Restricting the use of air pollution control equipment will cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Air pollution control devices (APCDs) could prevent up to 9,000 deaths and save up to $100 billion in health care costs in 2023, according to new estimates published in a paper. American Journal of Public Health Editor.

However, these public health benefits will be significantly reduced in the future if future presidential administrations implement the environmental policies outlined in Project 2025 and the America First Agenda, according to the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH). , the Sierra Club, and researchers at the institute wrote. in Environmental Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Both far-right policy platforms seek to dismantle environmental regulations, including weakening the Clean Air Act, the backbone of the 1970 federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate emissions of major air pollutants from power plants. is aiming for. Thanks to EPA policies requiring or encouraging power plants to use APCD, SO₂ Emissions decreased by 93 percent and NO._× According to the commentary, emissions fell by 87 percent between 1995 and 2022, a significant drop in excess coal-related deaths from 40,000 in 2000 to 1,600 in 2020. That's what it means.

The authors argue that if Project 2025 or the America First Agenda federal policy platform is adopted by the next administration, APCD use could plummet, putting the public's health at significant risk.

“Air pollution control devices and other provisions of the Clean Air Act are a foundational part of America's public health infrastructure,” says Dr. Jonathan Buonocore, assistant professor of environmental health at BUSPH and lead author of the commentary. “This study helps remind us how important the Clean Air Act is and that protecting or strengthening it has significant public health benefits.”

To understand the environmental and health impacts of potential reductions in APCD use if Project 2025 or the America First Agenda were enacted, the team calculated changes in SO.₂ and no_× Emission levels are based on a hypothetical “worst case” scenario in which the power plant retires its existing APCD.

The researchers found that S.O.₂ The reduction rate is 2.9 times, NO._× If power plants (many of which are coal-fired) cease operating APCDs, the reduction would be 1.8 times greater. The researchers used a reduced-complexity model to estimate the health benefits of reduced emissions if these plants continued to use APCD. They found that in 2023, the power plant's APCD captured approximately 1.2 million tons of SO.₂ 1 million tons of NO_× This would prevent 3,100 to 9,000 premature deaths and save between $35 billion and almost $100 billion in health care costs by 2023.

“Thanks to federal policies that have significantly reduced SO emissions, power plants are no longer the biggest source of air pollution-related public health risks in the United States.₂ “NOx and NOx emissions from the sector have declined over this period,” said Saravanan Arunachalam, deputy director of the Environmental Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There is a possibility of returning to the top.” It will occur again, further increasing the burden of disease across the American population. ”

Despite these substantial health benefits, the authors found that these models reduce the risk of stroke, heart attack, and asthma in adults, lower birth weight, preterm birth, and the development of asthma in children. They point out respiratory and developmental problems.

These health benefits were nationwide, but the greatest benefits came from reduced emissions at power plants in Appalachia, the Midwest, and the Mountain West. More than 85% of these reductions were due to a sharp decline in SO₂mostly from coal-fired power plants. Although the researchers note that future policy changes are unlikely to eliminate all use of APCDs, these new estimates suggest that, depending on changes in the EPA's authority, health risks at stake may be lower. impact and the potential remaining health benefits. The Clean Air Act could be weakened.

“While the health benefits of APCD may be concentrated in certain locations, our results show that strong environmental regulation benefits everyone,” said Mary, assistant professor of epidemiology at BUSPH. Dr. Willis says:

Importantly, future policies that strip the EPA of its current regulatory powers are likely to further exacerbate racial inequities in health and stifle other climate policies at all levels of government, the authors say. is writing. Policies to reduce the use of APCDs will place significant burdens on the environmental justice community, the majority of whom are people of color and low-income people who already experience harm from other environmental hazards at disproportionate rates. I am doing it. Increases in air pollution emissions from power plants will also offset the benefits of cities with climate plans that promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the electrification of buildings and transportation.

The authors note that federal policies that take away regulatory authority over harmful practices could lead to short-term health consequences.

“A misguided plan to dismantle pollution protections and weaken the Clean Air Act will put the health and safety of millions of people at risk,” said Sierra Club Chief Advisor for Climate and Energy. Jeremy Fisher says. “Lives are at stake, and the American people deserve more thorough accountability and oversight of polluting power plants. More than that.”

Air pollution policy and climate policy are ultimately health policy, says Jonathan Levy, Ph.D., professor and professor in the School of Environmental Health at BUSPH and lead author of the commentary. “These policy platforms targeting the EPA threaten to set us back and harm the health of Americans.”

This commentary was also co-authored by Frederica Perera, Ph.D., professor emeritus of environmental health sciences and fellow in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. Dr. Daniel Pruru, Associate Director of Research, Strategy and Analysis at the Sierra Club; Dr. Patrick Kinney, BUSPH Urban Health Professor Beverly Brown; and Brian Sousa, Research Data Analyst, BUSPH Office of Environmental Health.