Presidential candidates offer two different visions for environment, how to deal with ‘forever chemicals’

By Cin Castellanos >>

Illustration by Haley Nowak

In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the major party candidates are taking starkly different approaches to the environment, which in turn will impact how they plan to address the class of toxic chemicals known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and the human body.

Scientists estimate that more than 200 million Americans could have toxic fluorinated chemicals in their drinking water.

Forever chemicals, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are a large group of chemicals that make certain products nonstick or stain resistant. Exposure to PFAS is linked to cancers, weakened immune systems in children, weight gain and a host of other health problems.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, nearly all people in the United States have measurable amounts of PFAS in their blood.

“Once they get into the environment, they don’t go away. Once they get in the human body, they don’t seem to go away,” said David Dolak, professor in the former Department of Science and Mathematics at Columbia College College who teaches environmental science. This lasting presence of PFAS is one of the primary concerns driving regulatory efforts.

Environmental issues like forever chemicals matter to Generation Z voters. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that Gen Z U.S. adults are the generation most likely to engage in conversations on climate change and express concerns about its long-term impacts. Additionally, 67%  of Gen Z advocate for immediate climate action on a weekly basis.

“This issue really is a thing that I pay attention to when I am considering voting,” said Casiel Garcia, a junior illustration major at Columbia College Chicago.

Although neither candidate has made forever chemicals a major campaign issue, a look at their general plans for the environment and their past records offers clues about how, and if, they will target them.

Democratic candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris was part of the Biden administration’s 2021  PFAS Roadmap, which set timelines for the Environmental Protection Agency to take specific actions and create policies for forever chemicals. It led to the establishment of strict new limits for the chemicals in drinking water implemented earlier this year.

Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, signed  landmark legislation in 2023 in his state that prohibits the use of toxic PFAS across a range of common consumer goods.

“I believe there needs to be regulations on that,” said Tupac Austin, a senior music business major at Columbia College.

Harris’ policy proposals focus on ensuring enforceable national limits on PFOA and PFOS, which are both part of the larger class of chemicals being PFAS, found in drinking water. She also focuses on investing in water-cleaning infrastructure and supporting marginalized communities disproportionately affected by toxic chemical exposure.

Meanwhile Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump has talked about climate change on the campaign trail but not PFAS specifically. Trump has also tried to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which proposes to scale back key regulations, including reducing EPA funding in favor of industrial interests.

“Not a lot of these chemicals are being regulated, and because of that, people are going to get sicker,”said Emily Cruz-Tello, a senior music business major at Columbia College Chicago.

Eddie Stevenson, a junior animation major at Columbia College Chicago, expressed frustration with the lack of clear, actionable plans.

“I feel like both politicians have been so wishy-washy about talking about actual policies that it’s so hard to even sit here and say, oh, this person’s doing this and this person’s doing that,” Stevenson said.

Harris’ platform is distinguished by its commitment to environmental justice, particularly for low-income and marginalized communities. These groups are often more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pollutants like PFAS due to their proximity to industrial areas. Harris plans to direct federal resources toward these communities, offering water filtration systems, cleanup projects and medical assistance to those affected. For many student voters, this focus on environmental justice is a key consideration.

Meanwhile, Trump’s deregulation strategy, while promoting economic growth, could reduce the government’s role in protecting public health.

For Demi White, a junior marketing major at Columbia College Chicago, Trump’s stance on deregulation, especially regarding toxic chemicals, raises alarm.

“I just think he’s going to try to kill us,” White said.

Ultimately, voters in 2024 are faced with two highly contrasting visions for the future of PFAS regulation and environmental protection. Harris’ platform offers stricter regulations, investments in public health and support for vulnerable communities. Trump’s plan favors industrial deregulation and reduced governmental intervention.

But Avery Miller, a junior illustration major at Columbia College Chicago, saw both candidates’ political promises as just that.

“They have all these claims that they’re going to do these things but then have no actual outline of what they’re going to do,” Miller said.

Cin Castellanos is a photojournalism major from Chicago whose work focuses on the environment

• As online activism grows, young adults struggle to evaluate flood of information
• ‘The anti-war vote:’ Some Gen Z voters disillusioned by Democratic Party amid Israel’s attacks on Gaza
• Presidential candidates offer two different visions for environment, how to deal with ‘forever chemicals’
• Election reporting initiative for students expands election coverage nationwide
• Op-Ed: What it was like to hear from Trump at the NABJ