Trump administration moves to stop requiring polluters to report emissions

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would see industrial facilities like coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills no longer have to track and report the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, and other emissions they emit-a requirement that had been in place since 2010. The agency said that U.S. businesses could save as much as $2.4 billion in regulatory costs over the next decade as a result of the change. Some experts have argued that the societal costs of emissions from companies in the U.S. could run into the tens of trillions by 2050."

"The EPA in its release said that requiring facilities to report emissions had "no material impact on improving human health and the environment." It comes after months of work by the Trump administration to dismantle various federal programs designed to combat climate change and cuts to research funding to study the phenomenon. The administration's efforts to pull back on climate change is at odds with the broad scientific consensus that human-driven warming is linked to extreme weather and health risks."

"What does greenhouse gas reporting do? Since 2010, the greenhouse gas reporting program has collected emissions data from about 8,000 of the largest industrial facilities in the U.S. from 47 different source categories. In turn, this information has historically been shared with the United Nations, but for the first time in nearly 30 years, the Trump administration missed an April deadline to submit data on U.S. climate emissions."

The EPA proposed ending the requirement for more than 8,000 industrial facilities to report greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane. The change would remove reporting obligations for coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, steel mills, and other large emitters. The agency projected up to $2.4 billion in regulatory cost savings for businesses over the next decade. Critics note that emissions impose significant societal costs and that the rollback follows broader administration actions to reduce climate programs and research funding, at odds with scientific consensus linking warming to extreme weather and health risks.

Read at Fast Company