1 of 1
Offline
“But here, for the first time, I see someone who has no commitment to the mission of the agency.”
E.P.A. Head Stacks Agency With Climate Change Skeptics
WASHINGTON — Days after the Senate confirmed him as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference and was asked about addressing a group that probably wanted to eliminate his agency.
“I think it’s justified,” he responded, to cheers. “I think people across the country look at the E.P.A. the way they look at the I.R.S.”
In the days since, Mr. Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who built a career out of suing the agency he now leads, has moved to stock the top offices of the agency with like-minded conservatives — many of them skeptics of climate change and all of them intent on rolling back environmental regulations that they see as overly intrusive and harmful to business.
Mr. Pruitt has drawn heavily from the staff of his friend and fellow Oklahoma Republican, Senator James Inhofe, long known as Congress’s most prominent skeptic of climate science. A former Inhofe chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, will be Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff. Another former Inhofe staff member, Byron Brown, will serve as Mr. Jackson’s deputy. Andrew Wheeler, a fossil fuel lobbyist and a former Inhofe chief of staff, is a finalist to be Mr. Pruitt’s deputy, although he requires confirmation to the position by the Senate.
To friends and critics, Mr. Pruitt seems intent on building an E.P.A. leadership that is fundamentally at odds with the career officials, scientists and employees who carry out the agency’s missions. That might be a recipe for strife and gridlock at the federal agency tasked to keep safe the nation’s clean air and water while safeguarding the planet’s future.
“He’s the most different kind of E.P.A. administrator that’s ever been,” said Steve J. Milloy, a member of the E.P.A. transition team who runs the website JunkScience.com, which aims to debunk climate change. “He’s not coming in thinking E.P.A. is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Quite the opposite.”
Gina McCarthy, who headed the E.P.A. under former President Barack Obama, said she too saw Mr. Pruitt as unique. “It’s fine to have differing opinions on how to meet the mission of the agency. Many Republican administrators have had that,” she said. “But here, for the first time, I see someone who has no commitment to the mission of the agency.”
Last edited by Goose (3/08/2017 4:26 pm)
Offline
By in large Trump has picked the absolute wost people to head each agency.
But then again, maybe that was his and Banyon's intent all along.
Offline
Well, now we have a guy in charge of an agency that relies on scientific research and data that doesn't believe in science. That's just great.
It was a bright warm day in March, and while the clocks weren’t quite striking thirteen, something was awry. Scott Pruitt, the new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was rejecting the international scientific consensus about human-caused global warming.
He did it, actually, about when the clocks were striking nine Thursday morning, in an appearance on CNBC’s morning news program, Squawk Box.
“Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob on climate?” asked Joe Kernen, a host on the show.
“No,” said Pruitt.
Last edited by Just Fred (3/09/2017 8:23 pm)
Offline
Sad, Fred. Awful, in fact.
And it goes beyond accepting science.
It goes to mission. The mission of the EPA is NOT to facilitate industry. The mission of the EPA is to protect the People. And that puts the head of the EPA into an adversarial role with industry, a counter balance to greed.
Now we have a head of the EPA - and HUD, and Education for that matter - who do not represent the missions of those agencies.
In fact, those agencies are headed by people who want to destroy the agency.
Perilous times.
Last edited by Goose (3/10/2017 5:33 am)
Offline
We don't need no stinkin' pure water to drink or for fishing or swimming in.
And the air, no big deal if we put out more coal to further pollute or breathing passages. As a matter of fact it might just solve that pesky Social Security long term financial problem.
1 of 1