Elections, it seems, are often more about personalities than policies. Ironically, regardless of the personality of the leaders we elect, it’s the policies they enact or the programs they cut that have a far more significant effect on the lives of us everyday citizens.
This year, the personality thing has gone to an extreme I find almost impossible to believe, at least at the presidential level. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen in our races for governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative and the state Legislature, but the signs aren’t good.
I’ve been hearing a lot about the personal failures and faults of our two presidential candidates lately, from people who might otherwise be more likely to talk about policies.
One very thoughtful friend has made it clear he doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. Another was appalled that the party of Teddy Roosevelt was nominating Donald Trump. I have my own opinions about the candidates themselves, but my larger concern is what they will do once in office.
If you drink clean water, eat healthy uncontaminated food, breathe clean air and spend much time enjoying the outdoors on public lands, it seems there’s a lot riding on this election.
What a president does in office that has the most impact on the health of our environment are budget priorities and whom he or she puts at the head of agencies that protect our food supply, ensure our waters and air stay clean, and provide the oversight to guarantee we have safe water to drink.
And while we all take our public lands for granted as places to hunt, fish, hike, kayak, camp, and rejuvenate our minds and bodies, it would be foolish to assume that they will always be there and available to us, given that a key committee in the Republican House recently voted to give 2 million acres of National Forest land in each state to the states to do with as they please.
Sadly, in recent years it seems to be a conservative mantra that the federal government should “give back” the federal lands to the states, presumably so they can lease them, or sell them, or at a minimum decide who gets to use them. Of course, in the West, there is no “giving them back,” because they never were owned by the states.
Here in New Hampshire, our major public land resource and a huge driver of our economy is the White Mountain National Forest. It once belonged to the state back in the 19th century before the citizens realized that it was an enormously important public resource providing clean water, air, timber and recreation benefits. So, back in the late 1800s, the state sold it. The federal government had to buy it back after the private owners that bought it from the state raped the forest, polluted the streams, and left it burning and ravaged.
Today, after more than 100 years of thoughtful public ownership, informed by constant public input, the Whites are an icon of good public land management and a core element of our tourism economy.
But given their way, some in Congress would unload the public lands wherever they can. Some states want the land, primarily because they can use it to balance their budgets – not by careful management (that costs money) but by leasing and selling it to the highest bidder.
Public access would likely be lost in many places. Critical wildlife habitat, especially for the imperiled cold water fish that are my personal concern, would face a highly questionable future.
And then there’s the Trump promise to “eliminate the EPA.” Simple slogan, but unless Congress repeals the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, pesticide controls acts, toxic substances control acts, and a host of other laws that were created to clean up past messes, who would enforce the laws? States? Really? Does New Hampshire have a big pot of money and a closet full of highly trained and experienced unused staff to take on this responsibility? Last time I looked, even though our Department of Environmental Services gets a significant amount of federal funding to do our part in enforcing the laws, there have been serious budget challenges that have cut staff back to levels that make it hard to be responsive to both the public and the regulated community.
I could go on and on. Years ago I spent a dozen years teaching environmental policy at the college level and was always impressed with the scientific and data challenges that our public servants face in keeping our water and air clean and food safe.
We need more resources to do that today in an increasingly complex world, not less.
I’ll say just a bit about climate change. No thoughtful person with an ounce of good scientific education any longer denies the science and that we need to take serious, urgent action to address it. When he says climate change is a “hoax,” Donald Trump must be either ignorant, lying or something worse.
Regardless of that, policies to mitigate climate change are essential now, and this election will help determine whether we doom the hundreds of millions of people who live within 3 feet of sea level to refugee status, and threaten the ability of the planet to feed the rest of us.
So in the end, while I may not much like either of the candidates, I really don’t care whether I like them or not. The future of my children and grandchildren depend on thoughtful, informed decision-making by well-trained, qualified people who understand the incredible scientific complexity of the problems we face and the consequences of bad decisions.
As H.L. Mencken famously said: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”
Are you listening, Mr. Trump?
(Paul Doscher lives in Weare.)