2025 is really throwing us some curveballs, huh?
Every time I open the news, it's like, bam,
another big environmental policy change.
It's a, well, frankly, it's a lot to keep up with.
You can say that again.
But, you know, that's why we're here.
Right.
To help make sense of it all,
we'll break it down and give you the real deal
on what's going on.
So let's dive right in, shall we?
Let's do it.
All right, so the big story, obviously,
is President Trump's second term.
Yeah.
And wow, the impact on environmental policy
has been immediate, like seriously immediate
and honestly pretty huge.
Yeah, you're telling me we're barely a month in
and already it's just been a nonstop flurry
of executive orders.
And it's pretty clear what the goal is, right?
They're shifting focus hard away
from all those big climate change initiatives
and environmental justice stuff
that the last administration was pushing.
Yeah, I mean, even just in these first few weeks,
it's been a whirlwind, right?
Halting communications at the EPA,
pulling out of the Paris Agreement.
Heck, they even took down climate change
from the EPA website.
Right, it's been a lot.
And I think the speed at which they're rolling
these changes out is definitely raising some eyebrows.
And yeah, not to mention opening up a whole can of worms
when it comes to potential legal battles.
Definitely a lot to unpack there.
Yeah.
So let's dig into that a bit.
What are your thoughts on the long-term impacts
of all this and what are we actually looking at here?
Well, I think the implications are pretty major,
to be honest with you.
Look at the limitations on research funding, for example.
It's not just about the money.
It sends a pretty strong message
about where this administration stands
when it comes to scientific inquiry.
It's just not valued the same way it has been.
And well, that could have a chilling effect
on progress across the board.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
And then there's this whole 10 to one
deregulation initiative.
It sounds kind of catchy at first,
but in practice, it means for every new regulation
an agency wants, they gotta get rid of 10 old ones.
I mean, doesn't that just seem like
setting ourselves up for trouble?
Oh, absolutely.
The biggest risk is that industries
will see this deregulation push and kind of jump the gun,
make changes before anything is really official.
And that could lead to a whole mess
of compliance issues down the road.
We're already seeing the EPA asking for abeyances
in environmental lawsuits left and right.
It's definitely a shift in priorities.
It's been unsettling, for sure.
Especially when you think about
how all this could impact those green initiatives
that were really starting to gain some traction.
The ones from the bipartisan infrastructure law
and the Inflation Reduction Act.
What happens to all that progress now
with the funding freezes?
Well, those projects were all about addressing
those big infrastructure needs,
but doing it in a way that also promotes sustainability,
right?
This freeze, there's a major wrench in all of that.
Could stall progress indefinitely
and really discourage clean energy investment?
Okay, so we've got funding cuts,
a shift away from environmental justice
and this big push for deregulation.
And on top of all that, there's this move
to speed up permitting for projects
that are considered essential for national security
or the economy.
But didn't the US government accountability office
express some concerns about transparency with all that?
Oh yeah, they definitely raised some red flags.
And it makes sense, right?
Especially when you're talking about fast tracking projects
that could have big environmental impacts.
There's a real worry that we're gonna see
economic interest being put ahead
of environmental protection.
And that's a tough situation to navigate.
Just look at the decision to halt Clean Water Act
permitting for wind and solar projects
while they're pushing fossil fuel projects through.
That's a pretty clear example of the conflict we're facing.
It feels like we're taking one step forward
and then like 10 steps back.
And speaking of steps back,
remember that Letter Power Utilities
sent to Administrator Zeldin,
it's been all over the news.
They're basically calling for a rollback
of all those environmental regulations
that the Biden administration put in place.
Yeah, that letter really says a lot about
where the industry's priorities are
under this new administration.
They're seeing this as their chance
to push for less regulation.
But the big question is what's the trade-off?
Will economic growth come at the cost
of environmental protection?
That's what we need to be asking.
Absolutely.
And the one that really jumped out at me
was the decision to just hit pause
on those chemical disaster pretensions.
I mean, the saying is for reassessment,
but it's making a lot of environmental advocates nervous.
And for good reason, right?
I mean, the potential risk to communities is huge.
It all comes back to this deregulation theme.
We've talked about it a lot today, but it's important.
It seems like this administration
is laser focused on the economy.
And the question is at what cost?
Are we willing to put economic growth
ahead of protecting the environment,
ahead of people's health and safety?
It's a tough question, but we need to be asking it.
I couldn't agree more.
And before we go any further,
I want to remind everyone to follow meteorologist Rob Jones.
You can find him on Instagram as meteorologist,
on TikTok as TV meteorologist,
and on YouTube, just search for Rob Jones' Hurricane.
He's got great content over there.
And you can also find the
Meteorology Matters podcast playlist.
So yeah, be sure to check that out.
Definitely worth a follow.
All right, so we're talking about
chemical disaster protections being put on hold,
and it just feels like a risky move.
It's complicated, no doubt about it.
I mean, we have to consider the economic side of things,
but we can't just ignore the potential consequences
for public health, you know?
It's about finding that balance between economic growth
and protecting the environment.
That's the challenge.
It's a tight rope walk, for sure,
and the stakes are high.
Absolutely.
Finding that balance,
it's going to take careful thought
and honest conversations.
That's what we need right now.
You're right.
It's easier said than done though, isn't it?
Especially with the way things are politically.
It definitely is,
but that doesn't make it any less important.
We have to try to find that balance for the planet,
for future generations.
I'm with you on that.
Okay, so before we move on to some other big developments,
let's just recap what we've covered so far.
We've seen a pretty dramatic shift in environmental policies
since President Trump came back,
and that's led to a wave of legal challenges.
Yeah, and the possibility of widespread deregulation
is a real concern right now,
and with that comes a whole lot of worry
about what it all means for protecting the environment.
It seems like the focus is on economic interests
above all else,
and that's raising some serious red flags
for scientists and environmental advocates.
Yeah, it's a complicated situation,
and it's definitely one worth watching closely.
Absolutely.
All right, we'll be back after the break
to discuss some more of the specifics of all this,
so stay tuned.
It really is a tangled web we're dealing with here.
The choices being made,
now they have the potential to really shake things up
for environmental science as a whole,
and not to mention its role in policy going forward.
It's the big question everyone's asking, right?
What does the future hold?
And there's another piece of this puzzle
that I think has a lot of folks confused.
All those dismissals at the EPA,
specifically the folks working on environmental justice
initiatives.
What's the story there?
Well, it all goes back to that executive order
we talked about earlier,
the one that basically aimed to shut down
all those DEI initiatives across the government.
The wording of that order specifically called out
those offices and positions
that were focused on environmental justice.
So in essence, it really just dismantled
a key part of the EPA.
So it's not just about shifting priorities
or making budget cuts.
They're actually closing down entire departments
dedicated to environmental justice.
That's exactly what's happening.
And that could be really devastating
for communities that are already dealing with more
than their fair share of pollution
and environmental hazards.
It's worth pointing out that even EJScreen,
that tool the EPA uses to identify
those vulnerable communities,
it's just gone, vanished from their website.
It's almost like they're trying to erase
those communities from the conversation.
It's hard to hear that and not feel like
we're taking a giant step backward.
Like we're undoing decades of progress
and not just in environmental protection,
but in social equity too.
I understand that feeling.
And the rollback of those chemical disaster protections
is another perfect example.
It's like they're hitting the pause button
on all those regulations that were specifically designed
to prevent those terrible accidents at chemical plants.
But haven't we learned from those past disasters?
I mean, those regulations were put in place for a reason
to protect workers and communities
from those chemical releases.
Exactly, right.
But this administration seems to see those regulations
as a burden on industry,
an obstacle to economic growth.
They're pushing for a much more industry friendly approach,
which understandably raises concerns
about potential conflicts of interest.
It's a tough balance to strike, no doubt about it.
But when economic interests are consistently put ahead
of public health and safety,
it just feels like we're on a slippery slope.
I agree with you.
And that's exactly why this whole reassessment
of chemical disaster protections is so concerning.
It's a clear sign that they're willing to prioritize
industry profits over the well-being of communities.
It's definitely a disturbing trend.
And it leaves us with so many unanswered questions.
Like, what's next?
What other environmental protections are they gonna target?
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
And it's creating a lot of anxiety,
not just among scientists and environmental advocates,
but in communities all across the country.
The truth is the regulatory landscape
is changing so quickly right now
that the potential consequences are just massive.
It's like we're standing on shaky ground.
There's so much uncertainty about what the future holds
for environmental science and the policies
that are supposed to be based on it.
We're definitely at a crossroads.
The decisions made in the next few months,
even the next few years, they're gonna have a huge impact,
not just on the health of the planet,
but on the well-being of generations to come.
It's a critical moment in time,
and it feels more important than ever
to stay informed and stay engaged.
We have to hold our leaders accountable.
We have to demand that they prioritize science and data
when they're making these decisions.
I wholeheartedly agree.
We can't afford to be complacent.
The stakes are just too high.
That's a great point.
You know, earlier we were talking about how
all of this is impacting the scientific community.
We're seeing funding freezes, gag orders on communication,
and just this general sense of unease among researchers.
Can you tell us a little more about that?
Sure, this chilling effect on scientific research,
it's impossible to ignore.
The funding cuts the restrictions on communication,
the fact that climate change is no longer
being treated as a priority,
it all sends a very clear message.
Science is just not valued the way it once was.
It's almost like they're trying to silence
the very people who are warning us about climate change
and all these other environmental threats.
There's definitely a sense that this administration
is more interested in pushing their own agenda
than they are in supporting objective scientific inquiry,
and that's incredibly damaging,
not just to the scientific community, but to all of us.
Because we need science.
We need solid data to make good policy decisions.
Yeah.
Right?
If we don't have reliable information
and evidence-based analysis,
it's like we're flying blind.
Exactly.
Science is the foundation for good policy making,
especially when it comes to these complex issues
like climate change and environmental protection.
When you undermine science,
you're undermining our ability
to make smart decisions about the future.
It feels like we're on a dangerous path,
and it's really disheartening
to see science being sidelined like this.
It's a disservice not only to the scientific community,
but to the American people and to the planet.
We need to reaffirm the value of science.
We need to make sure it continues to play a central role
in shaping environmental policy.
Well said.
So before we dive into how these policy shifts
are impacting different sectors,
let's take a quick moment to hear a word from our sponsors.
We'll be right back with more insights
on this ever-changing environmental landscape.
And we're back.
All right, so we've talked about the big picture,
but now I think it's time to get a little more specific.
You know, really zoom in on how these policy changes
are playing out in different sectors.
Absolutely, I think that's a great idea.
Okay, so let's start with energy.
This whole energy dominance thing
that this administration keeps talking about,
it seems like it's coming at the expense of renewable energy.
What are your thoughts on that?
Well, it's tough to argue with that.
I mean, we already talked about how they're putting the brakes
on Clean Water Act,
permitting for those wind and solar projects
while they're fast-tracking fossil fuel projects.
It's a pretty clear sign of where their priorities lie,
traditional energy sources over cleaner alternatives.
And it just seems like it goes against everything
we're hearing about the need to shift away from fossil fuels
if we're serious about tackling climate change.
It feels like we're going in the wrong direction.
It's definitely a worrying trend.
This idea of unleashing American energy,
it might sound appealing to some,
but it doesn't really address the urgency
of moving towards a more sustainable energy future.
It feels very short-sighted.
Like we're missing this huge opportunity
to invest in clean energy technologies,
which could not only create jobs and help the economy,
but also protect the environment.
So win-win.
I completely agree.
The longer we wait to make this transition,
the harder and more expensive it's gonna be.
And we're already seeing those climate change impacts,
those extreme weather events, rising sea levels.
We can't just bury our heads in the sand.
Will said.
Okay, so we'll shift gears a bit
and talk about another sector
that's being hit hard by these policy changes.
Public health.
Yeah, this whole rollback of chemical disaster protections,
that's a major red flag when it comes to public health.
Those regulations are there
to prevent those catastrophic accidents
that could release all kinds of harmful chemicals
into the environment, you know, the air, the water, the soil,
the kind of accidents that could put people's health at risk.
It's a frightening thought.
I mean, we've seen what can happen
when those accidents occur
and the consequences are devastating.
Absolutely.
Think about the Bhopal disaster in India
or Chernobyl, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Those are just a few examples of what can happen
when safety regulations are ignored or weakened.
It can be a catastrophe for both people and the environment.
We can't afford to make those same mistakes.
We need those strong regulations
to make sure that industries
are operating safely and responsibly.
We can't sacrifice public health just for economic gain.
I couldn't agree more.
We need to let the precautionary principle guide our decisions.
It's always better to be safe than sorry, you know,
protect public health rather than gamble with people's lives.
It comes down to values, doesn't it?
Are we gonna put profits ahead of people?
Short-term gains ahead of long-term sustainability.
These are the questions we need to be asking as a society.
And the answers to those questions
are gonna shape the kind of future we create,
not just for ourselves,
but for our children and grandchildren.
It's a sobering thought,
but it should also be a call to action.
I like that, a call to action.
We can't just sit back and watch
while science gets pushed aside
and environmental protections are rolled back.
We have to speak up,
get involved in the political process,
demand better from our leaders.
We have to hold them accountable.
We have to make sure they're making decisions
that are based on science.
You know, decisions that are guided by ethical principles
and that are truly focused on creating a just
and sustainable future for everyone.
That's a great point.
So I think that's a good place to wrap things up.
It's been a tough conversation for sure,
but it's an important one.
I hope everyone listening walks away
feeling more informed and more empowered
to get involved in these issues.
Me too, knowledge is power,
understanding all this environmental science
and policy stuff,
that's the first step in making a difference.
So I hope everyone listening will continue to stay informed,
stay engaged and never stop asking questions.
Absolutely.
And before we go,
we just wanna remind everyone
to follow meteorologist Rob Jones.
He's a fantastic resource
when it comes to weather and climate.
You can find him on Instagram at meteorologist,
tiktok at TV meteorologist.
And on YouTube, just search for Rob Jones' hurricane
and you'll find him.
Oh, and don't forget to check out
his Meteorology Matters podcast playlist while you're there.
Yeah, he's great.
So thanks for listening everyone.
And until next time, stay curious, stay informed
and remember the future of our planet is in our hands.
Let's work together to make it a good one.
That's a wrap on this episode of Meteorology Matters.
See you next time.