Air pollution is an urgent crisis that exacerbates health risks. Individuals are becoming increasingly prone to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, strokes, and more as a result of the changing environment. The Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) published an article discussing the progression of the new presidential administration leading towards weakening the Clean Air Act, which ultimately puts thousands of people at risk of death and exposes billions of dollars due to health costs.
The 2024 election resulted in the reinstatement of the Trump administration, which has a history of rolling back established health regulations and withdrawing from international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement. Suppose the new administration considers scaling or rolling back environmental regulations (such as air pollution controls for power plants, industrial facilities, and vehicles). The article warns that such changes could lead to significant public health and economic costs from removing air pollution control devices.
These devices remove harmful materials in the air to protect communities with high air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which are emitted from vehicles and industrial facilities. Researchers at BUSPH estimated that changes in SO2 levels would be 2.9 times higher and NOx levels would be 1.8 times higher if air pollution control devices were no longer in use.
Increased air pollution would particularly affect vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions, and would cause thousands of additional deaths yearly. The authors state that “if Project 2025 and/or the America First Agenda federal policy platforms are adopted by the next administration, APCD [air pollution control devices] use could plummet and severely jeopardize the health of the public.”
The long-term economic burden of higher mortality rates and increased disease prevalence far outweighs any immediate financial savings that might be gained from scaling back pollution control regulations. In other words, the costs associated with poor air quality, including lost productivity from sick days, healthcare expenditures, and diminished quality of life, would be far more damaging to the economy than the upfront investments required to maintain or strengthen these regulations.
Dr. Jonathan Buonocore, assistant professor of environmental health at BUSPH, reminds us that maintaining strict air pollution controls is critical for public health and economic well-being and that reducing or eliminating these measures would result in preventable deaths and economic losses that far exceed the short-term advantages.
By Diya Mehta