Election Science Stakes: Environment

Scientific American senior editor Mark Fischetti talks about how this election will affect environmental science and policy.

Hoh Rain Forest in Washington State.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the last episode or our preelection podcast series, we spoke about climate. For this episode, I talked about other environmental issues with Scientific American senior editor Mark Fischetti, who oversees our coverage on sustainability.

Mark, what are some of the big environmental issues that are at stake in this election?

“Well, I think a lot of people focused on climate, which is certainly something to focus on. But you know, outside of that, I think in terms of the current administration, I think a big focus really should be looking at chemical pollution. There have been a number of regulations that have either been reversed or just struck down or overridden by the Trump administration that essentially allow more pollution to be imposed on air and water. So, for a few examples, right—so there were protections that were taken down for wetlands that basically allow for dumping of pesticides and other pollutants into the waterways.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“There were regulations on emissions from power plants, not just about carbon dioxide but also about heavy metals. So there’s actually less restriction on mercury that power plants could emit. I mean, mercury is a horrible toxin. And then in the whole coal-fired arena, there’s regulations about disposal of toxic waste that have been rolled back, too, which will add levels of lead and arsenic and other contaminants like that into the environment. So these are long-standing toxins and other compounds that we know are bad for people and the environment. And those things are being rolled back as well.”

Well, that’s a key thing is the health aspect. Because, you know, even if you don’t care that there will ever be another tree or another bird, human health is at stake with these things as well.

“Right, the birds and the trees and the squirrels and the people all use the same water and the same air and the same soil, which we forget about as well. There are some protections for soils and what kinds of chemicals can be used in agriculture, for that matter, that have been changed as well. So then the question is: Would this be different under Biden? And I think it would be because a lot of those regulations, including the ones I kind of called out specifically, most of them were put in place or made tougher during the Obama and Biden administration. So I would think that the Biden administration would want to restore that.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe