Environmental issues were conspicuously absent from the 2024 US presidential election campaign, however the measures taken by President-elect Donald Trump were first administration and his leadership decisions for his next administration offer clues to what may lie ahead.
They indicate that a second Trump administration is probably going Relaxation of industry regulationsespecially oil, gas and petrochemicals, and provides them broader permission to pollute.
Some actions will likely be obvious. But history suggests that this administration may be attempting to use the language of science – terms like transparency, citizen science and uncertainty – to weaken environmental and health protection And Adopt regulations which can be more favorable to the industry.
These ideas emerged throughout the first Trump administration and in conservative agendas akin to Project 2025. Project 2025 was written by former Trump administration officials, including Trump tapped several people for his next term. Trump distanced himself from the project throughout the campaign, but now says he agrees with many parts of it.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
As a researcher, I followed the primary Trump administration closely Environmental Data and Governance Initiativeor EDGI. The group was founded in 2016 to document Trump's efforts to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. During the primary Trump administration, we archived climate and environmental data sets utilized by scientists, advocates and policymakers who feared they could possibly be hidden by the federal government. We also tracked how the Trump administration modified the climate language on agency web sites.
EDGI too agency employees interviewed exposed to political pressure and explained the possible effects political changes and rule changes.
Here are 3 ways the second Trump administration might try to make use of the language of science to craft policies that sound useful but could have profound impacts on environmental health.
1. “Strengthening Transparency” to dam using health data
When you hear words like “transparency” or “open source,” they probably sound positive – the thought is that every one parts might be seen and verified.
But do you would like your health records visible to everyone? Health records privacy was at the middle of a debate over a primary Trump administration policy titled “Strengthen transparency within the critical science underlying necessary regulatory actions” or “Secret science” Rule.
The rule could have prevented the federal government from taking necessary health research into consideration when setting pollution limits.
Decades of health data from people within the United States have shown the impact air pollution from power plants and other sources can have contribute to the event of cancer and other diseases. This data provides evidence of regulations which have cleaned the nation's air and water for a healthier environment.
But the raw data from these studies can’t be made public since it These are people’s personal health records. The EPA rule finalized In the ultimate weeks of the primary Trump administration, the agency was urged to deemphasize studies when the underlying data was not publicly available. A dish repealed the rule on February 1, 2021.
I expect Trump's EPA will again attempt to require that the agency's rules be based on raw published data. The Agenda of the 2025 project Requires that “true transparency” be a defining feature of the EPA, including “the establishment of open source science.” This would limit using private health data or data whose use is licensed to corporations. That would make it difficult to develop rules Protecting public health.
2. Strengthen public oversight of EPA
The writer of The Project 2025 chapter on the EPA Was Mandy Gunasekarawho served as chief of staff to Trump's EPA administrator in the primary administration. Aside from transparency, Gunasekara has also touted “citizen science” as a approach to “engage the public to scrutinize the agency’s science.”
At its best, citizen science is a very important way for the general public to make sure research reflects their interests and experiences. At worst, citizen science is used to it delay meaningful actions.
Who advantages from “mandating the public” to review EPA science is dependent upon who has access to information and the resources to become involved. Wealthy industries and personal interests can have a greater voice, while communities are hit hardest by pollution remain offsideespecially when the federal government makes EPA's science difficult to seek out.
Project 2025 also calls for reshaping the makeup of EPA's advisory boards — and even suspending a few of them. These panels consider feedback from industry, academia and communities. Similar actions during Trump's first term reduced the variety of scientists and representatives of non-governmental organizations in these committees, At the identical time, the variety of industry consultants will likely be increased.
3. Use uncertainty to avoid regulation
Uncertainty is one other necessary scientific concept of the primary Trump administration used to advertise deregulationespecially for chemicals.
When EPA studies chemicals, there are uncertainties regarding health effects at different levels and varieties of exposure. A Precautionary approach assumes that chemicals have harmful effects at low doses and that these effects increase with increased or collected exposure. Many scientists Consider taking precautions as a safer selection if there will not be enough information in regards to the effects of the chemicals.
However, some chemicals will not be truly harmful until they reach a certain threshold. In the View of the chemical industryThis signifies that the “better safe than sorry” approach could also be unsuitable. Instead, the industry says chemicals regulation must be based on this best available science. However, one of the best available scientific evidence on chemicals is usually inconclusive. Without a precautionary approach, the industry's argument for “best available science” may very well mean less justification for regulation.
Project 2025 suggests that on his first day in office Trump should give an order “reject precautionary failure models and uncertainty factors” that “lead to erroneous and opaque decisions.”
The consequences could include EPA analyzes that underestimate the risks of toxic chemicals while research remains to be in its infancy. akin to with PFAS.
What's next?
Our team at EDGI is working with partners to re-identify federal web sites and datasets which can be vulnerable to removal, modification or attrition. This allows us to sound the alarm when these resources to trace and address climate and environmental change are lost. We consider that watchdog strategies have created political candidates hesitates to order further changes throughout the first Trump administration.
I don’t think Trump’s next EPA will likely be directly “anti-science.” However, I consider that it uses language that appears to advertise openness of research and citizen participation, but which goals to undermine measures to guard human health and the environment.
image credit : theconversation.com