There’s settled science and then there’s the South Carolina Statehouse | Opinion

South Carolina is a beautiful state with amazing beaches, fun things to do on water and land and big cities and small towns where you can lose yourself for a day or a lifetime surrounded by people who look out for their neighbors and who want the absolute best for the next generation.

Yet too often our leaders lead us astray and threaten that future for all of our children.

Just last month, a Senate committee torpedoed Gov. Henry McMaster’s nominee to direct the Department of Public Health because he supported vaccines. And this month, another Senate committee advanced McMaster’s nominee to direct the Department of Environmental Services but only after the committee chair, Sen. Wes Climer, R-York, wrangled a ridiculous concession from her that she would not return with regulations or proposed statutes “that would have us make choices on the basis of your climate scientists and their theories about manmade climate change.” Her equally ridiculous “No, sir” was met by his “OK, thank you. Correct answer.”

It was the wrong answer, though. And showed why we should worry for our kids.

Climer’s focus on climate change “causation” shows that he doesn’t trust sound science. The very real truth of the matter is that no state senator in any state in our nation should be coercing such ridiculous promises from prospective environmental leaders in confirmation hearings. And those nominees should consider it their jobs to bring potential subjects — and yes policies! — in front of lawmakers who could actually implement them for the betterment of the place we all live.

You know what lawmakers can do if they don’t like the staff’s recommended policies? They can reject them. That’s their job: To weigh whether proposals are good for South Carolina. And it’s our job as residents, taxpayers and voters to evaluate their evaluations come election time.

It’s not a complicated system.

But it breaks down when our leaders spit in the face of science as too many South Carolina politicians do. Let it be said: Vaccines have kept kids and communities safe, saving more than 150 million lives over 50 years, and climate change is real, and poses a real threat in a state whose economy and livelihoods are built on things like coastal tourism, agriculture and the outdoor experience.

Former 12-year conservative congressman Bob Inglis knew this. He became a prominent South Carolina voice on the issue at the expense of his congressional seat back in 2010. But to him the line in the sand was worth drawing to show South Carolinians that climate change was real and caused by humans. If he can change his mind, anyone can, right?

Manmade climate change is a fact

NASA’s website says plainly, “How do we know climate change is real? There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.”

NASA lists a series of bullet points to show that the rate of change since the mid-20th century is “unprecedented over millennia.” They speak for themselves, so here they are.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
• According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact.”
• Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
• From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.

So let’s not divide climate scientists into camps. There is no such thing as “your” climate scientists. There are scientists who study climate and who in overwhelming numbers have documented that it is caused by humanity. That is not a theory. That is accepted science and to suggest otherwise is to look down on anyone in Charleston, for example, fearful of proven sea level rise and worsening flooding caused by more intense weather events like hurricanes.

Have we so quickly forgotten Helene, which caused such damage to the Carolinas last year?

Luckily, there were sensible senators who voted to recommend Myra Reece for Senate approval. One was from Charleston, and he spoke up for his constituency and for science.

Sen. Ed Sutton, D-Charleston, felt obligated to weigh in since causation was questioned.

“I represent a district that is kind of ground zero for a lot of that,” he said. “So this is an open invitation to anybody on this committee. If you have any doubts about the impact, feel free to come to Charleston. I’ll put you up in my hotel for a weekend, and we’ll go around and we’ll look at the impact of sea level rise and the fact that it is very real and that it is impacting people’s livelihoods, it is impacting people’s, the places where they live.

“To set precedent or to even have a discussion that we should look at causation, I do take issue with that,” he added. “Because a lot of times, causation is a property was built next door and they brought in five feet of fill dirt and now it’s flooding adjacent properties. Sometimes it’s global impacts. But you can’t solve a problem without looking at the cause of a problem.”

Sutton said at that morning hearing that he had already received three complaints just that day about people’s backyards being impacted by flooding.

But heaven forbid our state’s environmental services director dare to address causation.

A South Carolina for our children

Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Greenville, seemed to get the foolishness of tying Reece’s hands while also understanding the politics of the situation in South Carolina. He redirected like a skilled lawyer.

“Your department promulgates regulations, right?” came Corbin’s question.

“Correct,” came Reece’s answer.

“The General Assembly passes laws,” Corbin continued. “Many laws are proposed. Some make it into law, some don’t. Some die in the House. Some die in the Senate. Some die in the governor’s hands. Would it ever be a policy of yours as the leader of the new agency to achieve through regulation what was not the intent of the General Assembly by law?”

“No, sir,” Reece replied.

Now that was the correct answer.

It showed that it was the senators’ responsibility to evaluate any proposals before them. The buck stops with them — and the governor. It also showed that Reece wouldn’t work at odds with lawmakers but rather implement the laws that they and their predecessors had passed.

At the beginning of her April 15 confirmation hearing, Climer, the committee chair, had noted that “several senators spoke very glowingly of the nominee” at an earlier hearing. It wasn’t hard to see why. She handled herself well in a hearing where a wealthy coastal landowner was lobbying hard against her nomination and where the committee chair was a clear adversary.

Some of her answers showed the difficult dance between scientific and political realities here.

Here is how she began her artful answer to the first question from Climer about her perspective on sea level rise and coastal erosion and the “consequences, perhaps, of climate change”: “I leave the climate science to the climate scientists, and I know there’s a lot of conversations about global discussions but certainly when you look at our state, certainly, we have experienced a lot more natural disasters. We’re seeing changing sea level rises. We’re seeing heavy, intense rainfall events. I’ve even had some of my subject matter experts tell me that the drought of today is nothing like the droughts of even 10 years ago. So things are not the same now as they were in the past when it comes to weather impacts and natural disasters.”

And here is how she stumbled in her second answer: “Let me say I don’t trust all climate scientists, OK. My job has not really been focused on validating the science and the studies that are out there.”

This is where we’re at in South Carolina politics around the time of Tuesday’s Earth Day 2025. Someone who will help the state prepare for worsening weather events and guide its recovery efforts and manage its day-to-day efforts has to rebuke climate scientists because the people in charge of her confirmation do.

That’s a sad state of affairs for those of us trying to imagine a South Carolina for our children.

This story was originally published April 17, 2025 at 6:00 AM.