These newly proposed EPA rules will make it easier to pollute the air

The Environmental Protection Agency doesn't want to prioritize health anymore.

In a rule change proposed Friday, President Trump's EPA seeks to soften its regulation of toxic mercury emissions. It'll reconfigure the Obama-era Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), giving higher consideration to how much future regulations would cost manufacturers before implementing them, The Washington Post reports.

In 2011, former President Barack Obama's EPA implemented the standards, which essentially created an algorithm to determine whether health benefits would outweigh the massive cost of cutting power plants' toxic emissions. Scientists say there's been an 80 percent reduction in mercury pollution since then, The New York Times reports. Friday's proposal wouldn't repeal the Obama rule entirely, but would merely discount the value of human health in its equation.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Complying with MATS costs power plants $7.4 to $9.6 billion annually, the EPA estimated in its Friday statement. But it only estimated $4 million to $6 million in annual health benefits, concluding it's not "appropriate and necessary" to regulate "hazardous air pollutants" from oil- and coal-fired power plants. The Obama-led EPA produced a similar figure, but also said the regulations would reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide in the air, producing further cost benefits. That's not to mention that mercury itself can "lower IQ, cause motor function deficits, damage the nervous system, and lead to more heart attacks," Bloomberg reports.

Power plants initially opposed MATS and some sued for its repeal. But an energy lobbyist has since told the Times "nobody who operates power plants ... is asking for the rule to go away" anymore, seeing as they've already spent an estimated $18 billion to comply with it.