Trump vs. the Climate: The Human Cost of Climate Denial

The United States has just taken another major step backward in the fight against climate change. On September 14, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) eliminated most of the limits set during Joe Biden's presidency on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas power plants, and proposed repealing the remaining federal rules for the power sector. The EPA itself presents this as the largest deregulation initiative of the power sector in U.S. history and estimates it will save over $300 billion.

The decision is consistent with Donald Trump’s outright rejection of climate policies. Trump has even called climate change "the greatest hoax" ever perpetrated against the world. But there is also a more immediate political context. The war with Iran has severely disrupted international energy markets, leading to a sharp rise in fuel prices. In this setting, the Administration frames environmental regulation as part of the problem: climate policies, it argues, limit American energy production and raise costs. The EPA is now promising more coal and gas, along with lower energy prices.

Whether this deregulation will significantly lower energy bills for households remains open to debate. What is scientifically far less debatable is the cost of continuing to burn fossil fuels.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the EPA's new position is its argument that potential health damages from U.S. power sector emissions are too "uncertain, conjectural, remote, and complex" to justify regulation.

Climate change is no longer primarily a threat to future generations. It is happening now. Global and ocean temperatures have risen, glaciers and ice sheets are melting, and sea levels are rising. Heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, alongside increasing risks from droughts, wildfires, extreme rainfall, and flooding. And all of these changes carry direct consequences for human health.

The Cost of Climate Change Is Already Measured in Lives

Heat is probably the impact we can measure best. Researchers at ISGlobal in Barcelona, led by Joan Ballester, have developed epidemiological models to estimate heat-attributable mortality in Europe. In a landmark study, they estimated approximately 61,700 heat-related deaths during the summer of 2022. Spain, with around 11,300, was among the hardest-hit countries.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths each year. However, the WHO itself defines this figure as a conservative estimate.

The team has expanded this work using a database covering virtually the entire European population. For 2024, they estimated 62,775 heat-related deaths across 32 countries. These figures are currently integrated into the Lancet Countdown in Europe, one of the leading international tracking initiatives monitoring the health impacts of climate change. The 2026 report reveals that heat-related mortality has increased in virtually all European regions studied, with the steepest rises observed in Southern and Southeastern Europe.

Yet heat deaths are only the most visible and easily quantified part of the problem.

Droughts, Wildfires, and Prices: The Case of Spain

In Spain, heat and drought affect public health by impacting water availability, food production, and wildfire risks. Wildfires do not only cause direct casualties and injuries: their smoke contains fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, exposing populations far removed from the fires themselves. On top of this, there are far harder-to-quantify impacts: food insecurity, mental health issues, loss of livelihoods, population displacement, and migration, as well as disruptions to healthcare services following floods, fires, and other extreme events. Drought and water scarcity, for instance, can simultaneously impact drinking water, nutrition, infectious disease spread, fire risk, and mental well-being.

Available Figures Capture Only a Fraction of the Impact

The World Health Organization estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths each year. However, the WHO itself stresses that this is a conservative estimate. It primarily accounts for four main pathways—heat, malaria, diarrheal diseases, and childhood malnutrition—leaving out numerous impacts that cannot yet be adequately quantified. Among these omitted factors are severe heat events, flooding, water scarcity, agricultural system disruptions, climate-driven migration, and broad socioeconomic consequences. The WHO cautions that its 250,000 estimate is not a full prediction of climate change’s overall health impact.

And the future will largely depend on the decisions we make today. Every additional fraction of a degree of warming escalates risks to health, ecosystems, and human society.

The Domino Effect of Deregulation

This is why the EPA’s decision is far more than a domestic American issue. The United States remains one of the world's largest economies and major emitters, as well as the largest cumulative historical emitter of CO₂. Consequently, its decisions have a direct climate impact alongside a massive political ripple effect. International climate policies rely heavily on mutual trust that nations will progressively reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. When a global economic leader asserts the exact opposite—claiming that curbing greenhouse gases is an unnecessary barrier to prosperity—it undermines global prevention efforts everywhere.

Climate policy is public health policy. The question is no longer whether climate change will affect our health. It is how much illness and how many deaths we are willing to accept.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the EPA's new position is its argument that potential health damages from U.S. power sector emissions are too "uncertain, conjectural, remote, and complex" to justify regulation.

Scientific evidence tells a very different story. We are already counting the deaths.

Phasing down fossil fuels is not just about preventing climate damage decades down the road. It delivers immediate benefits by reducing air pollution and its cardiovascular and respiratory impacts. The false trade-off between economic prosperity and climate protection ignores these co-benefits—and, above all, ignores the fact that climate change is already being paid for in illness and human lives.

Climate policy is public health policy. The question is no longer whether climate change will affect our health. It is how much illness and how many deaths we are willing to accept.