It’s widely understood that the construction industry accounts for almost 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. A potential ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes aim at the science underpinning this finding, which undergirds the Clean Air Act.
The EPA, under Trump-appointee Lee Zeldin’s tutelage, on July 29, announced a proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which said there is a causal relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, and vehicles, trucks, and the energy and construction industries more broadly.
If confirmed, the EPA would claw back the well-established “finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger planetary, ecosystem and human health.” This week the AIA issued a response to the EPA’s potential ruling, calling the choice an “anti-science decision.”
“AIA believes the proposal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of the public and this action hinders the architectural profession’s efforts to create a more sustainable and resilient built environment. AIA will submit public comments opposing the EPA’s proposed rule,” the AIA said, not long after expressing concerns related to President Trump’s proposed White House ballroom.
In its statement, AIA affirmed its commitment to fighting global warming, regardless of the outcome to the EPA’s proposal.
“No matter what the EPA implements,” the professional organization said, “AIA is committed to partnering with the private sector, state and local communities, property owners, and developers to champion the creation of innovative, cutting-edge buildings.”
Other groups have also spoken out against the EPA’s proposal, including the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and American Lung Association. A combination of 23 cities and states, including California, have also come out against against the decision.
“If EPA dismantles essential standards to clean up vehicle pollution, the agency is giving its blessing to more pollution that will lead to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and premature deaths that could have been prevented,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William & Mary Law School, called Zeldin’s maneuver a “very high-risk strategy,” saying that the decision could “backfire,” opening up carbon-emitting companies to lawsuits.
→ Continue reading at The Architect's Newspaper
