This federal rule helped clear air over America's most beloved parks. Trump's EPA wants to kill it
During a hike in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 1995, Don Barger climbed Chilhowee Mountain hoping to gaze across the valley below. All he saw was a wall of gray haze.
Today, he said, he can see some 50 miles (80 kilometers) across that same valley to the Cumberland Mountains.
A 26-year-old federal regulation known as the regional haze rule has helped cut down on pollution over national parks, wilderness areas and tribal reservations, restoring some of the nation's most spectacular natural vistas for outdoor lovers like Barger. But conservationists fear those gains may be lost after President Donald Trump's administration announced in March the rule is among dozens of landmark environmental regulations that it plans to roll back.
'It means a promise that was made to the American public is lost,' Barger, 74, said. 'More and more generations of people are going to grow up as ignorant as I was, not realizing what I'm missing and not seeing.'
Congress pushes to clean air over parks, wilderness areas
Haze forms when small particles of air pollution, such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, scatter and absorb sunlight, blurring views and decreasing visibility.
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to make restoring and maintaining visibility a goal for 156 national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and tribal reservations across 36 states. That includes places like the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; Grand Canyon National Park; Glacier National Park; and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
After years of drafting and litigation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted regulations known as the regional haze rule in 1999 to implement the amendments.
The rule calls for attaining natural visibility conditions by the year 2064 and mandates that states come up with plans that include limitations on emissions, compliance schedules and monitoring strategies. Older facilities that emit pollution, such as coal-fired power plants, must adopt mitigation technology such as scrubbers or shut down periodically to decrease overall annual emissions.
A work in progress
The states' plans have been plagued with delays as the EPA approves parts of them and rejects others. For example, two big oil- and coal-producing states, North Dakota and Wyoming, and industry groups filed petitions in federal court in January seeking review of EPA decisions rejecting their plans, according to the Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program.
The rule works in conjunction with other federal antipollution regulations, but it's been crucial in clearing the skies over national parks and wilderness areas.
An Associated Press analysis of data from a nationwide network of monitoring sites from 1999, when the rule was implemented, through 2023 shows 93% of the parks and wilderness areas have seen improved air quality on clear days. No parks or wilderness areas have seen any notable worsening in visibility.
Visibility in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was twice as good on a typical clear day in 2023 as it was in 1999, marking the biggest improvement among the national parks.
The EPA estimates that between 2007 and 2018 the rule has cut 500,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 300,000 tons of nitrous oxides annually. The average visual range has increased from 90 miles to 120 miles (144 kilometers to 193 kilometers) in some western parks and from 50 to 70 miles (80 kilometers to 112 kilometers) in some eastern parks, according to the Harvard program.
'Most consequential day of deregulation'
Trump's EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced March 12 that the agency would look to roll back 31 landmark environmental regulations, including the regional haze rule. Zeldin called the announcement the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history' and said in an essay published in the Wall Street Journal that the administration is 'driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.'
Asked for comment on the regional haze rule, the EPA said they want to better account for pollution from outside the U.S. and from natural sources and avoid unnecessary burdens for states and industry.
Has the rule hurt energy producers?
In a cost-benefit analysis of the rule before it took effect, the EPA found it would cost energy producers up to $98 billion by 2025 while providing about $344 billion in benefits such as health care savings.
Producers argue that the haze rule has done its job and it doesn't make sense to continue to impose costs on them.
'This is a matter of diminishing returns,' said Jonathan Fortner, interim president and CEO of the Lignite Energy Council, which advocates for North Dakota's coal industry. 'The air is clean, the data proves it, and the science backs that up. The rule's being misapplied, not because we disagree with clean air goals, but because we're already there.'
Two federal properties in North Dakota are subject to the rule, the Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge and Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The AP analysis found both sites have seen dramatic visibility improvements over the five years from 2019 to 2023.
EPA officials did not respond to an AP request for a list of power plants that have closed due to the regional haze rule. A number of energy industry groups did not return repeated requests for comment, including the U.S. Energy Association and the National Utility Contractors Association.
What's next for the parks?
Advocates of the rule say eliminating it could lead to reduced tourism and the economic boom visitors bring to national park regions. The National Park Service estimates 325 million people visited national parks in 2023, spending $26.4 billion in gateway communities.
Nothing appears likely to change overnight. Conservationists expect the Trump administration to pursue a rollback through language revisions in the rule, a process that would require a public comment period and would likely trigger court challenges that could last years.
'I've watched the Great Smoky Mountains National Park emerge from the chemical haze that once enshrouded it and was getting worse,' Barger said. 'It's just this visceral sense of place. We had lost it entirely. The Clean Air Act is working and it's a work in progress. You have to stay with it or it doesn't work.'
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
33 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Shame of Trump's Parade
Today—250 years since the Continental Army officially formed to fight for the independence of the American colonies against the British monarchy—marks a milestone in President Donald Trump's effort to politicize the U.S. military. Though they are rare, military parades have happened before in Washington, D.C. For the most part, these have been celebrations of military achievements, such as the end of a war. But today is also Trump's birthday, and what he and his supporters have planned is a celebration of Trump himself. A mark of a free society is that its public institutions, especially its military, represent the body politic and the freedom-enabling equal rights that structure civic life. If service members and the public begin to believe that the military is not neutral but is in fact the servant of MAGA, this will threaten the military's legitimacy and increase the likelihood of violent conflict between the military and the public. Today's events bring us one step closer to this disaster. I have seen the politicization of the military firsthand. Last month, I resigned my tenured position as a philosophy professor at West Point in protest of the dramatic changes the Trump administration is making to academic programs at military-service academies. Following an executive order from January, the Department of Defense banned most discussions of race and gender in the classroom. West Point applied this standard to faculty scholarship as well. As a result, my research agenda—I study the relationship between masculinity and war, among other things—was effectively off limits. I consider what the Trump administration is doing to the military-service academies as a profound violation of the military's political neutrality. That destructive ethos is the same one apparent in the parade scheduled for today. Before Trump was reelected, the Army had planned significant celebrations across the country to mark this day, including the release of a commemorative postage stamp and a visit to the International Space Station by an Army astronaut. But according to The New York Times, arrangements for today's D.C. event, unlike the other plans, began only this year. The day is scheduled to begin with a variety of family-friendly concerts, a meet and greet with NFL players, and military-fitness competitions, all on the National Mall. If all goes to plan, the celebrations will culminate with what organizers are calling a 'grand military parade' that starts near the Pentagon, crosses the Potomac River, and ends near the White House. The parade is anticipated to involve 6,700 active-duty soldiers and a massive display of Army equipment: dozens of M1A1 Abrams tanks and Stryker armored personnel carriers, along with more than 100 other land vehicles, 50 helicopters, and a B-25 bomber. Trump is scheduled to give remarks after the parade and receive a flag delivered from the air by the U.S. Army Parachute Team known as the Golden Knights. A fireworks show is set to follow later tonight. The organizers have made it abundantly clear that today's purpose is to directly laud Trump and his politics. In promotional materials, they tell us, 'Under President Trump's leadership, the Army has been restored to strength and readiness.' They credit his 'America First agenda' for military pay increases, enlarged weapons stockpiles, new technologies, and improvements in recruitment, declaring that he has 'ensured our soldiers have the tools and support they need to win on any battlefield.' Monica Crowley, the State Department's chief of protocol and a former Fox News host, went on Steve Bannon's podcast WarRoom to say that the concurrence of the U.S. Army's anniversary and Trump's birthday is 'providential.' She called it 'meant to be. Hand of God, for sure.' She added, 'It is really a gift, and we want to be sure that we celebrate in a manner that is fitting, not just of this extraordinary president but of our extraordinary country.' She also expressed hope that the crowd would serenade the president with 'Happy Birthday.' Clearly, Trump isn't merely the guest of honor; he is the reason for the party. During his first administration, members of Trump's own Cabinet often thwarted his efforts to corrupt the Pentagon. This time, Trump has appointed a secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, who is willing to tear down the boundaries separating politics and the management of national defense. Trump and Hegseth claim to be purging the military of politicization instilled by previous administrations and resetting the DOD around the nonpartisan matter of readiness for war. But in reality, they have used this rationale as a cover to insert an unprecedented level of political partisanship into the military. Other events in recent months have pointed in this same direction. For instance, in February, the administration fired the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The only meaningful justification given for the move was Hegseth's claim that the fired lawyers might be roadblocks to the president's agenda—a frightening admission. In January, the administration banned transgender people from serving in the military, not because they allegedly pose a threat to unit cohesion or because their medical treatment is unusually expensive, but because they are supposedly bad people ('not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member'). At present, transgender soldiers who have met all performance standards are being discharged simply because of the administration's bigotry against them. The administration has also inserted its politics into all the military-service academies—the reason I left West Point last month. Trump and Hegseth have denied the validity of ideas that are taken seriously in a variety of disciplines and banned them from the classroom, including, as I noted above, matters pertaining to race and gender. Books and other works, most of which are by women and people of color, have been removed from the curriculum. The academic programs of the service academies are now structured around the Trump administration's ideological worldview. Faculty and cadets wonder if they are allowed to entertain perspectives inconsistent with the administration's politics. In May, Hegseth led an evangelical prayer service in the Pentagon's auditorium. Standing at a lectern with the Department of Defense seal, Hegseth led the audience in prayer to 'our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.' The main speaker at this service was Hegseth's pastor, Brooks Potteiger, of the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. This church restricts all leadership positions to men, declares homosexuality immoral, and asserts that women should not serve in combat. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a secretary of defense acknowledging his religious faith. What's objectionable is the use of his authority to push his personal religious views on subordinates, especially as the director of a major institution of the secular state. The president now routinely speaks to uniformed service members in his red MAGA hat, using his trademark rhetoric centering himself and belittling, even demonizing, his critics. He openly suggests a special alliance between him and the military. At Fort Bragg on Tuesday, for instance, Trump encouraged uniformed soldiers to cheer his political agenda and boo his enemies. This is all extremely dangerous. Keeping the military a politically neutral servant of the constitutional order, not of the president or his political ideology, is vital to ensuring the security of civil society. Up until a week ago, the blurring of the boundaries between the administration's ideology and the military had not yet manifested as an attempt to employ the military directly on Trump's—or the Republican Party's—behalf. The steps taken until that point had been mostly symbolic. (The one possible exception was the deployment of the military at the southern border in what is essentially a law-enforcement matter.) But these symbolic expressions of military politicization have paved the way for that endgame—presidential orders that deploy the military for directly partisan ends. In just the past week, the Trump administration responded to protests against the enforcement of his immigration policies with military deployments. The likelihood that the administration will try to use the military against its political opponents is now very high. If that comes to pass, we will then learn just how successful Trump's efforts to politicize the military have been.
San Francisco Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Donald Trump is losing. Here's how California can keep the pressure on
Californians are angry. They should be. President Donald Trump's militarized mass deportation policies aren't just thoughtless and cruel — they have, in many instances, been executed illegally. This includes targeting international college students with legal residence for their political expression. Four undocumented children in San Francisco were also among those rounded up, among them a 3-year-old, whose family was lawfully complying with a scheduled check-in with immigration authorities. Abundant evidence suggests racial profiling is part and parcel of the administration's strategy. Federal agents aren't simply doing the hard work of tracking down the immigrants with criminal records whom Trump has emphasized for deportation. Instead, they've fished for people en masse at places like Home Depot — sometimes masked and without visible identification — sweeping up citizens of color in the process. In some cases, Trump isn't deporting people back to their native lands. He has sent hundreds of undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom had violated no other law than coming to the country without authorization, to prisons in places that are not their country of origin — including what could best be described as a gulag in El Salvador. In the fear and confusion that has ensued from these actions, criminals pretending to be Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are exploiting the chaos to attack vulnerable communities. And so Californians — and increasingly people across the nation — have taken to the streets in protest. The Constitution and the moral imperative are on their side. In response, Trump has sent thousands of federalized National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the streets of Los Angeles in a clear act of intimidation — claiming an insurrection, but notably not invoking the Insurrection Act statue that would give him the legal authority (and the checks and balances that come with it) to mobilize troops. When U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California attempted to publicly question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about these excesses and injustices, he was shoved and handcuffed by federal agents. It's a perilous time for American democracy. The threat of a descent into unchecked authoritarianism is real. Protestors are correct in their assessment that silence in the face of such tyranny is unacceptable. But as citizens of conscience take to the streets — particularly in California, where the undocumented migrant population is bearing the brunt of our nation's political war — there is something important they should keep in mind: Donald Trump is losing. In recent months, courts have shot down any number of his executive orders, along with his targeting of international students with legal residence. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Thursday that Trump's federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops was 'illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will consider an appeal of Breyer's ruling on Tuesday. Beyond the legal realm, Trump's economic policies are floundering. His 'big, beautiful' budget is in disarray after an embarrassing public fallout with the world's richest man. His tariff negotiations have gone nowhere. His foreign policy bluster has resulted in heightened global instability. The American people are beginning to widely see Trump for what he is: a failure Only 38% of registered voters approve of his performance, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday. And on immigration, 57% disapprove of his policies. Perhaps recognizing the turning tide, Trump has wobbled on many of his more aggressive stances. After calling for an all-out ban on Chinese students, he suggested this week that he would actually like 500,000 to come to the United States. He further said he had changed his views on migrant farm workers. 'You go into a farm and you look at people — they've been there for 20, 25 years, and they've worked great, and the owner of the farm loves them, and everything else and then you're supposed to throw them out,' Trump said Thursday at the White House. He ultimately backed down from these positions. But the flip-flopping shows his weakness — and the reality that better federal immigration policy, not crackdowns, are needed if we want to better meet the country's workforce needs. The question now for Californians is how to keep the pressure on Trump and defend the rights of immigrants without turning against one another or giving the Trump administration the kind of public spectacle it craves. While Trump is weak, he remains a master manipulator. He has already tried to leverage scenes of carnage stemming from a handful of bad actors at the protests in Los Angeles. California cannot afford to give him more fodder. That danger runs particularly high in Los Angeles, where Trump's federalized troops add an element of unpredictability. 'It's like bringing in a new player to a game and not giving them the playbook,' former Houston police chief and crowd control expert Art Acevedo told the editorial board. 'It's counterproductive. It's theater. And it's not operationally sound.' Acevedo, who drew nationwide praise for his handling of the 2020 protests in George Floyd's native Houston in the wake of his murder by police, said that the best way to protect the public's First Amendment rights is through local organization and communication. Here in San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie has been criticized for his reluctance to even say Trump's name in public. But San Francisco doesn't need him to make fiery speeches. What it needs, Acevedo said, is for officials and the police department to keep lines of communication open with activists and protest leaders and to signal their compassion. San Franciscans are more than capable of speaking for their city. They need to trust that they will be safely empowered to do so. That does not preclude the necessity of weeding out bad actors. Trump is weak. With the discipline to maintain the moral high ground, he can be defeated. As Michael Ansara, who as a student helped organize the March on Washington in 1965, concluded in a recent op-ed: Protesting against Trump is good. Organizing against him is better.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
No More Student Visas? No Problem.
Just how mad is Beijing about President Donald Trump's decision to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals? Not as mad as it says, and not as mad as one might expect. Publicly, China's leadership will likely complain that Trump's action is yet another attempt to thwart the country's rise. But in reality, Beijing would probably just as soon keep its smartest kids at home. Late last month, the U.S. State Department announced that it would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,' and that it would 'enhance scrutiny' of the applications it received in the future. The new visa policy, a spokesperson said, is meant to prevent China from exploiting American universities and stealing intellectual property. A spokesperson for the foreign ministry quickly registered Beijing's objection to the new policy. But when Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke with Trump by phone last week, either he didn't raise the new visa policy or his foreign ministry didn't regard his comments on the matter worth including in its official summary of the call, which suggests that the issue is not a top priority in Beijing's negotiations with Washington. One reason for this underwhelming response may be that re-shoring its university students serves Beijing's current agenda. China first opened to the world in the 1980s; in the decades that followed, securing a Western education for its elite helped the country bring in the technology and skills it needed to escape poverty. China was 'sending people out, learning from other places, finding the best quality wherever it was, and bringing that quality back to China,' Robin Lewis, a consultant for U.S.-China education programs and a former associate dean at Columbia University, told me. Now that period has given way to one of nationalism and self-reliance, which means promoting China's own companies, products, technologies—and universities. Rose Horowitch: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students Xi has consistently stressed the importance of education in sustaining China's rise. His government has invested heavily in China's schools and lavished resources on science and technology programs, with some success. Some of China's top institutions, such as Tsinghua University in Beijing, have gained international recognition as serious competitors in scientific research. China would like to have its own Harvards, rather than sending its elite students to the United States, for political and cultural reasons as well as economic ones. Chinese authorities have long worried that the hundreds of thousands of students it exports to America will absorb undesirable ideas about democracy and civil liberties—and that they will access information about China that is suppressed at home, such as the story of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In fact, many young Chinese who study in the United States seem to enjoy American freedoms and seek to stay rather than return to serve the motherland. Beijing has tried to deal with this in part by monitoring the activities of its students in the U.S. and attempting to hold them firmly to the party line, including by harassing the families back home of those who stray. Within China, authorities can more easily confine students inside the government's propaganda bubble, which in recent years has become more airtight. Domestic media seek to portray the U.S. as unsafe, especially for Asians, by highlighting incidents of racial discrimination, violence, and disorder. One story published last year by the state news agency Xinhua, under the headline 'Chinese Students' Dreams Turned Into Nightmares at U.S. Doorstep,' tells the harrowing tale of a Chinese student detained and deported at an airport and claims that others had suffered the same fate. China's top spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, warned Chinese students at universities abroad against being recruited as foreign agents, and told of one such unfortunate national who was discovered and punished. Even before Trump's announcement, this climate of mutual distrust had led to a drop-off in Chinese students enrolled in American universities. The number had reached an all-time high during the 2019–20 academic year, topping 372,000, according to the Institute of International Education. But that figure has fallen since—by a quarter, to 277,000, in the 2023–24 academic year. Now India, with more than 331,000 enrolled, sends more students to American institutions than China does. The Trump administration appears to believe that curtailing Chinese access to American technology, money, and, in this case, education will give the U.S. the edge over its closest competitor. In some areas, this might work: Restricting the export of advanced U.S. semiconductor technology to China seems to have helped hold Beijing's chip industry back. So why not do the same with higher education? A case can be made that keeping Chinese students out of some of the world's top research institutions will hold back their skills acquisition and, with it, the country's progress. Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down In practice, though, the effect of this policy could be hard to gauge. The engineers behind the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which wowed Silicon Valley by developing a competitive chatbot on the cheap, were mainly locally trained. And the skills that Chinese students can't find at home they can seek in any number of places. There may be only so many Harvards, but Chinese students can receive a good education—and a warmer reception—in countries other than the United States. Universities in Japan and Hong Kong are already trying to capitalize on Trump's harassment of international students to lure them. The idea that any American policy can effectively dampen Chinese ambition may be far-fetched. 'People wake up in the morning and it's all about education here. There is nothing more important,' James McGregor, the chair for China at the consulting firm APCO, told me. 'You're going to stop Chinese people from learning the top skills in the world? No. They'll just deploy them somewhere else.' For now, the Trump team can't seem to decide whether it wants to get tough on China or make deals with China, and the new student-visa policy reflects this confusion. 'Chinese students are coming. No problem,' Trump said in a briefing after his call with Xi. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly.' China's leadership surely knows that many Chinese families still aspire to send their young-adult children to American universities. But Beijing is much more single-minded than Washington about the future of relations between the two countries: Xi appears to see Washington as the primary impediment to China's rise, and ties to the U.S. as a vulnerability best eliminated. From that viewpoint, relying on Harvard to train China's most promising students is a national-security risk. That means that Trump may be doing Xi a favor.
