Current:Home > reviewsTrump EPA Science Advisers Push Doubt About Air Pollution Health Risks -Infinite Profit Zone
Trump EPA Science Advisers Push Doubt About Air Pollution Health Risks
View
Date:2025-04-28 13:41:39
This story has been updated with a response from the EPA.
For two years, the Trump administration has been planting seeds of change in the Environmental Protection Agency—installing allies of regulated industries onto its elite panels of science advisers. That effort now has borne fruit in dramatic fashion.
The EPA’s new science advisers, sweeping aside decades of research on the grave health risks of fine particle air pollution, have launched a drive to force the agency to give greater weight to a handful of contrarian studies that dispute the harmful effects of soot.
Particulate matter is the pollution caused by combustion, a mixture of solid and liquid droplets that forms in the burning of fossil fuels or wood. The health risks of particulate matter have been an underpinning of the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of a number of air pollution regulations, including those meant to address climate change, like the Obama administration’s Clean Air Act.
The science is well-established—the World Health Organization estimates that there are 4.2 million premature deaths a year due to fine particle pollution, making it one of the leading environmental health risks globally. But allies of the fossil fuel industry have vigorously disputed the validity of fine particle pollution studies since they first emerged in the 1990s.
Significantly, the health damages from particle and other pollution coming from the combustion of fossil fuels have also been used by the EPA to justify controls on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Controlling climate change has important co-benefits, the agency has reasoned. The Trump administration and its industry allies oppose this logic.
More Weight for ‘Discordant’ Claims?
The latest scientific dispute centers around the EPA’s draft assessment of the science on particulate matter (PM), a comprehensive review that the agency is required by law to conduct every few years to update the state of the science on several key pollutants. EPA released its draft review last fall.
It affirmed the agency’s previous findings that the science points consistently and overwhelmingly to a “causal relationship” between PM pollution and premature deaths. The assessment concludes the greatest risk is due to particles less than 2.5 microns in width, and that PM2.5 is associated with a range of cardiovascular and respiratory effects.
For the first time, the EPA concluded that the evidence was strong enough to show a “likely” causal relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer, as well as nervous system effects. The EPA concluded, as it has in the past, that there is evidence of health risks even at extremely low levels of PM exposure.
Now, in a harshly worded draft review, the Trump administration’s science advisors are blasting those findings as based on “unverifiable opinions” and lacking in scientific support.
The advisers are members of a seven-member panel called the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. Although it is clear the members are not unified in their critique—individual members attached separate letters—the document calls for “substantial revisions” to EPA’s assessment of PM, including giving more weight to what it called the “discordant” evidence among the 2,800 published studies cited in the EPA’s 1,900-page science assessment.
“Substantial discordant and conflicting evidence remains ignored or unresolved,” the Trump administration-appointed CASAC wrote, “leading to repeated assertions that the literature shows consistent and coherent positive associations when in fact it shows a mixture of positive and negative results.”
When asked for comment on the critique, a spokesperson for the EPA said by email: “We appreciate the work of the CASAC and we will review the report.”
Who Are New Committee Members Listening To?
The CASAC, now chaired by Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox, Jr., a Denver-based consultant, offers a few examples of the studies it wants to see the EPA give more weight to. Among them are studies that are authored, in fact, by Cox himself—whose clients have included the American Petroleum Institute, the tobacco industry and the chemical industry.
Other studies mentioned by the CASAC are by S. Stanley Young, a former pharmaceutical industry statistician based in Raleigh, N.C., who is an adviser to the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has led a years-long campaign to discredit climate science. Young is now also an EPA science adviser.
The CASAC also pointed to the work of James Enstrom, a Los Angeles epidemiologist who for years has questioned the health risks of particulate matter. A former tobacco industry researcher, Enstrom was a plaintiff in a 2016 lawsuit brought by the fossil fuel industry-funded Energy and Environment Legal Institute that challenged the makeup of the previous CASAC.
Many of the environmental scientists who were appointed to EPA’s advisory panels had received funding from EPA at some point in their careers, which the Enstrom suit said was a conflict of interest. In 2017, Trump’s first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, made the same argument when he replaced scientific experts from the existing science advisory boards with new appointees—including a number of industry allies and consultants, like Cox and Young.
‘CASAC Itself Lacks Necessary Expertise’
One scientist who was among those removed from the CASAC last year, H. Christopher Frey, an environmental engineer at the University of North Carolina, said the harsh science critique from the Trump administration-appointed committee comes amid “numerous major changes to the [air quality standards] review process that collectively undermine its quality, integrity and credibility.”
“Most astonishing is the arrogant and insulting tone of this letter toward EPA scientific staff,” Frey, a former chairman of the CASAC, said in an email to InsideClimate News. Frey dismissed as “patently absurd” the document’s assertion that the EPA’s approach on particulate matter was unscientific. “The statement is ironic given that the CASAC itself lacks necessary expertise,” he said.
In fact, the CASAC recommended that it be given access to additional technical expertise in order to complete its review of EPA science on particulate matter. Two members of the CASAC called for the EPA to reconstitute a 20-member special review panel on particulate matter that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded in October, just prior to the start of the peer review. That panel included experts in the science of particulate matter and health effects—expertise that is now missing on the CASAC. Although much of the science on the health risks of particulate matter is from large human studies, there are no epidemiologists on the current CASAC.
In one striking passage of its draft peer review, the CASAC said it is unable to reach consensus on the link between particulate matter and mortality—the “causality determination of mortality from PM2.5 exposure.” Some members “are of the opinion that, although uncertainties remain, the evidence supporting the causal relationship between PM2.5 exposure and mortality is robust, diverse, and convincing,” the document said. But other committee members think EPA should provide a better justification for its determination that there is a causal relationship between PM exposure and premature death.
Daniel Greenbaum, president of the Boston-based Health Effects Institute (HEI), a research institute that has conducted major studies on air pollution, said that he was surprised at that passage.
“Given that there is more than a decade worth of work now looking at the epidemiology, the toxicology, and a number of other things to see whether or not PM can contribute to mortality, there’s pretty robust literature that says that,” said Greenbaum. HEI has offered its own critiques of some aspects of EPA’s assessment—for example, it does not agree with EPA’s conclusion on nervous system effects. But HEI does not dispute EPA’s fundamental conclusion on mortality risk. “By most standards, people would say that the evidence has strengthened over the last 20 years,” Greenbaum said.
But Greenbaum noted that the committee’s review document is only a draft. The CASAC has set a conference call for March 28 to discuss the document and the next steps before submitting its final recommendations to Wheeler.
veryGood! (85)
Related
- Retirement planning: 3 crucial moves everyone should make before 2025
- Kate Beckinsale Responds to Plastic Surgery Accusations While Slamming Insidious Bullying
- Kate Beckinsale Responds to Plastic Surgery Accusations While Slamming Insidious Bullying
- Trump Media fires auditing firm that US regulators have charged with ‘massive fraud’
- Scoot flight from Singapore to Wuhan turns back after 'technical issue' detected
- The Most Wanted Details on Bad Bunny’s Best Fashion Moments and 2024 Met Gala Look
- Abducted 10-month-old found alive after 2 women killed, girl critically injured in New Mexico park
- Anna Wintour Holds Court at the 2024 Met Gala in a Timeless Silhouette
- John Galliano out at Maison Margiela, capping year of fashion designer musical chairs
- JoJo Siwa Reacts to SNL Impression of Her New Look
Ranking
- Whoopi Goldberg is delightfully vile as Miss Hannigan in ‘Annie’ stage return
- Dave Ramsey's Social Security plan is risky and unrealistic for most retirees. Here's why.
- Calling All Sleeping Beauties, Reawaken Your Fashion With Pajamas So Chic You Can Wear Them as Outfits
- Winnipeg Jets head coach Rick Bowness announces retirement
- Taylor Swift Eras Archive site launches on singer's 35th birthday. What is it?
- Long-delayed Boeing Starliner ready for first piloted flight to the International Space Station
- The family of Irvo Otieno criticizes move to withdraw murder charges for now against 5 deputies
- California reports the first increase in groundwater supplies in 4 years
Recommendation
'No Good Deed': Who's the killer in the Netflix comedy? And will there be a Season 2?
Kristin Cavallari’s Boyfriend Mark Estes Meets Her Former Laguna Beach Costars
Incredibly rare ancient purple dye that was once worth more than gold found in U.K.
All 9 Drake and Kendrick Lamar 2024 diss songs, including 'Not Like Us' and 'Part 6'
Don't let hackers fool you with a 'scam
Suspect in custody after video recorded him hopping into a police cruiser amid gunfire
Randy Travis shocks industry with new AI-assisted track. How it happened
Boy shot dead after Perth stabbing was in deradicalization program, but no ties seen to Sydney teens
Like
- San Francisco names street for Associated Press photographer who captured the iconic Iwo Jima photo
- Calling All Sleeping Beauties, Reawaken Your Fashion With Pajamas So Chic You Can Wear Them as Outfits
- With help from AI, Randy Travis got his voice back. Here’s how his first song post-stroke came to be