This month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration rescinded the Obama-era Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the subsequent emission regulation standards that have accompanied it. Published by the EPA on December 15, 2009, the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act found that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—contribute to air pollution and endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. In the sixteen years since the endangerment finding was published, scientific evidence supporting each impact noted in the finding has become virtually indisputable; every ton of emissions increases the severity of expected climate impact, and every exposure to compound climate events “can increase morbidity and mortality.” Notably absent from the Agency’s news release is any discussion of or consideration for the health impacts that the finding sought to protect against.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks has directed government agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks that may “disproportionately affect children” since 1997. In its full report, the EPA uses careful language to skirt this obligation, stating that children “are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general population.” The statement points out the obvious–children are breathing air with the same chemical composition as everyone else–while ignoring the reality that the health consequences of air pollution have a far greater impact on growing and developing bodies than it does on fully developed adults.
Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused overall warming and more extreme weather patterns and heat events. In looking at the health impacts on children, the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 Policy Statement outlined the specific effects of increased emissions against real health consequences. One study analyzed infant mortality data on an individual level against outdoor air temperature data for over 60,000 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases between 1972 and 2006, finding that a ten degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the summer was associated with an 8.6% increase in the risk of SIDS. For black infants, the increased risk was 18.5%. In addition to the risk of rising temperatures, an analysis of six years of pediatric respiratory health data in San Diego County found particulate pollution from wildfires to be approximately ten times more harmful to children’s health than particulate matter from other sources. While climate change alone is not the sole cause of wildfires, the scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming contributes significantly to the trend of larger, more severe wildfires across California and the Southwest.
Air pollution and heat exposure from climate change are also associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight, with higher risk found among black mothers, and mothers with asthma. Continued exposure to air pollution after birth can also affect lung development, leading to a greater risk of lung disease.
While the announcement from the EPA this month focused its priorities on the American consumer’s freedom to buy whatever car they want, it ignores its own origins as an agency founded on principles of achieving national air quality standards and reducing automobile pollution. The science of the last sixteen years makes it abundantly clear that not only does climate change increase the risk of negative health outcomes, but those risks are substantially higher for children and other high risk groups. The battle over this deregulation, however, has only just begun. The American Public Health Association, jointly with numerous other health and environmental groups, has already filed suit challenging the EPA and California is expected to follow soon.