Trump proposes harmful budget cuts to E.P.A.

Lauri Hoedl, Opinion Editor

Since Donald Trump has come to presidency, money has been redistributed, negatively impacting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The CNBC article, “White House Seeks to Cut EPA Budget 31% as Trump Targets Regulation,” from March, claimed  “President Donald Trump’s administration is proposing a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, eliminating its climate change programs and trimming back core initiatives aimed at protecting air and water quality.”

This proposal would affect everyone negatively because air and water quality are important to the safety of U.S. citizens.

There is concern for another water crisis like Flint, Mich., because the EPA may have to lower their public water safety budget.

Hiroko Tabuchi, a writer for the New York Times, said in April in her article “What’s at Stake in Trump’s Proposed EPA Cuts,” “Although Congress banned lead pipes in 1986, between 3.3 million and 10 million older ones remain, primed to leach lead into tap water.”

If the funding is decreased there will be no removing of the lead pipes, leading to further contamination.

If the EPA does not have the budget to focus on climate change and their other core initiatives, their previous efforts  will go to waste.

The CNBC article claimed, “The cuts to climate change initiatives at the agency would eliminate some $100 million in spending. By making those cuts, Trump is taking money from the wrong area.

The government needs to be protecting the EPA, just as they are protecting the environment.

Tabuchi said, “It is no surprise that the new EPA is targeting climate change initiatives, given the Trump administration’s hostility toward the science of global warming and a pro-business bent.”

Trump does not want to support science but does want to give further support to big corporations and the military.

If the budget cuts were passed, Tabuchi said, “The proposed budget would defund the agency’s $3.3 million Radiation Protection program and eliminate 60 jobs” as well as “remove four jobs from the Radiation Response Preparedness program.”

EPA budget cuts could also affect public health.

Christine Whitman, writer for the Atlantic, said in her opinion article from March, “I Ran George W. Bush’s EPA—and Trump’s Cuts to the Agency Would Endanger Lives,” “There are a number of health risks inherent to the proposed budget cuts,” because programs such as the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention would have their funding cut over $7 milion.

The EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention tests for endocrine disruptor and radon.

Without proper funding for the EPA, not only is the Trump administration showing their lack of care for their citizens, they are showing how little they care about the environment.