Two months ago--two lifetimes ago in the Trump newscycle--we discussed the shift from denial to post-denial or denialism (from hiding warming’s impacts to embracing them). We also went over how the Trump administration was admitting its policies would kill Americans and kill jobs, all while warming the climate.
Now that the Washington Post has picked up on E&E’s August reporting of the Trump administration admitting that a warming world is in the works, people seem to be taking notice of Trump’s nihilism. To run the risk of repetition: Trump doesn’t care if climate change is real or not. He only cares about doing right by his billionaire buddies.
We also warned about the pro-tobacco censoring science rule and how its proponent Steve Milloy was peddling pro-radioactivity arguments. Well, today there’s a House hearing on the rule (streamed here) and none other than the man Milloy bases his anti-PM2.5 and pro-radiation work on, Edward Calabrese, will be a witness. (The other witness for the majority also supports the tobacco industry-derived policy, so the sole voice of reason on the three-person witness panel will be Rush Holt, president of AAAS.)
The AP’s Ellen Knickmeyer does a great job explaining Calabrese and Milloy’s bizarre stance that radiation is actually good for you, as well as the fact that basically every single legitimate scientific body, unsurprisingly, says the opposite. Radiation is bad for you. Unless, of course, you’re the Hulk.
But overthrowing the current regulatory paradigm on radiation and particulate pollution would benefit polluters, so Trump’s likely on board. (Not that we think anyone’s explaining the linear-no threshold model to him--at least, not successfully.)
Trump’s preference for polluter profits over people is perhaps made most clear by his proposed cost-benefit analysis changes, a deadly trade-off the WSJ appears to heartily support. Back in April we explained how these changes don’t argue pollution doesn’t kill, but instead just ignores the loss of American lives all together. They’re not saying people won’t die. They’re saying those deaths don’t count as much as polluter profits.
Now, though, E&E has tallied up the numbers presented in EPA’s various rule-making filings and found that just three of Trump’s regulatory rollbacks will lead to as many as 13,900 deaths from PM2.5 pollution. This should be a pretty compelling reason for the public, and the courts, to oppose the policy.
But wait, there’s more! Remember the coal and nuclear plant bailout that Trump’s been teasing for months? The one that’s expected to invoke a national security argument as an excuse to prop up energy losers? E&E reported Tuesday that a forthcoming study in Energy Policy finds that the proposed policy would lead to 27,000 premature deaths over 25 years.
Are 40,000 deaths from regulatory rollbacks a price Trump is willing to pay? Apparently. Does he care? Apparently not. Should he?
Well Trump claims he lost the popular vote because dead people voted against him. It wasn’t true in 2016, but if these 40,000 can vote in 2020, maybe then he’d care.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: