In a move that should be but is no longer surprising, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin recently announced the agency will be formally reconsidering the 2009 Endangerment Finding and all the prior regulations and actions that rely on the finding. The move was part of Trump’s Day One Executive Order “Unleashing American Energy,” which gave the agency 30 days to report on the legality and continuing applicability of the finding.

So what is the Endangerment Finding, and why is this a giant blow for climate change research and activism?

In 2003, several environmental organizations petitioned the EPA to regulate emissions like carbon dioxide, citing scientific evidence of global warming. The EPA rejected the petition, stating that it did not have the authority and that the regulation was not “appropriate” at that time. Several states, including Massachusetts, joined a lawsuit filed by the organizations, asserting that the potential threat of global warming to state land made it a state issue. The case — Massachusetts v. EPA — wound up before the Supreme Court, which in 2007 sided with Massachusetts in agreeing greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled that the EPA’s Administrator must determine if greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

The Endangerment Finding is a rule issued in December 2009 that affirmed these concerns, stating “six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” The rule further states that emissions from “new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines” contribute to the problem and violate the Clean Air Act. The decision was based on a thorough review of existing scientific research, and since then even more research has emerged that strengthens the basis of the Endangerment Finding.

But it has not been without its critics. Since its implementation, the EPA has denied requests for reconsideration twice, with 10 petitions filed between 2009 and 2010 and another four between 2017 and 2019. Petitioners included the coal mining company Peabody Energy Corp, the US Chamber of Commerce, the states of Texas and Virginia, and a secretive group connected to the European chemical firm Solvay called the Coalition for Responsible Regulation. It should surprise no one that Peabody Energy Corp contributed $100,000 to Trump’s re-election campaign committee.

Surprisingly, automakers — whose business is targeted by the finding — have been split on the issue. In 2019, the Trump administration went after California’s state EPA for setting stricter emission standards, which is a congressionally granted authority and well within a state’s rights. The Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the administration, and initially a handful of automakers such as Toyota and General Motors joined the Trump Administration. However, by 2021 the automakers had abandoned the suit and joined Ford and Honda, which had supported the voluntary agreement with California. There is no telling how automakers will react to the latest news, but relations between automakers and the administration have been tense over Trump’s on-again-off-again steel and aluminum tariffs. Also, the market — including Tesla, which Trump’s Buddy-in-Chief Elon Musk runs — has shifted its strategy to electric vehicles and hybrids. The world, or at least the auto industry, is attempting to move on.

So, who will gain from a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding? Mostly traditional opponents of the Clean Air Act, which include fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, and politicians who represent districts where those types of jobs are primarily located. The excuse often heard from that crowd is that regulations cost money and restrict market growth. History, however, has shown that environmental laws and regulations were put in place to save lives. The move also overlooks a trove of scientific research supporting the link between emissions and global warming, which puts tens of millions of Americans at risk in the form of fires, droughts, hurricanes, extreme storms, floods, and sea-level rise.

Much like Trump’s recent order to increase logging on federal land, the lack of consideration for intergenerational equity and sustainable development on display shows that America is about making a quick buck at the cost of our future.