Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Critiques EPA’s Deregulation Moves: A Threat to Environmental Protection
A week ago, Lee Zeldin, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced a significant rollback of numerous environmental protections. He hailed this decision as what he described as the “greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen”. With a sense of triumph, he declared, “we are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” However, this declaration raises concerns among many environmental advocates.
Setting aside the exaggerated rhetoric typical of political commentary, most of Zeldin’s proposed rollbacks are not directly linked to climate change. Many existing regulations that he intends to dismantle are critical for safeguarding clean air and clean water, commitments that both he and President Trump previously made to the American public. Allowing coal-fired power plants to emit higher levels of mercury and other toxic pollutants puts Americans at risk. Furthermore, oil and gas operations could release increased amounts of arsenic and other harmful substances into drinking water. Moreover, power generation and large industrial facilities will see an uptick in soot and other pollutants, contributing to smog and diminished air quality nationwide.
Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that some of the protective measures being discarded do indeed have ties to climate change.
The Scientific Reality of Climate Change
Climate change is not merely a belief system; it is an established scientific fact. Research conducted by scientists globally demonstrates that carbon dioxide and methane emissions, primarily from fossil fuel production and combustion, lead to rising global temperatures. This increase in temperature results in higher sea levels, more frequent severe storms, intensified droughts, and increasingly destructive wildfires. During his confirmation hearing, Zeldin reluctantly conceded the significance of greenhouse gases and stated his commitment to listening to scientists regarding scientific matters.
However, a noticeable shift seems to have occurred after his confirmation. The early respect for scientific guidance seems to have been replaced by allegiances to polluting industries.
The Consequences of Environmental Deregulation
Despite the rhetoric from Zeldin and Trump, the consensus among climate scientists remains firm. Historical data from Exxon’s own climate research as far back as the 1970s accurately predicted the trajectory of our climate crisis driven by carbon pollution.
However, political failings influenced by fossil fuel industry donations have led us into an era characterized by severe climate consequences. The carbon emissions accumulating in our atmosphere and oceans now present tangible financial and economic implications that are starting to adversely affect households across the nation.
Insurance Challenges Induced by Climate Change
The initial signs of these repercussions are evident in the insurance industry. Homeownership traditionally serves as a foundation for wealth-building among American families. However, this prospect increasingly moves out of reach due to challenges presented by climate-driven insurance complications. As chair of the Senate Budget Committee last year, I secured industry insights regarding the non-renewal rates of homeowners’ insurance policies. In the face of relentless storms and wildfires, insurance providers are increasingly reluctant to underwrite policies, particularly in states like Florida, Texas, and California. I further investigated how these trends extend to additional regions.
Data collected at the county level uncovers a troubling trend. Rates of non-renewals are surging across Southern New England, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Jersey, and the Inter-Mountain West. In Zeldin’s own Suffolk County, New York, non-renewal rates nearly tripled from 2018 to 2023, with annual premiums escalating by close to $800. Non-renewals appear to rise most sharply in counties facing high climate risk, closely aligning with rising insurance premiums.
The Alarming Rates of Insurance Non-Renewals
In Florida, conditions are particularly dire. Certain counties have encountered non-renewal rates surpassing an alarming 1000 percent while premiums have spiked by thousands of dollars. In Miami, homeowners now face average premiums nearing $17,000 a year.
As Trump and Zeldin continue their regressive approach to American environmental policy, the fallout will multiply. When faced with the potential for increased climate risks, insurance companies cannot ignore their fiduciary responsibility to forecast future liabilities accurately. The nonpartisan First Street Foundation warns that premiums in coastal Florida may likely triple within the next thirty years due to escalating climate risks. Similar trends threaten other regions, including vast parts of the Southeast, Gulf Coast, southern plains, Inter-Mountain West, California, and the Pacific Northwest.
The Ripple Effect on Property Values
The ramifications extend even further. Failures in the property insurance market can strike mortgage sectors hard. Recently, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell informed Congress that obtaining mortgages in some coastal and fire-prone areas could become impossible within the next decade or so. Rising insurance costs and the unavailability of mortgages will inevitably depress property values, as highlighted by the findings from First Street. The potential loss in property values could exceed the devastation witnessed during the Great Recession, with The Economist projecting a staggering $25 trillion global hit to real estate.
Unlike the circumstances in 2008, this time there exists no recovery plan for properties burdened by uninsurable dangers stemming from rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and wildfires.
The Implications for Local Economies
The downturn in property values impacts local tax bases in afflicted communities, posing risks to the estimated $4 trillion municipal bond market, while also threatening financial stability for banks reliant on loan-to-value ratios.
Funding and Political Influence: A Troubling Relationship
Amidst the backdrop of these risks, one might wonder about the justification behind Trump’s counterproductive stance on climate policy. The answer appears to be money—substantial amounts of it. During the last election cycle, the fossil fuel sector injected nearly $100 million to support Trump’s candidacy, alongside hundreds of millions more in congressional races. This figure only reflects the funds that can be traced. Trump’s notorious request for industry leaders to provide $1 billion in exchange for delivering a wish list aligned with the agenda recently outlined by Zeldin starkly illustrates this connection.
This approach fails to embody the pledge of draining the swamp; rather, it exemplifies a deeper descent into it. Polluter interests take precedence over the welfare of American citizens, setting the stage for an imminent reckoning.
