Scott Pruitt v. The Environment
Scott Pruitt, in his first speech to the EPA since his confirmation as the administrator of the agency, said “I believe we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs, and pro-environment.” This belief is plausible under a few possible scenarios.
First: Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump are planning on expanding the clean energy sector of the environment, thus creating more jobs and protecting the environment. Considering Trump’s ardent campaign promises to bring back the coal industry, this scenario is, to say the least, doubtful.
Second: Scott Pruitt is planning on adding manufacturing and private sector jobs to the economy, but with the contingency of stricter environmental regulations. Considering Pruitt’s past remarks on and lawsuits against the overbearing of the EPA in emissions regulations, this scenario is also dubious.
Third: Scott Pruitt is a climate change denialist with vested business interests in the disbandment of the EPA who chooses to “disagree” with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, other countries, and the statements of the agency he now leads, for the sole purpose of profit. Bingo.
When asked in a recent interview about the effects of CO2 on climate change, Pruitt claimed that “there is tremendous disagreement about the impact [of CO2],” and that he “would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming we see.”
There are two points we need to be very, very clear about. First, climate change is not a belief. It is not like religion, or extraterrestrial life, or love at first sight. It is not like Santa Clause to a child. It is not something that any rational person can choose to not “believe” in, unless there is some other ulterior motive affecting his or her train of thought. Such is the case with Scott Pruitt.
Second, there is no “tremendous disagreement” on the affects of climate change. Recent peer reviewed studies have shown that 97% or more of publishing climate change scientists agree that climate change is happening, and is a direct result of human-induced increased CO2 emissions. Were this figure a 60–40 or even 70–30 split, then we would be having a debate about the true effects of CO2. But a 3% disagreement rate is almost not even worth mentioning. Unless of course, you happen to be Scott Pruitt.
While CO2 emissions are on the rise (up 42% from 1990 to 2010), the funding of the EPA is on a quick downward trend. The Trump administration is currently planning on eliminating the pair of regulations put in place by Obama aimed at curbing CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the Whitehouse is considering an order that would cut the budget of NOAA, an organization producing some of the most contemporary climate science research, by upwards of 20%.
Yet, if the priorities of the “Making America Great Again” campaign are not in solving climate change, then there must be some other goal in mind. Going back to Pruitt’s statement, his eagerness to be “pro-jobs” combined with his acquiescence of being “pro-environment” exemplify his motivations.
In eliminating environmental regulations, Trump and his administration are attempting to bring manufacturing jobs previously outsourced to countries with fewer regulations back to the United States. And while the effectiveness of this strategy is yet to be determined, the valuations behind the deregulation are clear.
Whether Scott Pruitt is blind to factual evidence, or whether he envisions environmental deregulation for the sake of job creation, and thus is forced to deny climate change, nobody can say for sure. Yet, it should be obvious that both of these qualities ought to disqualify Pruitt from heading any organization, let alone the EPA. Questioning the merits of science is a dangerous road to go down. The pursuit of wealth and jobs for Americans is not harmful. However, it becomes so when we place material benefit over the health and wellbeing of our citizens and our planet. At some point, the environment will catch up to us. We can only hope that we catch Scott Pruitt first.
