The hidden costs of the EPA's new climate change policy

The term “endangerment finding” has been in the news a lot this week. Back in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency found that releasing planet-warming emissions into the atmosphere endangers human health. It became the basis behind a lot of environmental regulation.

On Thursday, Feb. 12, the EPA revoked the endangerment finding and lots of regulations based on it.

The EPA’s argument is that, by no longer considering the human harm caused by emissions, taxpayers will save $1.3 trillion in energy and transportation. Cars will be $2,400 cheaper to make, according to the agency. And taxpayer money won’t go toward regulating the industry.

Environment and politics professor Dana R. Fisher at American University is not convinced. 

“I’m going to call B.S. on that. Like, I mean straight up B.S.,” Fisher said.

She said regardless of the EPA’s new policy, human harm is still happening. More planet-warming emissions make more extreme weather, like worsening fires, floods, and heat waves.

“That not only costs people in terms of loss of labor because people can't work outside, or they can't work as effectively, or when they do work outside, they get sick,” Fisher said, “but it also will cost lives.”

She said she doesn’t want to put a dollar amount on that.

But even if we only focus on transportation, there are hidden costs to the cheaper cars, too.

“If consumers are purchasing more less fuel-efficient vehicles, then we're using more gasoline,” said Ann Carlson, former-acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and University of California, Los Angeles environmental law professor.

That means higher gasoline costs. And as other countries look to buy more efficient and electric cars, Carlson said, “our manufacturers are going to fall behind.”

On top of that, the cheaper cars might not come at all. Akshaya Jha, a professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, said companies are facing what he calls “regulatory whiplash.”

“Companies are making long run investment decisions, not based on what policy is today, but based on what they think policy might be over the next 10, 15, 20 years,” Jha said.

Same goes for power plants, Jha said. Especially since new clean energy is cheaper anyway.

“I doubt anybody's gonna build a new coal plant … just based on this change,” Jha said.

Because by removing regulations, the EPA creates uncertainty, and uncertainty means companies might wait to make these investments that would save consumers money.