Trump's EPA Rollbacks Will Worsen Climate Change and Harm Public Health
Source: Ian Prasad Philbrick. "Climate change: Trump’s pro–global warming, anti-EPA agenda is going to pollute the air.." September 14, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Trump's new rules gutting power plant emissions regulations will worsen climate change and harm public health, while the administration's claims about protecting the economy and lowering energy costs are false—the real winners are fossil fuel companies, not everyday Americans. The piece warns that legal challenges are unlikely to succeed given a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, leaving few checks on this rollback.
Conclusion
The Trump administration's new rules rescinding and undermining power plant emissions regulations will significantly harm the climate and public health, without delivering the economic benefits the administration claims.
Premises
- The new rules would rescind Biden-era limits on carbon emissions from coal and natural gas power plants and undercut the EPA's future authority to regulate such emissions under the Clean Air Act
- The power industry is the second-largest source of U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions, so removing regulations on it will have an outsized climate impact
- This follows a broader pattern of anti-climate actions by Trump, including rescinding the endangerment finding, lifting vehicle emissions restrictions, canceling clean energy funding, and delaying restrictions on potent greenhouse gases
- The administration's justification—that these rules burden industry, hurt the economy, and raise electricity costs—is contradicted by the EPA's own assessments showing minimal effect on utility bills or coal industry revival
- The primary beneficiaries of the rollback are fossil fuel companies, who stand to save billions, while the public bears health and environmental costs
- The Biden-era rules being rescinded were projected to prevent up to 1,200 premature deaths and 360,000 asthma attacks annually by 2035
- Legal challenges are likely to be slow and face a Supreme Court that has historically shown skepticism toward EPA climate authority, making effective opposition unlikely
- State-level climate action cannot fully compensate for federal rollbacks, especially given the urgency of the climate crisis
Assumptions
- Climate change is a genuine, scientifically established threat that warrants regulatory intervention
- The Clean Air Act is an appropriate and effective legal mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases
- EPA's own projections and assessments are reliable and trustworthy sources of evidence
- Reducing power plant emissions has a meaningful net positive effect on climate and health outcomes that outweighs any economic costs to industry
- The motivations behind the rules are primarily to benefit fossil fuel donors rather than genuine economic concern for consumers