White House Uses ‘The Children’ To Defend New EPA Climate Rule

The White House is using children’s health to defend new federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

The proposal has come under attack from opponents who seek to highlight the high economic costs of the rule.

“There’s no doubt there are some states where this is an issue that presents a different sort of political challenges, particularly coal-producing states, and there’s no doubt the polluters will come after this rule and they’ll try to attack it,” White House senior adviser John Podesta said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor Friday morning.

“They’ll try to put it squarely in the context of political campaigns that are ongoing in 2014,” Podesta said. “But I think anyone who wants to go out and talk about the benefits of this rule … they’ll find the politics is such you can defend taking action here and the public will support that.”

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule that would cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants 30 percent by 2030. The rule has been vigorously attacked by some states, Republicans and the coal industry for setting the stage for skyrocketing electricity costs and huge job losses.

But the Obama administration has downplayed the economic costs of the rule while promoting the public health benefits of reducing power plant emissions: specifically, the health benefits to children.

President Barack Obama announced the EPA’s carbon rule last week at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., while visiting children whose asthma had been made worse by air pollution.

“Often, these illnesses are aggravated by air pollution – pollution from the same sources that release carbon and contribute to climate change,” Obama said in his weekly address. “And for the sake of all our kids, we’ve got to do more to reduce it.”

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy also tried to draw parallels between reducing carbon dioxide emissions and children’s health while announcing the agency’s carbon rule on Monday.

“About a month ago, I took a trip to the Cleveland Clinic,” McCarthy said. “I met a lot of great people, but one stood out — even if he needed to stand on a chair to do it. Parker Frey is 10 years old. He’s struggled with severe asthma all his life. His mom said despite his challenges, Parker’s a tough, active kid — and a stellar hockey player.”

“But sometimes, she says, the air is too dangerous for him to play outside,” McCarthy added. “In the United States of America, no parent should ever have that worry.”

The EPA says its carbon rule would prevent 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in just the first year the rule goes into effect. But these alleged health benefits do not come from reducing carbon dioxide, they come from so-called “co-benefits” from hazardous air pollutant reductions — that will supposedly happen alongside carbon dioxide reductions.

Reducing carbon dioxide itself does nothing to directly impact human health because it is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of human existence: When we exhale, we breathe out CO2, which plants in turn breathe in for sustenance.

In fact, the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding said “ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases, whether at current levels or at projected ambient levels under scenarios of high emissions growth over time, do not cause direct adverse health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.”