No. of Recommendations: 10
...may not be bad for you. And that from now on, the E.P.A. would no longer take health effects into account in the cost-benefit analyses necessary for clean-air regulations. Instead,
the agency would estimate only the costs to businesses of complying with the rules.
Previously, the E.P.A. calculated that for every $1 spent on reducing PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream), there could be as much as $77 in health benefits.
It’s a seismic shift that runs counter to the E.P.A.’s mission statement, which says the agency’s core responsibility is to protect human health and the environment, environmental law experts said.
The change could make it easier to repeal limits on these pollutants from coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, steel mills and other industrial facilities across the country, the emails and documents show. That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air.nytimes.com - Trump epa air pollution 