Harvard Scientists Use EPA’s Own Data to Help Expose Danger in Their Decisions.

Environmental Protection Agency contends that these results are not scientific.

According to Harvard University scientists, the Trump administration‘s desired changes to environmental policies could lead to an extra 80,000 deaths per decade. In an essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association, public health economist David Cutler and statistician Francesca Dominici state that, these policy changes would cause respiratory problems for more than a million people over a decade many of them children.

The Trump administration wants to repeal the Clean Power Plan. That pushed states to switch to renewable energy and abandon coal. Over a decade, this alone would lead to over half a million respiratory infections in children and about 36,000 deaths, the authors state. The EPA wants to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement and deregulate industrial plants, both of which would lead to more air pollution and worse health. 

Table of estimated effects of Trump administration environmental policies.Image: JAMA

The Environmental Protection Agency, disagreed on the findings stating “This is not a scientific article, it’s a political article,“  in a statement to Bloomberg. They also claimed that greenhouse gas emissions are down because of Trump, which is not true.

To be fair

The JAMA publication is an essay and not a peer-reviewed scientific study. In this sense, it is not a scientific study. And the essay is political as it reflects on political policies and is critical of our government.

The Data

But that doesn’t mean that its findings are not true, The analyses were done using the EPA’s own data from before the Trump administration. The EPA can not simply dismiss the article as not scientific, when it is based on its own data.  But, the agency is becoming known for ignoring data that does not match the current administrations beliefs. In April, the EPA proposed a rule that would limit the type of scientific research it can use to create regulations. The EPA seems to be choosing to be green, but the green of money instead of green that helps the planet and the environment.