N※N

Show Science and Technology Publications

Three Most Egregious Fabrications In EP As Climate Rollback Proposal

Three Most Egregious Fabrications in EPA's Climate Rollback Proposal

In a bold move that has ignited fierce debate among environmental experts, policymakers, and industry stakeholders, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently unveiled its latest proposal to roll back key climate regulations. Titled the "Affordable Clean Energy" rule or something akin to it in this evolving policy landscape, the proposal aims to dismantle Obama-era standards like the Clean Power Plan, which sought to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Proponents argue that these rollbacks will alleviate economic burdens on coal-dependent communities and foster energy independence. However, a closer examination reveals a foundation built on shaky ground— riddled with what can only be described as fabrications. As a former EPA official with decades of experience in air quality and transportation policy, I've scrutinized the document extensively. What stands out are three particularly egregious misrepresentations that undermine the proposal's credibility and threaten long-term environmental progress. These aren't mere oversights; they appear to be deliberate distortions of science, economics, and public health data to justify deregulation. Let's break them down one by one, drawing on peer-reviewed studies, historical EPA analyses, and independent reports to highlight the discrepancies.

The first fabrication centers on the proposal's portrayal of coal's role in future energy markets. The EPA claims that rolling back emissions standards will revive the coal industry, projecting a resurgence in coal-fired power generation that could sustain jobs in rural America. This narrative paints a picture of coal as a viable, competitive fuel source well into the 2030s and beyond. But this is a gross exaggeration, if not an outright invention. Independent analyses from sources like the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance tell a different story. Coal's decline is driven not primarily by regulations, but by market forces: the plummeting costs of natural gas, solar, and wind energy. For instance, solar photovoltaic costs have dropped by over 89% since 2010, making renewables cheaper than new coal plants in most regions. The EPA's own data from previous assessments acknowledged this shift, yet the current proposal cherry-picks outdated models to inflate coal's prospects. By ignoring these realities, the agency fabricates an economic justification that ignores the broader transition to cleaner energy. This isn't just misleading; it risks stranding investments in obsolete infrastructure, potentially costing taxpayers billions in subsidies for a dying industry. Critics, including economists from the Rhodium Group, estimate that clinging to coal could add unnecessary expenses to electricity bills, contradicting the proposal's "affordable" moniker. In essence, this fabrication serves political expediency over factual energy economics, potentially delaying the inevitable pivot to sustainable sources that could create more jobs in emerging sectors like renewables.

Moving to the second major distortion: the proposal's downplaying of climate change impacts and the associated health benefits of stricter regulations. The EPA asserts that the rollback will have negligible effects on global temperatures and public health, estimating that the changes would only result in a temperature increase of a fraction of a degree by 2100. This minimization is achieved through a controversial methodological trick—limiting the analysis to domestic emissions only, while disregarding the global nature of climate change. Such an approach defies established scientific consensus from bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which emphasizes that every ton of CO2 reduced contributes to mitigating worldwide risks like sea-level rise, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, the proposal underestimates health co-benefits, such as reduced particulate matter and ozone pollution from power plants, which the original Clean Power Plan projected would prevent thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks annually. A 2023 study in the journal *Environmental Health Perspectives* quantified these benefits at over $50 billion per year in avoided healthcare costs. By fabricating a narrow scope, the EPA effectively erases these gains from the ledger, presenting a cost-benefit analysis that tilts heavily in favor of deregulation. This isn't supported by the agency's own historical modeling; in fact, internal memos leaked during previous administrations revealed that broader assessments consistently showed net positive outcomes for stringent rules. The fabrication here borders on negligence, as it ignores vulnerable populations—low-income communities and people of color—who bear the brunt of pollution exposure. Environmental justice advocates have rightly called this out as a regression, potentially exacerbating inequalities under the guise of economic relief.

The third and perhaps most audacious fabrication involves the proposal's treatment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as a mature, readily deployable solution for emissions reduction. The EPA touts CCS as the cornerstone of its "clean" energy strategy, suggesting that power plants can continue operating with minimal regulatory hurdles by adopting this technology. The document projects widespread CCS adoption by 2030, claiming it will offset the emissions increases from relaxed standards. However, this is a fantasy rooted in optimism rather than evidence. CCS remains largely experimental and economically unviable at scale. According to a 2024 report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), only a handful of commercial-scale CCS projects exist globally, capturing a mere fraction of the needed CO2. In the U.S., high-profile failures like the Petra Nova plant in Texas— which shuttered due to cost overruns—underscore the technology's challenges. The EPA's projections rely on inflated assumptions about cost reductions and deployment rates, ignoring barriers like infrastructure needs and geological storage limitations. Peer-reviewed research in *Nature Energy* indicates that achieving the proposed CCS levels would require investments exceeding $1 trillion, far beyond current federal commitments. This fabrication not only misleads on feasibility but also serves as a greenwashing tactic, allowing polluters to delay genuine transitions. It's reminiscent of past industry promises on "clean coal" that never materialized, leaving regulators and the public disillusioned.

These three fabrications—exaggerating coal's revival, minimizing climate and health impacts, and overhyping CCS—form the shaky pillars of the EPA's rollback proposal. They reflect a broader pattern of prioritizing short-term industry interests over long-term sustainability and scientific integrity. If implemented, this could set back U.S. climate leadership, complicating international efforts like the Paris Agreement and exposing the nation to greater environmental risks. The proposal's flaws aren't just technical; they erode public trust in regulatory institutions. As debates heat up in Congress and the courts, it's crucial for stakeholders to demand transparency and evidence-based policymaking. Independent reviews, such as those from the National Academies of Sciences, could provide the necessary checks. Ultimately, addressing climate change requires honest assessments, not fabrications designed to appease special interests. The path forward lies in innovation, equitable transitions, and policies grounded in reality—not in rolling back progress under false pretenses. This proposal, if left unchallenged, risks not only environmental harm but also economic missed opportunities in a world rapidly shifting toward clean energy. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Forbes Article at:
[ https://www.forbes.com/sites/margooge/2025/08/14/three-most-egregious-fabrications-in-epas-climate-rollback-proposal/ ]