Health professionals and researchers working at the intersection of environment and health often bemoan the relative paucity of health considerations in climate policy, with health only recently (since 2023) starting to become more integrated into the formal UN climate negotiations. However, public health considerations have had a role in climate policy for a long time. A particularly prominent example from the U.S. was the 2009 ‘endangerment finding’ which found that 6 major greenhouse gases endanger human health and wellbeing. This evidence-based finding provided the legal basis for U.S. EPAs authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and industrial sources. As readers will no doubt know, however, the Trump Administration has repealed this finding, as of February 12 th 2026, rolling back environmental legislation, ostensibly to reduce costs.
The explicit justification seems to rest primarily on a technicality; that the U.S. Clean Air Act is only meant to regulate pollution “that harms health or the environment through local and regional exposure”. It seems far from clear, however, that climate heating pollutants don’t qualify under this criteria, and although that is probably not of much concern to the Trump Administration in pursuing their agenda, it could have a bearing on the legality of the repeal, which is already being challenged by a coalition of states, cities, counties and state agencies, led by Massachusetts, California, New York and Connecticut.
Arguments about the benefits of markets free from regulation are a longstanding political football in the United States and elsewhere, so it’s not surprising that this logic was invoked to justify these rollbacks in health and environmental regulation. However, critics argue that the estimated saving calculated by the EPA did not account for the financial cost and lives threatened by the removal of these environmental and public-health protections. This kind of partial accounting—ignoring factors considered ‘external to the economy’—is better understood as incomplete accounting of real-world linkages. Similar partial accounting, that omits the cost of maintaining and expanding fossil fuel energy infrastructure, is often employed to inflate the apparent cost of decarbonisation.
It’s also noteworthy that polls show that legislation to limit greenhouse gases is generally popular among Americans, despite ongoing political polarization on the issue, climate policies are supported by around 3 out of 4 Americans, with notably higher support among younger citizens. So, it is hard to understand why the trump administration, suffering very low approval ratings, would pursue such policies, unless it is understood as part of a wider deregulation agenda that serves the interests of fossil fuel and industrial interests who have successfully lobbied to maintain dominance and enhance profitability. Such prioirties seem far from having a democratic mandate.
Even if the short-term financial savings of deregulation could survive more comprehensive accounting, which seems unlikely. Americas war with Iran has already pushed up fuel prices for American consumers, demonstrating the tangible energy security and independence benefits afforded by renewable energy in contrast to the high vulnerability of oil and gas trade.
Perhaps one of the strangest challenges we face in transitioning to a more harmonious relationship with our environment is the ability of some people to prioritise short-term personal gain over damages, to others now and in the future. Time and again this kind of short and narrow sighted behaviour repeats. Perhaps it is an understandable individual bargain to prioritise that which benefits us most, especially where present circumstances are challenging. But at the level of society and national governance it is an appalling failing to favour the interests of a few over the needs of the many. The evidence is clearer than ever that transitioning away from fossil fuels can be cost effective, protect public health, and increase national energy security. The failure of Trumps America to embrace this transition, despite public support, suggests the need for more deliberative democratic processes, and is surely an opportunity for other nations to take the lead.