts of the administration’s carbon regulations,” the spokeswoman said in an email.
The White House argues that for the past three decades, “the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting these individuals and many other vulnerable populations at greater risk of landing in the hospital.”
“Certain people and communities are especially vulnerable, including children, the elderly, the sick, the poor and some communities of color. Rising temperatures can lead to more smog, longer allergy seasons and an increased incidence of extreme-weather-related injuries,” the White House said.
But the clean coal group says the groups cited in the announcement would be harmed by new regulations that a widely cited study by NERA Consulting shows would cause double-digit increases in the cost of electricity for consumers. The compliance costs for utilities would be between $366-479 billion over 15 years.
The White House announcement also suggests the administration is paying close attention to legal vulnerabilities as the Environmental Protection Agency moves closer to implementing its new climate regulations for power plants this summer. Many believe litigation will be unavoidable once the rule is finalized, since it already faces challenges in the proposal stage.
By making the public health argument for addressing climate change, the administration may be attempting to put itself on the solid legal footing of a 2007 Supreme Court decision. The high court ruled that the EPA can regulate carbon emissions as harmful to public health. The emission rules are an extension of that public health finding.
Proponents of the administration’s climate plan raised the Supreme Court decision in downplaying the announcement’s relevance to litigation facing the new EPA emission rules for power plants. They say the issue of EPA’s authority has already been decided.
The new regulations — also known as the Clean Power Plan — would put states on the hook for reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The reductions have prompted about a dozen states to challenge the rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before they are finalized. The states argue that the EPA does not have the authority to implement the measure under the part of the Clean Air Act it is using.
An administration official addressing reporters — while not addressing litigation directly — said the most “salient arguments” in favor of addressing climate change are those involving public health.
“The Supreme Court has already affirmed that the EPA must act on climate,” said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association. The association is a key supporter of EPA actions to fight pollution.
“Today’s announcement is not about any pending litigation, rather it reinforces what health and medical experts have been saying for quite some time about the threats posed to health by carbon pollution and climate change,” Billings said.
