During his campaign, Donald Trump made clear his hostility toward governmental regulation in general and toward environmental regulation in particular.
Given his stated intention to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, it is no surprise that he has chosen Scott Pruitt to head that agency.
Pruitt, as attorney general of Oklahoma, has previously joined forces with fossil fuel companies to sue the EPA. He has also accepted large campaign donations from these companies.
Cutting back on EPA regulations will create public health problems for all Americans and for New Hampshire residents. In the decades since the EPA, the Clean Air and Water acts have existed, EPA enforcement has reduced cases of mercury toxicity (irritability, insomnia, muscle twitching and weakness, etc.), asthma and other problems, such as heart disease and lung cancer.
Rivers, some of which used to catch fire, have become much cleaner, so that we can now paddle, swim and fish in most of our waters. We less often see our trees suffering the effects of acid rain. New Hampshire, downwind from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest, has had a more intense need for these regulations than many other states.
In addition, Pruitt has taken a stance against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, a policy that sets limits on dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and encourages the development of renewable, clean energy. Pruitt minimizes the seriousness of climate change and the degree to which human activity contributes to it, saying there is much “speculation” in the field. In fact, 97 percent of scientists in this field agree that there is a threat. The speculation is on how imminent the threat is, and it would appear that symptoms of climate change are appearing earlier and with more severity than scientists had expected.
Pruitt has challenged the Clean Power Plan in cooperation with fossil fuel companies, who want to increase their already hefty profits.
Gutting environmental regulation would not only contribute to public health problems. It would also cause economic losses. Some of these would follow from increased health problems, which would lead to lost work days and medical expenses. Others would result from losses of jobs in businesses that supply renewable energy and conservation improvements. (These are jobs that cannot be outsourced.) Failure to implement conservation measures would mean businesses and individuals would have to pay more for energy.
I would urge all New Hampshire residents to contact their senators and encourage them to seriously question the nomination of Pruitt to the EPA. We would do best to avoid the public health consequences of this appointment, and we would be far better off without climate changes that could affect the intensity of weather events, our coastlines, the prevalence of formerly tropical diseases, the brilliance of our leaf season and the availability of snow for our ski industries.
(Laura Magzis lives in Penacook.)