There are currently no candidates seeking the Republican nomination for President in the United States that hit the following three points: Climate change is real, human activity is making it worse, and we need to act. To make matters worse, these reality-denying politicians are already laying out their plans on how they will scale back environmental protections if they ever make it to the White House.

The current GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump, said in a recent interview that his budget cuts would focus on two important federal agencies: The Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Trump, what the EPA does is a “disgrace,” and that “every week they come out with new regulations.”

When Trump was pressed about who would be in charge of protecting the environment after he destroys the EPA, he responded by saying that the environment would be “just fine.”

What Trump is doing here is jumping on the same pro-business, anti-environment bandwagon that has become the staple of modern Republican talking points.

There is no evidence whatsoever that supports his claim about regulations harming businesses. In fact, study after study has confirmed that regulations actually create more jobs than they cost and that they create an overall economic benefit to the economy as a whole.

So Donald Trump is really saying that the profit margin of an individual business is more important than the health of the overall economy (and, of course, it is more important than the environment).

But Trump is not the only Republican presidential hopeful out there using outdated talking points to justify his attack on the EPA. Republican Senator Marco Rubio has also made it clear that the EPA would be dismantled under his watch.

During his first major speech on his energy policy last week, Rubio told a crowd that, if elected, he would immediately do away with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and that he would speed up the permitting process for new oil and gas drilling leases.

He went on to say that he would cut 10 other unspecified agencies that he says are unfairly creating regulatory burdens for the energy industry. Overall, Rubio’s policy reflects the pervasive Republican attitude towards the dirty energy industry, and that is to let them drill whenever and wherever they like regardless of the consequences.

Remarkably, Rubio has not been on the receiving end of too much cash from the dirty energy industry, with less than $700,000 given to his campaigns from the industry. But, considering the fact that he’s only had two election campaigns for a national office so far, that’s actually a pretty hefty sum. And his pro-drilling stance is likely to net him even more from the industry as his presidential campaign continues to move forward.

While Republicans have made attacking the EPA a centerpiece of their campaigns for years, they have made little progress in actually dismantling the agency. The only area where they have had success is in opening up new areas for energy exploitation and in securing millions of dollars from the dirty energy industry, so these tired talking points are likely just a ploy to get campaign dollars.

But that’s not a chance that any of us should be willing to take, considering the fact that the fate of our environment and health is on the line.