Q&A: What the U.S. decision to stop considering the health cost of air pollution means for Canada
A discussion with Dave Sawyer of the Canadian Climate Institute to understand the health implications for Canadians
Why It Matters
For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency has calculated the health benefits of reducing air pollution. President Donald Trump recently announced plans to stop it, opening the door to a series of rollbacks, including reduced tailpipe emissions standards for U.S. cars and new coal plants. A domino effect on Canadians is expected, according to experts.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated its emission standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) from new, modified, or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines at power plants, data centers, industrial facilities, and other sites.
The new standards are nearly 90 per cent less stringent than the Biden-era proposal from November 2024.
The consequences could be significant, given the surge in new gas-fired power plant proposals to meet the U.S.’s estimated electricity demand for AI data centers.
Aside from the rollback of the allowed emissions levels, the January report contains a critical pivot. For the first time in years, the EPA report contains no health-benefit monetization to balance the economic costs of reducing pollution.
The EPA, under the new administration, now claims historical practices provided “false precision and confidence” concerning the monetized impact of pollution exposure on health.
American environmental defence groups plan to challenge the new rule. They have until March 16 to do so at the D.C. Court of Appeals.
But if they fail, what does that mean for Canadians’ air quality? Most Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the shared U.S./Canada southern border.
Future of Good spoke with Dave Sawyer, Principal Economist at the Canadian Climate Institute, to understand the possible impact on Canadians’ health.
Questions and answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q: What does the EPA pivot change?
A: It eliminates the balance between the two costs associated with pollution: the economic cost and the human cost.
Q: How are these costs calculated?
A: The economic cost is the amount of money businesses will need to invest to curb their emissions to a certain level determined by legislation. The human costs are both tangible and intangible. They include the costs of the healthcare system for treating conditions and diseases resulting from pollution. The intangible cost is the value we put on being alive and having a [certain] quality of life. How much do we value not being sick? Not risking dying?
Q: And there is a trade-off?
A: Yes, scientists, officials, and bureaucrats with sharp pencils use a rigorous science-based framework to generate data. They publish their determination of the health impacts of different levels of pollution. This information is coupled with the financial hardship on the facilities to keep emissions within different parameters. Then, the government tries to balance economic and human impact.
Q: Doesn’t the economy always win?
A: Well… it was always the economy first, with some health consideration. The economic argument is always very powerful, but the health argument balanced it out. Now, the message is clear: “Your health does not matter.”
Q: What is the most disappointing aspect of this pivot?
A: It is not a balanced approach. Let’s just do pure economics. There are health costs that take resources away from other societal uses. There are also productivity costs dragging the economy down. And then, the costs for businesses tend not to be that large compared to the health and productivity toll.
Q: What consequences can we expect from not monetizing the health cost of pollution?
A: The benefits of reducing pollution will appear smaller. At best, it could stop new regulations. At worst, it could catalyze rollbacks.
Q: Can you give an example of a consequence for Canadians of this new rule?
A: Let’s take one of our significant imports from the States: cars. Emission control is costly for car manufacturers. If the impact on human health is no longer monetized, it opens the door to reducing the tailpipe standards. Then, the Canadian government would be in a delicate position, and decisions would have to be made. We could say, “We love your cars, you’re welcome to sell to us, here’s our standards.”
Q: If pollution health impacts are no longer monetized, what other impact could we foresee for Canadians?
A: Health impacts and benefits drove a lot of U.S policy on wastewater quality for the Great Lakes. Any Canadian city downstream is affected by the Great Lakes’ water quality. We could also mention energy. Ontario used to get soot from Cleveland coal plants. Not accounting for health impacts could facilitate the return of coal plants in the U.S. It would be a game-changer for air quality in border cities in Canada.
Q: Should Canadians worry about their government not monetizing the pollution health costs, too?
A: No, there is evidence that the federal government still cares about the human and environmental impacts of pollution and will continue to do so. In December 2025, new methane regulations were published, including an impact analysis on human health and the environment.
Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error
link
