Dave Redlawsk

As a social scientist, in general I am committed to seeking out evidence-based solutions to the challenges that face Delaware. When we examine hyperscale datacenters, at this point there is little evidence to suggest they bring a benefit to Delaware, and plenty of evidence to show their risks, including economic and environmental. In particular, studies are finding that low frequency noise, which datacenters generate, has identifiable effects on sleep disorders, hearing loss, and even cardiovascular diseases. The potential impact on our electrical grid and costs is likely to be significant as well, even with the guardrails recently established by the legislature. The evidence argues for a moratorium now, so we can get ahead of this, and figure out what protections Delawareans need and what benefits, if any, hyperscale datacenters bring to us before it’s too late.

I have a simple mantra about datacenters. I don’t want to hear them, I don’t want to taste them, I don’t want to smell them, and I sure as heck don’t want to pay for them. Solve those issues, and we can talk about what, if any, long term benefits they bring.

Human-caused global climate change is real. There is no room to question this; the science is absolutely clear. Unfortunately, we did not begin serious efforts to combat climate change long enough ago and now we’re facing the results. We must recognize that we will have to adapt and mitigate the immediate effects while redoubling efforts to ultimately eliminate reliance on carbon-burning fuels. This will not be easy and will not be fixed tomorrow.

Mitigation and adaptation need to follow the science, as we protect our coastlines and inland waterways. Some change seems inevitable now, including severe weather different from what we’ve had before and a change in wildlife habitats and patterns. Adapting this change will require interaction and cooperation across all of state and local government, and the need for broad cooperation rather than competition.

The 2025 Delaware Climate Action Plan from DNREC lays out a comprehensive agenda for what needs to be done to address climate resiliency, but it’s just a start unless we pass the laws that implement and pay for it. We must also strengthen the Coastal Zone Act. The General Assembly will need to tackle these issues in the next legislative session, and if elected, I look forward to joining that fight.

Youth substance-use programs should continue to be funded and continue to emphasize good choices. However, the choices of programs used should be driven by research that shows what works. “Just say No” was once very popular, but was a clear failure. More recently, research by Stanford University’s REACH Lab shows that an effective approach is to both encourage abstention and provide harm reduction education. Young people should be taught about the risks, should be encouraged to abstain, but also should be made aware of how to minimize harm if they or their friends do not abstain. The key is to follow the research and make adjustments in programs as better research gives us a clearer sense of how to address the problem.

The statistic in this question is an example of the challenge. Students may perceive less risk in marijuana for many reasons, including that much more dangerous drugs, including opioids, are readily accessible. This particular statistic doesn’t say they are more likely to use marijuana than in 1999, just that they don’t see it as risky today as youth once did.

A quick search shows that according to the Delaware YRBS, the percentage of high school students using marijuana in the prior 30 days dropped from 29% to 18% between 1999 and 2023. This doesn’t suggest there is no problem, just that we need to understand the importance of interpreting data correctly.