Why Donald Trump is Repealing the “Endangerment Finding”: Where Will Humanity Go if Earth Exceeds Its Limits?

On February 12, the administration of President Donald Trump announced the decision to revoke the 2009 scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health. On the surface, this appears to be a legal change directly related to the scope of the Clean Air Act and the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions. However, when viewed within the broader context of the industrial strategy pursued under the Make America Great Again agenda, this decision reflects a deliberate development orientation aimed at reducing production costs, restoring metallurgical capacity, and rebuilding domestic supply chains that have eroded over several decades.

For more than a century, the metallurgical industry was once a pillar of the American economy. Steel, aluminum, copper, and other base metals not only supported infrastructure development but also formed the foundation of national defense and advanced manufacturing. Yet since the late twentieth century, the domestic metallurgical sector has experienced steady decline as factories relocated overseas to benefit from lower labor and energy costs while avoiding increasingly stringent environmental regulations. The result has been a paradox. The United States retains the capacity to extract raw materials, but it has become increasingly dependent on imported refined metals.

The MAGA strategy took shape within this context. One of its central objectives has been to restore domestic production capacity by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains. To achieve this goal, energy policy was adjusted in ways that encouraged oil and gas extraction and reduced domestic fuel costs. As energy costs declined, energy intensive industries such as metallurgy began to regain the potential for revival. However, cheaper energy alone was insufficient if environmental compliance costs remained high. For this reason, removing the legal basis for emissions regulations became a significant step in the broader process of reindustrialization.

From this perspective, revoking the 2009 finding does not simply reflect skepticism toward climate change. It is part of a policy calculation intended to create developmental space for heavy industry. As emissions standards are loosened or forced to be reconstructed under alternative legal frameworks, the operating costs of metallurgical plants may decrease significantly. This improves the competitiveness of domestic production relative to imported materials.

Alongside this move are signals suggesting that the administration is paying greater attention to strategic metals such as copper. Efforts to increase reserves and review import policies for refined metal products indicate a long term vision to secure supply chain stability. Copper is indispensable in electrical systems, industrial equipment, and defense technologies. If the United States intends to rebuild production capacity in these sectors, ensuring a stable supply of copper becomes a prerequisite.

The larger question, however, concerns the cost of this transition. When emissions regulations are relaxed, short term economic benefits may be realized, but long term consequences for public health and environmental stability may accumulate. Air pollution, rising temperatures, and increasingly extreme weather events can directly affect the lives of millions. Meanwhile, those who benefit from industrial recovery are often among the groups most capable of adapting to environmental risk.

Within this context, human health becomes a central issue. When industrial interests are prioritized, vulnerable populations may bear the greatest burden. Workers in industrial zones, residents living near factories, and low income communities often possess limited resources to shield themselves from environmental hazards. They are also less capable of relocating when living conditions deteriorate.

Climate scientist Wallace Smith Broecker warned as early as the 1970s that the Earth’s climate system could be pushed toward an irreversible tipping point if greenhouse gas emissions continued at existing rates. He described climate change as an “angry beast” that humanity was provoking. Once this threshold is crossed, changes within the climate system may become self sustaining and difficult to control. Natural disasters would no longer appear as isolated events but as a new and persistent normal.

In such a scenario, weather may evolve into an indirect form of weapon. Droughts, floods, and intensified storms can disrupt production, destroy infrastructure, and trigger food crises. Nations or communities lacking sufficient adaptive resources may face prolonged economic and social instability. This warning has been echoed by scientists and national security strategists who describe climate change as a threat multiplier capable of intensifying inequality and conflict.

Those at the lower levels of society are often the first to feel these effects. They tend to live in areas more vulnerable to flooding, work in more polluted environments, and possess less access to healthcare. When disasters occur, they are also the first to lose livelihoods and the slowest to recover.

Policy decisions, however, are frequently made on the basis of short term economic and political calculations. Reviving the metallurgical industry may create employment opportunities and stimulate growth in the immediate future, but without effective environmental safeguards, these gains may come at the expense of long term public health.

The fundamental challenge is not to choose between economic development and environmental protection, but to identify a balanced model that accommodates both objectives. Otherwise, the race for industrial expansion may lead to irreversible consequences in which climate related disasters become routine rather than exceptional.

The decision announced on February 12 therefore represents more than a shift in climate policy. It constitutes a test of the capacity to balance economic priorities with human health. It reflects a strategic choice regarding how to restore production capability while raising questions about the responsibility of policymakers to protect the living environment for future generations.

If the process of reindustrialization proceeds without effective emissions controls, societies may face increasingly frequent disasters. In such a future, the most vulnerable communities will once again be the first and most severely affected.

The challenge confronting policymakers is how to revive industry without sacrificing public health. This is not merely an economic dilemma but an ethical question concerning responsibility toward both the environment and humanity. The choices made today will shape the quality of life for generations to come.