“This pollution already kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. This is an affirmation of a standard that already does not provide adequate safeguards to public health,” he said.
Exactly!
26 Matching Annotations
- Apr 2020
-
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
-
-
Because the Harvard study was only published last week, after White House lawyers had already largely completed a lengthy review of the proposed rule, Mr. Wheeler said that its findings were not included in the E.P.A.’s legal rationale.
I think he should take more time to look it over if he is confused or upset by it
-
“The scientists seem to have a bias,” he said.
everyone does. that doesn't mean that its okay to have one in a situation that affects everyone
-
“The Harvard study has just been released. It has not been yet been peer reviewed or fully vetted,” said Mr. Wheeler. He added, “We think the information is interesting, and we want to know more about it.”
Right but everyone knows he isn't really going to look into it more. He has already made a choice mentally.
-
“It will eventually be part of the legal record,” he said. “Historically, Harvard’s public health studies have been central to E.P.A. public health rules.”
lets hope so
-
“it is an unwise decision in light of the pandemic. There has been a constant tactic over the last few years by the administration to dismiss science in general.”
Because they don't want to be wrong
-
“disappointed but not surprised”
isn't it sad that this type of response was expected?
-
“How will this link between air quality and Covid-19 patient outcomes impact future E.P.A. decision-making?”
hopefully, they will improve their decision making.
-
“Today, E.P.A. announced its decision to maintain current national ambient air quality standards that E.P.A.’s own scientists say fail to protect public health — and that research links with higher Covid-19 mortality.”
If everyone is so worried about this, these are the things that can not only improve Corona Virus outbreak, but provide a safer and healthier future in general.
-
The proposed rule, which will be open to public comment for 60 days before being reviewed by the White House and made final, retains a standard enacted in 2012.
They shouldn't be going off a standard that most likely should be changed. The air quality and environment quality in general is different and is always changing.
-
more than 10,000 American lives could be saved a year.
and yet nothing changes.
-
By law, the E.P.A. is required every five years to review the latest science and update that standard.
I don't feel as though this is evaluated enough.
-
In a draft 457-page scientific assessment of the risks associated with keeping or strengthening the fine soot pollution rule, career scientists at the E.P.A. estimated that the current standard is “associated with 45,000 deaths” annually. The scientists wrote that if the rule were tightened to nine micrograms per cubic meter, annual deaths would fall by about 27 percent, or 12,150 people a year.
wow! that is a lot of deaths annually. i think more people need to pay attention and take note of these things.
-
In December of last year, a seven-member E.P.A. advisory panel, composed mostly of members appointed by Trump administration, told Mr. Wheeler the career scientists’ findings were not conclusive enough to support tightening the rule.
That is scary that he was this easily convinced by people that most likely are not educated on this topic.
-
“The timing of this is unbelievable,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “There’s this big study that just came out linking this pollutant to Covid. This seems like a colossal mistake on the administration’s part.”
At least somebody notices
-
15 percent more likely to die from the coronavirus
awesome. super glad we are taking the best precautions necessary to protect our people! ( Sarcasm )
-
Just last week, researchers at Harvard released the first nationwide study
Good! It is kinda sad that it's the very first nationwide study and its 2020 but at least it was done
-
But public health experts say that the move defies scientific research, including the work of the E.P.A.’s own public health experts, which indicates that PM 2.5 pollution contributes to tens of thousands of premature deaths annually, and that even a slight tightening of controls on fine soot could save thousands of American lives.
Considering the current administration always talks about saving Americans, you would think they would want to agree to this.
-
The decision brought praise from Republican lawmakers and the nation’s oil companies and manufacturers, which had said a tighter regulation on smokestack emissions of fine soot would harm their economic viability
Have we learned NOTHING from The Lorax?
-
“The certainty of holding these standards steady allows businesses in Oklahoma to plan, comply and hopefully, grow after this incredibly difficult economic period,”
right, but if you damage the environment, there isn't anywhere for you to work. Without the environment there is basically nothing.
-
has long pushed for looser environmental rules
we need tighter environmental rules not looser ones
-
even before the global health crisis cratered the global economy.
I understand where they are coming from in some ways. These people are like everyone else, they work to take care of their families and they need to make money to provide. However, if your family is put endanger by the fumes and filthy air you produce, are you really helping in the best way?
-
Andrew R. Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said his agency will not impose stricter controls on the tiny, lung-damaging industrial particles, known as PM 2.5, a regulatory action that has been in the works for months. The scientific evidence, he said, was insufficient to merit tightening the current emissions standard.
As the head of the environmental agency, you should take notice of the conditions. They could be worse, but they could also be far better. During a pandemic that effects lungs, you should want to tighten the reigns on lung-damaging particles that float through the air.
-
WASHINGTON — Disregarding an emerging scientific link between dirty air and Covid-19 death rates, the Trump administration declined on Tuesday to tighten a regulation on industrial soot emissions that came up for review ahead of the coronavirus pandemic.
Given the fact that we are dealing with a pandemic that effects the lungs, you would think he would want to do something to prevent the spread besides keeping people indoors.
-
“Through the 5-year review process we’ve identified a lot of uncertainties. Through those uncertainties we’ve identified that the current standard does not need to be changed.”
I do not think their standards are high enough. Many people contract lung diseases who haven't smoked a day in their lives and don't live around smokers. A lot of those people contracted their sickness from air quality
-
“We believe the current standard is protective of public health,” Mr. Wheeler said in a telephone call with reporters Tuesday morning.
They may be up to standards, but barely. There is no way that with the amount of issues present, they can deem the air quality and well being of the environment "acceptable""
-