Jessica Beasley

Data centers and their impact on our natural resources and utility costs are issues I have already been addressing during my campaign. I support responsible economic development, but I do not believe South Carolina should rush to approve large-scale data centers without clear regulations and a full understanding of their long-term effects on surrounding communities.

Before these projects move forward, we need to know how much electricity and water they will require, whether existing infrastructure can support that demand, what environmental and public-health impacts may result, and who will ultimately pay for the infrastructure necessary to support them.

Working families and small businesses should not be expected to absorb higher utility costs while large corporations receive substantial incentives. I support greater transparency regarding tax incentives, energy and water consumption, infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, and the long-term economic benefits promised to the community. Residents should also have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that directly affect their communities.

My approach is straightforward: establish clear rules, protect our natural resources and existing ratepayers, ensure our infrastructure can support the development responsibly, and pursue investments that provide measurable benefits to the communities hosting them.

Economic development should strengthen a community, not shift its costs onto the people who already call it home.

In South Carolina, a student’s ZIP code should not determine the quality of education or career opportunities available to them.

This is particularly important in rural communities. Workforce preparedness begins in our K–12 schools, where students need strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, along with opportunities to understand how those subjects translate into real careers.

I support stronger partnerships among public schools, technical colleges, universities, employers, and emerging industries. Dual enrollment, apprenticeships, hands-on learning, technical credentials, and career-focused programs can provide students with multiple pathways to success.

Workforce development must also include adults seeking new skills or a career change. As South Carolina works to attract industries in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, energy, artificial intelligence, and other science- and technology-based fields, we must commit equally to preparing South Carolinians for those opportunities.

Our goal should not simply be to bring the jobs of the future to South Carolina. We should make sure South Carolinians are prepared to fill them.

Government has an important responsibility to protect public health, provide reliable information, and ensure communities have the resources necessary to respond to health and environmental threats.

That includes maintaining access to vaccines and preventive healthcare, monitoring environmental hazards such as PFAS, asbestos, and contaminated drinking water, supporting disease prevention, and ensuring state and local agencies are prepared for public-health emergencies.

For rural communities, however, public health also requires addressing access to care. Healthcare may technically be available, but it means little to a family that must travel a long distance to receive basic or specialized services.

Rural South Carolina needs accessible healthcare professionals, emergency services, mental-health resources, preventive care, and maternal healthcare. We must also identify environmental and public-health risks early, rather than waiting until communities are already experiencing the consequences.

Public-health policy should be guided by credible evidence, transparent information, preparedness, and the real-world needs of the communities it is intended to serve. People deserve accurate information and access to appropriate resources so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families.

Public trust begins with transparency and communication.

Elected officials should be willing to listen to scientists, researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, and other subject-matter experts, including when the evidence challenges an existing political position. Science should not be accepted when it is politically convenient and dismissed when it is not.

At the same time, scientific information must be communicated in ways people can understand. The public deserves to know what the evidence shows, how conclusions were reached, what remains uncertain, and when new information changes our understanding of an issue.

I also believe experts should be involved earlier in the policymaking process. Lawmakers should seek reliable evidence before writing legislation and making major decisions, rather than searching for information afterward to justify a decision already made.

Building trust also requires listening to the public. Asking questions or expressing concerns should not automatically get someone dismissed as anti-science. People are more likely to trust institutions when they feel heard and when information is presented openly and respectfully.

Science should help us ask better questions, understand the consequences of our decisions, and develop better solutions. It should never become another political team.