Should politicians discount the science?

I decided to spend time today supporting the Global Climate Strike. As I am retired and unemployed, striking is not an option. What I can do is spend some time voicing my opinion. I have already attempted to identify information sources that educators may find useful in their classroom discussions of the climate issue. I use this site in a different way and I can be more direct here in addressing issues that are often avoided in educational settings.

The Trump administration has established a history of appointing individuals to political bodies that undermine what logically would be the intended purpose of these government bodies. The appointment of Betsy DeVoss, a proponent of alternatives to public education, to head the Department of Education makes a good example.

One would think that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would prioritize protecting the environment. This is what the title of the organization proposes the purpose of the organization to be. Protection often requires the proposal of requirements that come in conflict with the opportunities assumed by others. Agencies must recognize these conflicts, but the mission does not really change. You can’t actually protect something you are charged with protecting if you ignore behaviors that are damaging. You can’t protect highly populated cities from pollution if you act to remove policies that reduce polluting emissions.

So, what about the Environmental Protection Agency? One component of how this agency operates is to rely on a Science Advisory Board. Again, what is it one might assume from the label associated with this board? I would assume that the members of this board would be the best scientists available. Again, not under the Trump approach to decision making. Why add the best scientists available to a committee if their expertise would result in advice contrary to what you would want the advisory board to offer as advice? See this analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists. So, it turns out that the EPA is biased by a political agenda and does not take protection of the environment as its primary responsibility and it turns out that Science Advisory Board is not really offering advice based on the best science.

Your Trump logic in action. Beware that you interpret labels as meaning what the words say they mean.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.