Bad Policy Begets Increased Costs and Reduced Resources

This is a very interesting article from Colorado Public Radio, and while this sub isn't focused on US Emergency Management, there is food for thought here for EM professionals around the world.

https://www.cpr.org/2026/02/18/air-pollution-colorado-epa-climate-regulations/

When policy decisions are made, they will have some type of direct and/or indirect impact on our ability to do our jobs in emergency management. When these decisions are evidence-based and follow sound science and good judgment, that impact can be acceptable, even when it negatively impacts our ability to do our job.

However, when these decisions are made based on partisan beliefs or because those with money have lobbied the policy-makers to decide in their favor, it becomes much more difficult to accept bad policy.

While this appears to be a climate and transportation issue at first glance, the repeal of the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases has significant emergency management implications as well.

• The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change to a greater or lesser extent.
  • As a result, we are more likely to see more extreme temperatures, more extreme precipitation events (rain and snow), increased wildfire activity, and (paradoxically) increased risk of both drought and flooding...among other things.
• The evidence is also overwhelmingly clear that increased emissions, particularly pm2.5 (particulate matter measuring 2.5 micrometers) or smaller such as those from vehicle emissions and wildfire smoke will cause an increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory problems.
  • As a result, countries with single-payer healthcare systems like the UK, Australia, and Canada will see an increase in health care demand at a time when systems are already significantly strained. Countries without single-payer healthcare will see an increase in individual healthcare expenses as a result of increased respiratory issues. In both cases, systems that are already struggling at full (or are over) capacity will see an increase in demand that is both predictable and preventable.
• There will be an increase in expenses related to HVAC and air handling systems as increased emissions will lead to increased wear and tear on filtering systems. Having to change a filter twice as often leads to increased labor and equipment costs, meaning an equivalent reduction in resources available to support emergency management needs.
• The resulting decrease in emissions standards has the potential to also decrease fuel efficiency, leading to higher demand and, in turn, higher prices. This will have a direct budgetary impact on the operating costs of vehicles - particularly heavy vehicles that are key to emergency management responses.

I'm sure there are many others, these are just a few of the direct and indirect impacts.

If we are truly going to be emergency managers and to invest our time and energy in things like prevention and mitigation, then that must apply to our support (or lack thereof) for policies that also support prevention and mitigation, no matter what our beliefs. We know that the money invested in prevention and mitigation provides a return on investment anywhere from 5 to 15 times what we put into it.

So, what do we do from here?