There has been a lot of turmoil around the Election of Donald Trump, and his cabinet picks have stirred even more controversy.
While I understand that many Americans are in support of the possibility of significant change coming from these leaders, there is true cause for concern in a few arenas. Mainly, the pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA was started by a Republican Administration in order to protect our water and air from contamination levels that had proven detrimental since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
We can’t possibly expect every business owner of every industry to be a skilled global ecologist, and understand just how every chemical, every process, and every purchase will impact the citizens in his community and beyond. That isn’t feasible in the world of globalized markets and international progress, making the EPA a vital oversight agency.
Since the inception of the EPA, nearly every Administrator appointed has had an extensive history in environmental health, and environmental protections; the glaringly obvious exception to that rule was Christine Whitman, who spoke outside of the science she was presented and assured our 9/11 first responders and New York citizens that they were safe breathing the dust at ground zero. She was forced to resign after these statements were proven to be misleading and lawsuits were filed against her by those sickened and killed.
This is a clear sign of what happens when the EPA Administrator has a diminished respect for science. And yet, even she has criticized President-elect Trump’s pick of Administrator.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, has no history in environmental science or public health. He has spent his political career challenging the EPA in court, which may have been acceptable if the arguments were legitimate, but he’s opposing their scientific findings, not opposing their authority over state’s rights.
There is a time and a place for opposition, and when it comes to ensuring the safety and wellness of our families and the public at large, you don’t oppose the science. You err on the side of caution, you protect the rights of the individual and the collective — not the corporate. To appoint a man to lead an organization that he fundamentally disagrees with the existence of… is the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
How can we ensure our air and water are safe if the reports of contamination aren’t respected? If the scientists overseeing it aren’t supported, funded, or believed?
There is no issue more important than protecting our families’ health and no department more crucial than the one that prioritizes the safety of our air and water.
We can do better. We must demand better thank Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.