I don’t usually get emotional over EPA rule making. But reading that the US Chamber of Commerce said “reducing particulate matter may hamper our ability to build badly needed infrastructure” spiked my heart rate and got my adrenaline flowing.
Why? Because the only “needed infrastructure” that would be impacted by the new rules is infrastructure that burns coal and oil.
At the heart of this issue is public health and environmental justice. Particulate matter—more commonly known as soot—is small particles from smokestacks, trucks and other industrial activities. These tiny particles can embed in the lungs and have been linked to asthma, heart attacks and strokes. Communities of color are disproportionately affected by soot emissions.
The good news is that the Biden administration has made regulating soot a priority. The proposed new soot rules would tighten the limits on soot emissions by 25% from 2012 levels.
The benefits of the new rules would be enormous. EPA cost-benefit analysis shows that while the cost to industry would range from $95-390 million, the economic and health benefits would amount to $43 billion by 2032. Not to mention that approximately 38,000 premature deaths would be avoided.
The question at hand is who should benefit from government action? In this case, the entire economy would benefit from healthier people. The EPA projects that 270,000 lost work days would be avoided under the new rules. Children with asthma would be in school, and communities of color would be more productive. And yet we have business groups—primarily the fossil fuel industry—trying to shut down the new rules.
This case illustrates the need to move from an old economy that benefits a few at the expense of everyone else, to a new economy that serves all the people. For too long, we have accepted an economy where corporations are allowed to extract and pollute, without paying for the costs to communities and the environment.
It’s time to rethink this. A new economy, an economy that can sustain life on the planet, would require that corporations take responsibility for the environmental damage they cause. If corporate responsibility was required, you can bet that there would be complaining, obstruction and lobbying in Congress to stop it.
But there would also be tremendous innovation. If corporate responsibility became the norm, companies would be motivated to be the first to market with sustainable products and services. Some companies already doing this. But many are not. The proposed EPA soot rules are needed to take us one more step towards a green economy and a just and healthy planet.
Read more about this HERE
Comment on the propose EPA soot rules HERE