Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now only counting costs to businesses when considering regulation on key pollutants, internal documents show, rather than considering human lives saved by such caps.

For the first time in decades of the practice, The New York Times reports, the EPA will effectively set the cost of a human life at $0 when doing cost-benefit analysis for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone pollution — two air pollutants that can cause lifelong respiratory issues and are estimated to cause tens of thousands of premature deaths every year in the U.S.

An email by a supervisor reported by the Times, as well as a rule posted online Monday by the agency, says that there are “uncertainties” associated with monetized impacts of the two pollutants — seemingly using the concept of uncertainty in scientific analysis in order to discard public health regulations estimated to have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.

The supervisor’s email said that “to rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.” EPA spokesperson Carolyn Holran also confirmed the change, saying: “Not monetizing does not equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact.”

The EPA has long placed a monetary cost-benefit value on a human life, as well as value on things like the cost of the labor provided by an individual that could be lost if they are ill or deceased. In 2024, the EPA tightened restrictions on PM2.5 to historically low levels, estimating that it would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays in 2032, and saving as much as $77 in human health benefits for every $1 spent.

Instead, the agency will now only consider the costs to businesses of complying with pollution standards, the Times reports, perhaps ignoring that there would also be uncertainty in those estimates as well.

The seismic shift will make it far easier to repeal pollution rules from facilities like coal-burning power plants and oil refineries, according to internal communications. It signifies a significant heel-turn for the agency, pivoting it from one dedicated to protecting the environment and human health to one focused more on aiding business; as the Times points out, the agency’s air and radiation office head, Aaron Szabo, was formerly a lobbyist for the oil and chemical industries.

Sierra Club’s policy director, Patrick Drupp, called the change a “complete betrayal of the EPA’s mission” in a statement.

“Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is saying the quiet part out loud with this new announcement: They have no interest in actually protecting American lives and keeping our communities healthy and safe from toxic pollutants,” Drupp said. “The only thing [EPA administrator] Lee Zeldin wants to protect are the profits of fossil fuel companies. So much for making America healthy.”

Indeed, the change is yet another in a long line of drastic moves made by the administration to sideline public health in favor of unscientific, politicized decision making that prioritizes  profits over Americans’ lives — like recent rollbacks to meat industry standards.

---

---