OT: Calculating the costs and death toll of EPA rule rollbacks

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Costs and deaths are Macro Economic Trends and Risks that we should be concerned about.

When government regulations are rolled back, there are resulting costs and deaths involved.

The Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump is aiming to undo or revise more than 30 major environmental regulations, many of them written or updated by the Biden administration. These include rules for cleaner vehicles, power plant emissions, and limits on tiny airborne particles known to harm human health.

The Associated Press set out to examine what might happen if all the rules were eliminated. The AP built on earlier work by the Environmental Protection Network, reviewing thousands of pages of regulatory impact analyses — documents agencies must produce for major rules with economic effects.

The AP also drew from studies published in the journals Science and Nature Communications and emissions estimates from the independent and nonpartisan Rhodium Group in order to calculate the possible annual death toll. The AP’s work was reviewed by multiple outside experts. AP interviewed more than 50 scientists, officials, analysts and advocates for the story.

The estimate of global deaths includes estimates of heat deaths from added carbon emissions, using a peer-reviewed formula developed by Daniel Bressler, a former White House climate economist during the Biden administration. It estimates one person will die for every 10,217 tons (9,318 metric tons) of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.

The Rhodium Group estimates that the Trump administration’s rollbacks would lead to 2.8 billion additional tons (2.6 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions by 2035 — translating to, on average, more than 25,000 deaths each year.

10 Likes
3

2.6 billion metric tons over 10 years. During those 10 years, China will emit at least 112 billion metric tons of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. In reality, it will probably be more than 112 billion tons, since China’s CO2 emissions are increasing, as they build more coal-fired power plants in order to power the growing Chinese economy.

Assuming the calculation is accurate, that 2.6 billion extra tons of CO2 means 25,000 additional deaths. Then China’s CO2 emissions will kill at least 1.1 million people over those 10 years. But China’s leaders (as well as India’s leaders, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) think it is more important to grow their economies and to let more people escape poverty.

Bottom line: The atmospheric CO2 concentration is going to keep increasing, year after year. It doesn’t matter what US EPA regulations are or aren’t rolled back. The fossil fuels being consumed in the economically developing nations guarantees higher CO2 parts per million every year.

_ Pete

2 Likes
4

Agreed.
But the other part of the equation is that we could try to rely on US Government (EPA) mandates or everybody (so to speak) could just do it themselves – i.e. go out and install solar on their roofs, buy an EV (if they really need a car), drive and consume less instead of asking that someone else do it.
Nah. That would never happen

Mike

1 Like
5

Two comments:

  1. Where did you get your 112 billion metric tons of CO2 for China? China is building more solar, wind, hydro and nuclear than coal fired power plants. China is also rapidly converting from ICE vehicles to EV vehicles. So your estimate is suspect.

  2. The 2.6 billion metric tons of CO2 is only the increased amount of CO2 emissions over total CO2 emissions by US in 10 years. You can not compare the China total CO2 emissions of 112 billion metric tons to only the 2.6 billion metric tons increase in US emissions.

1 Like
6

Yes death is a good way to escape poverty.

But some world leaders are not thinking about the consequences of their policies:

  1. Trump and Rubio eliminating USAID is going to kill over 300,000 people: Well, modeling out of Boston University estimates that the abrupt cuts to USAID have meant nearly 300,000 people have died to date. These are really rough estimates, but they give a sense of scale. Researchers are talking many thousands of deaths, not dozens. The State Department did not respond to requests for comment, but in front of Congress, Marco Rubio pushed back, saying these models are completely inaccurate and maintained that nobody, especially no child, has died on his watch. Aid groups say USAID cuts are already having deadly consequences : NPR

  2. What will be the death rates in the US when Trump, Kennedy and the Republicans drastically reduce our health care and medical science to funding in the Big Ugly Bill?

1 Like
7

From the Statistical Review of World Energy. The latest version has data through 2023.

Page 16 tabulates the CO2 emissions from energy for each of the major nations and regions. China’s emissions for 2023 are listed as 11,218.4 million tonnes of CO2, which is 11.2 billion tonnes. 11.2 times 10 years, which is the time frame from the original post, is 112 billion tonnes in total emissions.

If you don’t like that source, here is another, from Our World in Data.

annual-co-emissions
annual-co-emissions1920Ă—1561 115 KB

If you go to the link, at the top of the page, you might need to change “per capita” emissions to “per country”. Then choose which countries and regions you want to look at from the list on the left of the page.

The source above says China’s fossil fuel CO2 emissions in 2023 were 11.9 billion tonnes, which is a little higher than the Statistical Review of World Energy.

The Kyoto accords were over 25 years ago, when the world supposedly started getting serious about reducing greenhouse gas releases. Over that time, the world has increased total CO2 emissions by a little over 50%. As a united front, the world has totally failed in reducing greenhouse gases. The EU and the US have come down little, but the increases in China, India, and other developing nations have more than made up for any small reductions in the West. It was bound to fail. Any person capable of using simple arithmetic should be able to see that the methods have been totally inadequate. It almost makes me wonder if this greenhouse gas issue is really a problem or not?

_ Pete

2 Likes
8

My problem with your numbers is that you are making some big assumptions about China and US emissions for the next 10 years. China’s emissions are going to go down because of their priorities for renewable and electrifying transportation. US emissions will be going up for exactly the opposite reasons.

9

The only chance China emissions go net negative from today rely on population decline and industrial activity reduction.

Per capita energy consumption will continue to rise and rise faster than green energy conversion (CO2 free). Will that trend reverse by 2035? Interesting question. I’ll take the over.

10

That is not what the experts are saying:

With solar leading their rapid deployment, renewables are on course to meet almost half of global electricity demand by the end of this decade, new IEA report says

Due to supportive policies and favourable economics, the world’s renewable power capacity is expected to surge over the rest of this decade, with global additions on course to roughly equal the current power capacity of China, the European Union, India and the United States combined, according to a new IEA report out today.

The Renewables 2024 report, the IEA’s flagship annual publication on the sector, finds that the world is set to add more than 5 500 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity between 2024 and 2030 – almost three times the increase seen between 2017 and 2023.

According to the report, China is set to account for almost 60% of all renewable capacity installed worldwide between now and 2030, based on current market trends and today’s policy settings by governments. That would make China home to almost half of the world’s total renewable power capacity by the end of this decade, up from a share of a third in 2010. While China is adding the biggest volumes of renewables, India is growing at the fastest rate among major economies.

In terms of technologies, solar PV alone is forecast to account for a massive 80% of the growth in global renewable capacity between now and 2030 – the result of the construction of new large solar power plants as well as an increase in rooftop solar installations by companies and households. And despite ongoing challenges, the wind sector is also poised for a recovery, with the rate of expansion doubling between 2024 and 2030, compared with the period between 2017 and 2023. Already, wind and solar PV are the cheapest options to add new electricity generation in almost every country.

“Renewables are moving faster than national governments can set targets for. This is mainly driven not just by efforts to lower emissions or boost energy security – it’s increasingly because renewables today offer the cheapest option to add new power plants in almost all countries around the world,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “This report shows that the growth of renewables, especially solar, will transform electricity systems across the globe this decade. Between now and 2030, the world is on course to add more than 5 500 gigawatts of renewable power capacity – roughly equal the current power capacity of China, the European Union, India and the United States combined. By 2030, we expect renewables to be meeting half of global electricity demand.”

By the end of this decade, the share of wind and solar PV alone in global electricity generation is set to double to 30%, according to the forecast. However, the report emphasises the need for governments to ramp up their efforts to securely integrate these variable renewable sources into power systems.