As the environment changes, will environmental scientists be able to adapt? Or will their work become obsolete?
My first day working at Westmoreland Sanctuary, a nature preserve dedicated to restoring and protecting the native environment in eastern New York, was a whirlwind. When I parked and walked in the door, Steve Ricker, our boss, had laid out waders along the floor and told us to grab our size. I put mine on, but I couldn’t walk in them, so I lugged them all the way down a trail I had never been on to a pond I had never seen. I was told it was lake day, but I didn’t know what that meant until I was told to jump in. From the dock, I dredged through the knee-deep mud — thankful for the waders — until we reached a patch of reeds called Phragmites australis and began to trim.
We had to clip the reed below the waterline and make sure that we kept track of everything we cut, because any piece that floated away would root and create another patch for us to manage. I was extremely confused about why we were doing this and couldn’t ask, because cutting, collecting and carrying the reed out of the water while trying not to get sucked in by the mud was taking all my energy. By the time we cut a quarter of the patch, I was so exhausted I could sleep right there in the water. But I put on a brave face and pushed back up the hill to the main building.
Once inside, everything was finally explained, and I was bewildered by how much these seemingly meaningless chores could help save the environment. The plants we were watering in the morning were called mayapples, and they are a native plant that painted turtles like to lay their eggs under. By watering these mayapples, we were working toward restoring the painted turtle population in the area. We fed the birds because, apparently, the health of the birds in an area can tell you a lot about overall environmental health. Creating a space where birds knew food would be located every day allowed us to monitor their well-being. And Phragmites australis is an extremely invasive reed that ruins the nutrient content of the soil it grows in and outcompetes native plant species.
These environmental scientists work tirelessly, doing backbreaking labor all day to save our planet. But Trump’s cuts to the EPA threaten all their hard work.
As a part of the Trump campaign’s recent crusade against government programs deemed “unnecessary,” President Trump recently announced extreme budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA regulates environmental health across the country, tracking harmful pollutants that cause global warming, worse air quality, worse water quality and environmental instability. It uses funds from the government to promote responsible use of natural resources and research ways to meet the needs of the American people sustainably. These cuts, supported by EPA leader Lee Zeldin, undermine the core mission of the EPA: to protect the natural environment.
Defending these changes, Zeldin emphasized their economic impacts, claiming they will reduce Americans’ cost of living, energy costs and more. The economy will benefit from the reduced restrictions around managing industrial waste — short term, as Zeldin claims. But long term, climate change could lead to America’s financial ruin. Climate change already costs the U.S. $150 billion a year from extreme weather events affecting infrastructure. As the globe warms, there will be more extreme weather, rising sea levels and other unforeseen consequences that can drive up the cost of living. If industry is allowed to release waste products without regulation, climate change will become much more severe much sooner, and Zeldin’s claims about cost of living will be null.
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign — a group dedicated to promoting federal actions to protect the environment — worries that weaker EPA protections will leave conservationists “unable to respond to the escalating climate emergency we are experiencing daily across the nation.” If environmental scientists’ hard work to combat climate change is undone, toxic air pollution — responsible for 7 million deaths a year already — will quickly create an environment where stepping outside is too dangerous. Cardiac problems related to climate change will skyrocket. More than 170 towns will flood in the next 20 years.
There is no way that these changes will have a positive outcome. It concerns me deeply how oblivious world leaders are, and how much of the environment has to be destroyed before they realize that combating climate change is more important than making a pretty penny.
