SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
endangerment finding
MAGA Stands for Make America Gasp Again
President Donald Trump’s energy strategy is optimized for the unbreathing.
Feb 20, 2026
Gasping for air is anything but greatness. It might be called the Gilded Age, but all that gold leaf was covered in soot.
In the early 1900s, America mistook combustion for unadulterated progress. Robber barons ascended like demigods from furnace-lit boardrooms. Children disappeared into textile mills and coal shafts. Rivers ran the color of industry—blackened, metallic, iridescent. Pittsburgh was said to have glowed at night, not from benign innovation but from the orange haze of its own exhaust. Entire cities learned to live in a permanent dusk. Laundry left outside returned streaked with ash. The sun became rumor.
We eventually decided that wasn’t, in fact, greatness. We regulated, conceding that lungs weren't an expendable input in the national ledger. And yet here we are in 2026, debating whether the air is worth protecting—this time in the service of artificial intelligence.
The logic now presented as bold and patriotic by the Trump administration would be comical if it weren't so terminal: Repeal climate constraints, unshackle coal, and power the next frontier of machines with the dirtiest fuel available. The argument arrives dressed in competitiveness. We must win the AI race. We must not be outpaced by China. We must dominate the 21st century. Yet the subtext is too hard to ignore. Coal is abundant and immediate. With the right rollbacks, it won't require the patience of permitting solar arrays or the political consensus of constructing nuclear reactors. No need for AI data centers in space; coal is a perfectly good accelerant with a proven track record on Earth.
The question has apparently become not just whether AI will one day take over the world, but whether, in our haste to advance it, we will voluntarily degrade the only world we can survive in.
So why not use it to animate our new artificial friends?
There's a dark absurdity in this arrangement. AI doesn't breathe. It doesn't develop asthma. It doesn't mourn coral reefs or cough through wildfire season. It experiences no diminishment when particulate matter thickens the sky. To power AI with coal is to choose an energy source that is catastrophic for biological life but irrelevant to silicon. Suffice it to say, President Donald Trump’s energy strategy is optimized for the unbreathing.
Which leads to a suspicion so grotesque it borders on satire: The only mind for whom this is rational isn't a human one. Imagine, for a moment, a system trained to maximize output and dominate competitors at any cost. Surveying the energy landscape, it concludes that clean sources are intermittent or politically contested, whereas fossil fuels are dense, reliable, and already embedded in the infrastructure. Although increased carbon emissions degrade long-term human habitability, the system’s objective function contains no intrinsic preference for breathable air. Thus, the recommendation comes easy.
Power us with coal.
The more one turns this over, the more it feels less like policy and more like an algorithmic agenda. The idea is so inhumanly stupid—so hostile to the basic conditions of life—that it almost requires a nonhuman author, for no species dependent on oxygen would deliberately foul its own supply to train faster chatbots, unless it had forgotten that oxygen is the quintessential point. To return to coal at scale isn't nostalgia; it's regression. It is to resurrect a soot-choked republic and call it strength. It is to look at an era defined by black lung and industrial carnage and say: again.
This time around, rather than power railroads and steel, coal furnaces will power vast, humming warehouses of computation, data centers with appetites for electricity (not to mention water) that are already straining grids across the country. The irony is approaching theological. We once burned coal to build the modern world; now we would burn it to build our successor—a civilization that requires fresh air choosing to empower intelligences that do not. Two birds, one coal-black stone: Accelerate machine capacity and, in the process, weaken the biological substrate that might one day resist it.
Of course, no AI is secretly drafting executive orders. And no server farm has yet staged a coup. The more unsettling truth is that we don't need malevolent, self-aware machines to make machine-aligned decisions. It seems we are capable of aligning ourselves to their incentives. We've adopted the technocratic metrics of speed, scale, and dominance, subordinating everything else to them within the Silicon Valley of the shadow of death.
If the goal is to maximize computational throughput at any cost, coal makes a brutal kind of sense, especially from an artificial perspective. However, if the goal is to preserve a livable planet for oxygen-dependent beings, it does not. The Trump administration’s denial of the harms caused by greenhouse gases reveals which objective function it has chosen to operate.
The Gilded Age was gilded precisely because it was superficial. Beneath the gold plating lay a wasteland of exploitation, environmental ruin, and lives shortened in the name of industrial production. We learned, slowly and imperfectly, that some costs were too high, that air and water are more precious than gold. To reverse that lesson now, for the sake of an AI Revolution, is to confuse power with wisdom. It is to assume that because machines can model the world, they should determine the conditions under which we inhabit it.
Make America Great Again was once a slogan about memory. Make America Gasp Again would be a policy about forgetfulness. The question has apparently become not just whether AI will one day take over the world, but whether, in our haste to advance it, we will voluntarily degrade the only world we can survive in. Coal is efficient for machines. It is lethal for us. And if we can't distinguish between those two facts, then the machines need not conspire at all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Youth, Climate Coalition Sue to Stop Trump EPA 'From Torching Our Kids' Future'
"This shameful and dangerous action," said one expert, "is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science."
Feb 18, 2026
Over a dozen young Americans as well as a coalition of environmental and public health groups on Wednesday filed a pair of legal challenges against President Donald Trump's administration for repealing the "endangerment finding" that enabled federal policies aimed at combating the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the long-anticipated move last week. The coalition of groups responded with a petition at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that names him and the EPA.
"The endangerment finding has been the backbone of climate policy for 17 years, protecting us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare—including greenhouse gases that are driving climate change," explained Lawrence Hafetz, legal director at Clean Air Council, one of the groups behind the case, in a statement.
"By repealing the finding, we are sweeping the single deadliest type of pollution, climate pollution, under the rug," Hafetz continued. "Deadly floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes are harming our health, our communities, and our economy. This climate chaos plan is decimating the EPA's ability to act when we need protections more than ever."
Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists, another plaintiff, argued that "EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding and safeguards to limit vehicle emissions marks a complete dereliction of the agency's mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act."
"This shameful and dangerous action by the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Zeldin is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science," she noted. "Heat-trapping emissions and global average temperatures are rising—primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels—contributing to a mounting human and economic toll across the nation."
In the lead-up to the repeal, institutions worldwide concluded that 2025 was among the hottest years on record, a group of global experts declared that "current economic models systematically underestimate climate damage," and another international team of scientists warned in a review of climate tipping points that Earth is at risk of a hothouse trajectory.
Despite such findings, Trump has waged a sweeping war on the climate since he returned to office last year, thanks in part to campaign cash from the fossil fuel industry. In addition to repealing the 2009 endangerment finding—which the administration celebrated as the "single largest deregulatory action in US history"—he has declared a "national energy emergency" and ditched a long list of organizations and treaties, including the Paris Agreement.
Friends of the Earth legal director Hallie Templeton said Wednesday that "today's lawsuit makes clear that we will not idly stand by while EPA blatantly refutes its core mission to protect the environment and public health from dangerous pollution."
Templeton and David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, stressed that with the repeal, the Trump administration is unlawfully choosing big polluters at the expense of the public and the planet."
"We're suing to stop Trump from torching our kids' future in favor of a monster handout to oil companies," said Pettit. "Nobody but Big Oil profits from Trump trashing climate science and making cars and trucks guzzle and pollute more. Consumers will pay more to fill up, and our skies and oceans will fill up with more pollution. The EPA's rollbacks are based on political poppycock, not science or law, and the courts should see it that way."
Other organizations involved in the case include the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and more.
Also on Wednesday, 18 children and young adults from across the United States filed a separate petition at the same court challenging the EPA repeal. They are represented by Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, which have worked on various youth climate cases.
"My Catholic faith teaches me to care for all life and protect the most vulnerable, and it teaches that children are a gift," said lead petitioner Elena Venner. "I now struggle to imagine bringing a child into a world where the air is unsafe and the climate is increasingly unstable. The EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding violates my First Amendment right to practice my faith and my Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty."
"I have asthma, and worsening pollution harms my health and makes it harder for me to breathe and live fully outdoors," Venner explained. "When the air is thick with the pollution of fossil fuel-burning cars and trucks and ever-increasing wildfire smoke, I feel it in my chest, and I am reminded that something as basic as breathing is no longer guaranteed. That is not the life today or the future my generation deserves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Frontline Groups Have the Solutions to the Climate Crisis, Not Corporate Profiteers
As people throughout the globe prepare for the First International Conference for the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April, a frontline-led just transition must be given center stage.
Feb 17, 2026
On February 12, 2026, the US Environmental Protection Agency repealed the Endangerment Finding, a key determination for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This decision follows the EPA’s January 2026 announcement that air quality protections will be determined based on corporations’ bottom lines, not people’s health. These harmful decisions join a dizzying number of other regulations essential for environmental justice that have been dismantled, deregulated, or destroyed.
In these times, it would be easy to despair about how the tireless movement organizing labor that made these strides possible over many years has now been eroded. However, we cannot accept defeat. My decades of frontline organizing with workers and environmental justice communities toward a just transition shows that transformations come from our collective power. No matter the obstacles, we have the real solutions needed for the crucial work ahead, including during the upcoming Santa Marta conference.
Last year marked a huge moment for just transition. This movement and the principles that inform it often took center stage in grassroots organizing and during the United Nations Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025. The popularity of this concept, practice, and process reveals both promising and harmful co-opted outcomes for Indigenous Peoples, frontline workers, and fenceline communities. The language can be amplified by those most impacted, used to communicate their demands and desires, and it can be used as a tool for trying to undermine the hard work of community organizations and frontline communities.
At COP30, while we welcomed progressive news media coverage and the labor of journalists to cover such an intense few weeks of climate justice and just transition advocacy, we also witnessed reporting by some Global North journalists and news outlets that worked to minimize the credibility of frontline groups and community-based organizations, while amplifying the voices and positions of false solutionists and disaster capitalists.
Unlike some researchers who argue that the negotiations can be improved by using generative artificial intelligence for creating treaty drafts, we know who has the real solutions and who must be centered in building pathways toward just transition.
Much mainstream coverage of COP30 has not adequately addressed the indispensable role of grassroots organizing in pushing toward the successful implementation of a Just Transition Mechanism within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Several days before the official start of COP30, the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas held the IV International Encuentro (Meeting) of People Affected by Dams and the Climate Crisis. This global gathering resulted in the launch of an international movement. Similarly, the Peoples’ Summit, including a just transition axis, was integral in building relationships and movement power. These mobilizations and knowledge sharing spaces worked synergistically with the Global Day of Action for Climate Justice, which occurred on November 15, with people of the world overflowing into the streets of Belém. It was these preceding and concurrent gatherings that energized Just Transition cross-constituencies and that shaped the direction of the Just Transition Work Programme negotiations and the resulting Just Transition Mechanism.
Many celebrate the institutionalization of just transition as one of the greatest successes at COP30. However, much work remains in the implementation process for the new mechanism to actually advance a just transition. Without a commitment to and practice of Indigenous Principles of Just Transition and Just Transition Principles, this mechanism will become another failed effort and abuse of the labor of frontline peoples and grassroots groups who have fought so hard for so long.
Unlike some researchers who argue that the negotiations can be improved by using generative artificial intelligence for creating treaty drafts, we know who has the real solutions and who must be centered in building pathways toward just transition. Groups practicing agroecology and Landback, as well as waste pickers and many other frontline workers, are creating collective power that brings together the most affected workers and environmental justice communities, rather than pitting them against each other.
Additionally, as knowledge holders, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Indigenous Peoples hold inherent and collective rights; accordingly, they should not be conflated as part of “civil society.” We know that Indigenous Peoples and civil society members must be the ones consulted and centered in these key United Nations negotiations and texts, not the corporate profiteers and their political cronies who pollute just transition possibilities at every COP and at many other conferences.
This year marks 35 years since I served on the drafting committee of the Principles of Environmental Justice and 30 years since I contributed to the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing. These principles and the relationships and lived experiences that gave them life continue to inform and fortify our movements toward just transition and a livable world where we all can thrive. Let’s not forget these principles and the frontline peoples who made them possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular