United States: In an audacious pivot, the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, unveiled a contentious directive on Wednesday, asserting that carbon emissions from fossil-fueled power plants do not pose a substantial hazard to atmospheric purity.
This pronouncement jolted the scientific realm. The Associated Press contacted 30 authorities from various disciplines, including climatology, public health, and economics. Out of those, 19 responded with unequivocal disagreement. Many branded the declaration as not just inaccurate, but asa deliberate distortion.
“Claiming fossil emissions don’t fuel climate deterioration is like saying cigarettes don’t foster cancer,” retorted Zeke Hausfather, a climatologist affiliated with tech innovator Stripe and Berkeley Earth. “Since the 19th century, we’ve comprehended the direct link between CO₂ and planetary warming. Coal, foremost, then oil and gas, are key instigators of this disarray. Denying this is intellectual absurdity.”
Michael Mann, a renowned climate analyst from the University of Pennsylvania, weighed in sharply:
“It’s as ludicrous as declaring arsenic a harmless indulgence,” according to AP News.
Dr. Howard Frumkin, once helming the National Center for Environmental Health and now a retired public health academic, didn’t mince words:
“The Earth is a sphere, the sun greets us from the east, and fossil-fueled power infrastructure accelerates climate volatility. This isn’t speculation—these are unassailable truths. Climate chaos amplifies heatwaves, cataclysms, epidemics, and multifaceted health risks.”
Economic forecaster R. Daniel Bressler of Columbia University offered quantified context:
“By utilizing models like the Social Cost of Carbon and carbon mortality indices, we measure fallout. My analysis showed that emissions from a standard U.S. coal plant—in just one calendar year—correlate with over 900 excess deaths and exceed $1 billion in socio-environmental damage.”
Kathy Jacobs of the University of Arizona deemed the EPA’s stance as defying a universal scientific mandate:
“For decades, nearly 200 nations’ scientists have validated the greenhouse reality. This assertion bulldozes that consensus.”
Phil Mote from Oregon State University remarked with exasperation:
“It’s elemental science: combustion of coal or natural gas unleashes carbon dioxide, and CO₂, by its very nature, amplifies planetary heat. We’ve grasped this since the 1850s.”
From Canada, Andrew Weaver, an environmental scholar and former MP, offered a stark caution:
“This isn’t just a refusal to act—it’s a betrayal of future generations. If climate negligence becomes codified, it could lead to global judicial repercussions, even charges of crimes against humanity,” as per AP News.
And finally, Chris Field of Stanford, who spearheaded a major global climate report, wrapped the sentiment bluntly:
“Prioritizing fleeting profits of petro-empires over the enduring welfare of our descendants isn’t just short-sighted—it’s one of the most catastrophically irresponsible gambits imaginable.”