These emissions contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, impacting respiratory health, cardiovascular health, and the development of children.

Climate economist R. Daniel Bressler highlighted the severe impacts of emissions, noting that an average-sized coal plant's annual emissions could lead to 904 temperature-related deaths and over $1 billion in climate damages.

Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director at the National Center for Environmental Health, stated that it is an indisputable fact that coal and gas-fired plants significantly contribute to climate change and associated health risks.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Trump proposed a ruling on June 11, 2025, asserting that carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not significantly contribute to dangerous air pollution.

Ignoring scientific evidence in regulatory decisions can have long-lasting repercussions for public health and the stability of the planet.

The Associated Press consulted 30 scientists, and 19 responded, all rejecting the EPA's proposal as scientifically inaccurate, with many likening it to denying the health risks of smoking or arsenic.

Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather criticized the proposal, equating it to denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, emphasizing that coal burning is the largest source of global CO2 emissions.

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, similarly likened the EPA's statement to claiming arsenic is not harmful to consume.

Scientists argue that this EPA proposal contradicts basic physics and chemistry, posing serious risks to global health and climate stability.

Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are a primary driver of climate change, and the United States plays a crucial role in both emissions and global climate efforts.

Chris Field, a climate scientist at Stanford, criticized the decision, stating it favors the short-term interests of oil and gas companies over the long-term welfare of future generations.

Rejecting established climate science can weaken international climate action, stall progress on clean energy, and spread misinformation.