Since the start of President Trump’s second term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has embarked on a sweeping rollback of public health and environmental protections that undermine both science and the future of life on Earth. From erasing well-established climate science from federal websites to redefining what is considered “safe” exposure to known carcinogens, these actions reflect the prioritization of corporate profits and ideological denial over human lives and ecological stability. (E&E News by POLITICO)
What follows is a critique not only of the latest reporting and policy shifts, but a broader indictment of where public priorities currently stand — and, importantly, what constructive models the world is pursuing that we can learn from and help amplify.
1. Erasing the Science — A Dangerous Regression
Late in 2025, the EPA quietly removed references to human-caused climate change from some of its climate webpages, de-emphasizing humanity’s role in driving global warming and instead spotlighting natural processes like orbital changes or solar activity. (E&E News by POLITICO)
This isn’t a harmless revision of wording — it is a political erasure of scientific consensus. Overwhelming evidence shows that humanity’s burning of fossil fuels is the dominant cause of recent global warming, as confirmed by decades of peer-reviewed research and every major scientific body in the world. Rewriting government communication to obscure that truth undermines public trust and cripples public capacity for informed action.
By removing essential references and data tools, the U.S. government risks severing the informational foundation US communities rely on to understand climate impacts and plan resilience. The effect is not just bad policy — it’s public deception. (The Washington Post)
2. Rewriting “Safe” — Formaldehyde and the New Toxic Threshold
Perhaps no example better illustrates the current EPA’s anti-science drift than its proposed revision of formaldehyde risk standards. Formaldehyde is a well-documented carcinogen linked to leukemia, respiratory issues, and other serious health outcomes. International health bodies, including the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, classify it as a known human carcinogen. (American Cancer Society)
Yet, under the Trump Administration, the EPA produced a draft plan that would nearly double what it considers “safe” formaldehyde exposure in air — a change spurred by former chemical industry executives now leading the agency. Environmental advocates warn this would set a precedent for weakening protections against other toxic chemicals. (EWG)
This move is emblematic of a larger trend: industry influence over health risk assessments. Instead of relying on the broad scientific understanding that even low doses of carcinogens pose serious risks, the agency is adopting thresholds that lawyers and lobbyists favor — putting industry profitability above human wellbeing. (Gizmodo)
3. The Ideological War on Environmental Protections
The broader pattern is clear — from halting clean air laws in many states, to dismantling scientific research offices, to rolling back countless regulatory safeguards across the board. These aren’t isolated occurrences; they constitute an ideological project to shrink environmental governance and empower industry at the expense of public health and climate stability. (Earthjustice)
Simply put: this is not science-based policy. It is politics masquerading as policy.
4. Why This Matters Beyond Politics
Greed and denial aren’t abstract concepts; they translate into real suffering and loss:
- Increased pollution, especially in low-income and frontline communities.
- Expanded industrial exemption from health protections.
- Erosion of trusted public data, leaving citizens and communities blind to environmental threats. (The Washington Post)
These impacts are not future hypotheticals — they are already unfolding across the United States.
5. What the World Is Doing Differently
While parts of the U.S. federal government regress, other nations and jurisdictions are doubling down on climate science and public health protections. These approaches offer models worth studying and supporting.
a. Europe’s Increasingly Stringent Chemical Policies
The European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) framework remains one of the world’s strongest systems for regulating toxic substances. It places the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate safety, not on regulators to prove harm.
b. Carbon Pricing and Emissions Reductions
Countries such as Canada, Sweden, and New Zealand continue to implement carbon pricing as part of comprehensive strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources.
c. Climate Adaptation and Just Transition Strategies
Cities and nations worldwide are integrating climate resilience into urban planning, infrastructure investment, and labor policies — ensuring that workers and communities are not left behind in the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable economies.
d. Transparency and Scientific Integrity Laws
In several democracies, legal protections enshrine scientific independence from political interference. For example, the EU has rules requiring that public communication about health and environmental risks be based on peer-reviewed research — and that data tools remain publicly accessible.
These global approaches recognize what science has long affirmed: protecting health and the planet requires evidence-based governance, not corporate deregulation.
6. A Call for Truth, Accountability, and Action
The rollback of environmental science and health protections in the United States is more than policy failure — it’s a moral failure. When a government deletes science from its own websites or advances industry-friendly risk standards against consensus evidence, it betrays not just scientific integrity, but public trust and human welfare. (The Union of Concerned Scientists)
If the United States is to fulfill its obligations to current and future generations — to safeguard children’s health, protect communities from toxic exposures, and confront the existential threat of climate change — it must:
- Restore scientific integrity safeguards at all federal agencies.
- Recommit to evidence-based environmental policy aligned with global climate science.
- Protect and invest in environmental justice and public health programs that have been dismantled.
- Follow global examples of strong regulatory frameworks that empower communities and workers.
Conclusion: Beyond Critique Toward Collective Resilience
Yes, the current trajectory of U.S. climate and environmental policy reflects a profound failure of leadership: a fusion of greed, ideology, and willful ignorance that harms public health and weakens global climate action. But it also reveals why community-driven resilience, science literacy, and global solidarity matter more than ever.
Around the world, people are building alternative futures — rooting policy in science, equity, and ecological stewardship. That work shows us that regression is not inevitable. It can be resisted. It can be reversed. And it should be.
Tito
empowerment & inner transformation... 
Leave a comment