Long have we told that air pollution causes adverse affects to our health, the sources are multiple, including power-plant emission. However, in a controversial move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration proposed a new ruling this week declaring that carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants "do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution". The ruling contradicts decades of climate science, and has also sparked strong criticism from the scientific community. To assess the accuracy of the EPA's claim, the Associated Press (AP) reached out to 30 scientists from diverse fields including climate science, public health, and economics. Nineteen of them responded and not even one of them agreed with the EPA's position. Many even went so far as to call the ruling scientifically invalid and misleading. "It Is Like Saying Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer"Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist affiliated with Stripe and Berkeley Earth, called the EPA’s assertion “the scientific equivalent to saying that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.”“The relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures has been well established since the late 1800s,” he said, noting that coal burning remains the single largest source of global CO2 emissions, followed by oil and gas. “It is utterly nonsensical to say that carbon emissions from power plants do not contribute significantly to climate change.”Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, echoed this sentiment: “It’s about as valid as saying that arsenic is not a dangerous substance to consume.”Howard Frumkin, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, was equally direct. “The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal- and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heatwaves, catastrophic storms, infectious diseases, and many other health threats. These are indisputable facts.”What Could The Denial Cost?Economist R. Daniel Bressler of Columbia University emphasized the quantifiable consequences. “In my past work, I found that adding just one year’s worth of emissions from an average-sized coal-fired plant in the U.S. causes 904 expected temperature-related deaths and over $1 billion in total climate damages.”Kathy Jacobs, a climate scientist from the University of Arizona, said the EPA’s statement contradicts “evidence presented by thousands of scientists from almost 200 countries for decades.”Others pointed out the simplicity of the science being denied. “It’s basic chemistry and physics,” said Oregon State University’s Phil Mote. “We’ve known these facts since the mid-19th century.”Andrew Weaver, former Canadian MP and professor at the University of Victoria, called the EPA’s stance a “wanton betrayal of future generations.”Stanford’s Chris Field, who led a major international climate report, added: “It’s hard to imagine a decision dumber than putting the short-term interests of oil and gas companies ahead of the long-term interests of our children and grandchildren.”EPA's Own Contradictory FindingsWhile EPA has recently released this ruling, the previous reports in its website say otherwise and in fact have made claims which contradicts its recent finding. A report from February 2025, titled: 'Human Health & Environmental Impacts of the Electric Power Sector' notes:“Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone and fine particles...can lead to heart attacks, asthma attacks, stroke, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, and other serious health effects. Every year, pollution from power plants causes fine particle- and ozone-related premature deaths, new asthma cases, heart attacks, and lost school and work days.”The report also highlights mercury emissions from power plants as a significant threat to children's neurological development. It further labels electric power generation as the second-largest source of carbon dioxide pollution, contributing to climate change with serious consequences for ecosystems and public health.The report notes that there are more than 3,400 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the US. All these "power plants are the largest stationary source category of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions and a significant source of mercury and fine particle emissions."What Do Other Findings Say?As per the American Lung Association, many of fuels used in power generation emit harmful pollutants when burned. The most significant health impacts, it notes, comes from the air emissions from burning fossil fuel, in particular, though not exclusively, from coal-burning power plants. The emissions have direct impacts and can cause cancer, especially when sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and mercury is released in the air. Particle pollutions are also contributing factors to it, since the particles are tiny, they can blow hundreds of miles from the source. As per the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), fine particle pollution from the US power plants cuts short the lives of nearly 24,000 people each year, including 2800 from lung cancer. CATF also notes that power plant pollution is responsible for 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks per year. People who live in metropolitan areas near coal-fired plants fell the impacts more acutely.