A new administration, a new cabinet
As of Monday, January 20th, there will
come a new governing force into the most powerful office of the land. Part of
that power includes the ability to overhaul the sitting heads of important
federal agencies. The new picks will decide and influence the general direction
that the agency goes and what it may prioritize.
Given what is known about Trump's previous approaches and his current nominations for cabinet, we have a lens to look through at what is to come.
Understanding the biases and prior
interests of the nominees will aid in framing their decisions and announcements
to come, and how much weight we should give to their words when they speak on
the matter of climate change and environmentalism.
Lee Zeldin - Nominee for the EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of
regulating pollutants and safeguarding natural areas. It enacts policies
limiting pollutants in vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, protecting
delicate wetlands and forests, and many others. As such, it’s a vital part of
our battle against the climate crisis.
Lee Zeldin is an unfortunate omen for the EPA’s future role,
however.
Zeldin is seen in poor regard by the League of Conservation Voters, with a prolific history of voting down measures introduced to Congress meant to enable actions to preserve our atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere. He's expressed doubts about the extent of the climate crisis and questioned which parts of it are true and which have been fabricated (despite the countless models and prolific research that has been done into the subject).
He’s also financially conservative, and didn’t
think that federal money should be relegated towards the preservation of
the environment in which we live. That includes slicing funding from the EPA,
the very government body that he’s been chosen to run.
What might that mean for the EPA and its ability to carry
out the functions it has been designed and established for?
There’s serious questions about the security of the EPA’s
policies, in that there’s a substantial threat to their existence and/or
substance. Policies deemed unfavorable by the Trump administration may be
overturned by the climate-skeptical nominee who has some level of fealty
to Trump and his ideals. If the rules cannot be overturned or dismantled
entirely, Zeldin may instead choose not to enforce those rules.
Going even further, Trump and other far-right think tanks
have proposed dismantling the EPA altogether. Such a feat would be incredibly
difficult to do, but having a loyal follower heading up the administration may
allow for less resistance when they push for weakening the agency.
Overall, having Lee Zeldin in charge could mean a
significantly weaker EPA that has a much looser definition for the term ‘environmental
protection’.
Doug Burgum – Nominee for the Department of the
Interior
The Department of the Interior has a broad range of
responsibilities. A primary duty is the oversight of the use of federally owned
lands and waters. Federal properties are not always protected in the way that national
parks or monuments are, and can be subject to leasing out to private companies
for various purposes: logging, drilling, development, and recreation.
This is a problem, when the nomination for leader of the DOI
is entangled with special interests. Namely, entangled
with oil and gas companies. He benefits from immense
financial gifts and ties to his friends in large oil companies, and even allows oil
exploration efforts on his own privately owned lands. He’s even been
convinced that fossil fuels are part of the solution to the climate crisis, in
spite of them being the cause.
What does this mean for the DOI’s approach to federal
land management?
While leasing and commercial use of federal lands is not
inherently a bad thing- sometimes necessary, in fact- the DOI should strive to
strike a balance between enabling the utilization of natural resources and
preserving those resources for generations to come.
That seems to be in jeopardy with Burgam at the helm of the
DOI. It does not feel impossible or unreasonable to suppose that Burgam may be
at the beck and call of his financial supporters. His oil executive friends stand
to gain economically from the leasing of federal lands, so they may wave more cash
in front of the DOI nominee in order to secure a lease.
To sum it up, the DOI may soon be much more keen and lenient with allowing and enabling the extraction of resources on federally managed land, which may play into the misfortune of the environment and the climate as a whole.
This was especially harrowing to read after watching the inauguration. You explained perfectly how these two picks will weaken the agency and slime their way through to make actions take place the general American public does not agree with. Trump's decisions continue to be unsurprisingly based in financial gain. When funding is sliced to these departments due to climate skeptic leaders, no change can push through and that's quite a dark future.
ReplyDeleteTo say I am frightened for our environment is an understatement. You explained it well. Cutting EPA funding is insane, and anyone who thinks that is a good idea needs to take another look inside themselves. We are not in a position where the environment can take a backseat so the economy and these mens power can flourish.
ReplyDeleteI only had a quick view of the Bismark Tribune article because it required subscription, but it looked like the immense financial gifts were lower than I expected. I quickly saw amounts of $5,000 - $10,000 to companies. I very much appreciate the information in this blog because I did not know the EPA could be put at such a risk.
ReplyDeleteThe EPA is the biggest advocate for protecting the environment in the United States, if we put someone into that position they could unwind everything that we have worked for. We should be putting money into the environment so future generations can also enjoy it, without the EPA, i couldn't imagine what the world would look like.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very informative and interesting. I will be anxious to see what happens as time goes on. I typically stay out of politics but this is something that I may consider looking into more. Great post! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary how much politician are in big oil companies pocket. When you talked about Doug Burgum receiving financial benefits it is so frustrating to see. The people that are supposed to be leading the fight against fossil fuels are the ones endorsing it and profiting from too. Sell our future so they can buy a second house.
ReplyDeleteoil companies will always be after more money to fill their already full pockets and I'm right on board with you this is a scary thought because we only have so much time to fix what we have caused to the environment before its to late.
DeleteIt is incredibly disheartening to hear that these are the people in charge of the field that many of us will be going into. Your descriptions of these men remind me of Anne Gorsuch, an infamous EPA Director appointed by Regan, who had similar motivations as these nominees. Unfortunately, she was able to cut EPA funding by almost a quarter and severely damaged the EPA's reputation before she resigned due to several major controversies. I hope that Zeldin and Burgum are not able to cause as much damage.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by the part where the Lee guy said he didn't want federal money going towards environmental actions. The environment is a huge part of our world, it is our world. How is it not in the best interest that federal money be used to support and promote a healthy environment?
ReplyDeleteI found this post very informative and well-written. It is shocking how there are clear examples of climate-skepticism in our elected officials who are meant to have the largest impact on resolving the issue of climate change. It is completely discouraging to learn that there are possible efforts toward dismantling the EPA overall, and I am anxious to know what gets passed through Trumps's administration.
ReplyDeleteThese appointments really don't bode well for the future considering that Zeldin has repeatedly voted against climate and environmental measures in the past, including trying to unban fracking in his home state of New York. Burgam has also mentioned in interviews that a large concern of his is the development of AI, and he proposes burning coal of all things to provide the immense power it requires.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an informative and well written post. The next four years are definitely going to be challenging with people such as these ones at the helm of the environmental agencies. Especially considering they are led to believe that the climate change issues are a fabrication.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWow. It’s fascinating and very worrying to consider how leadership influenced by skepticism toward climate science, or financial ties to oil and gas could reshape agencies like the EPA and DOI. Lee Zeldin’s potential to weaken the EPA’s mandate is particularly scary. Given the EPA’s critical role in combating the climate crisis, I wonder if state-level initiatives could counteract potential federal cutbacks.
You pose a very good question, about the importance of state-level environmental initiatives. I'd say the importance of state *and* local government action has always been of importance, but now more than ever. State and local initiatives are going to be a good safeguard against any deregulation to come from the federal level, and can help fill in the gaps of environmental law in a more comprehensive manner. It's always important to pay attention to state and local level elections for this reason.
DeleteSuch an awesome information! It really helped me understand the huge role EPA and DOI play, especially with nominations like Lee Zeldin and Doug Burgum. But it’s got me wondering—how can environmental policies stay effective if the leaders in charge have conflicts of interest? And if DOI gets more lenient with leasing federal lands, are there clear safeguards in place to protect the ecosystems there? Thanks for shedding light on such an important topic so thoroughly!
ReplyDeleteWhile the EPA and DOI likely have some sort of code for how to use public land, I think the safeguards are largely found in local and state-level lawbooks. They may have more stringent rules for treatment and use of their lands. Though if the lands are federally owned, I'm not sure how jurisdiction would work. It'd be a fascinating topic.
DeleteThe nominations of Lee Zeldin for the EPA and Doug Burgum for the Department of the Interior signal a potential shift away from strong environmental protections toward policies that may favor industrial and economic interests over climate concerns. Both nominees have histories and affiliations that raise concerns about the prioritization of environmental stewardship within their respective agencies. If their leadership aligns with past tendencies, the future of federal environmental policies could see significant deregulation and reduced enforcement.
ReplyDeleteIt is kind of incredible that these guys would head these agencies, and even take them apart. The agencies were built by generations of people who wanted to protect our environment!
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post and extremely informative. I truly can't understand how someone can say something completely one sided knowing that there are others who may not agree with them. I feel that there should be some respect along this conversation and for someone to say that climate change isn't real or that fossil fuels don't cause it but will help it, baffles me.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with the one-sided information being pushed into the news. So many people lack a true understanding of what research is and how we can dive further into topics. Protecting our environment comes a lot more seriously than what people would think it means when it comes to agencies and businesses.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a helpful, informative post! Before reading, I did not know a whole lot about Lee Zeldan and Doug Burgham, but it is truly scary to see how those in leadership don't have a proper amount of concern or regard for the importance of protecting out enviroment.
ReplyDelete