EPA Secretary Nominee Scott Pruitt Acknowledges Global Warming

[Independent voter]

Pruitt acknowledged global warming as a reality, but said he was unsure how much humans contribute to the problem. “The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner,” said Pruitt. “I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate.”

He wants to scale back the EPA but not destroy it.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/epa-nomin...225037320.html

President Elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offered a greatly scaled-back vision for the agency during a confirmation hearing Wednesday while rejecting the President-elect’s claim that global warming is a hoax.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt called for an expanded role for states in environmental regulation, what he termed cooperative federalism, and suggested that wide ranging regulatory actions of the EPA under President Obama often amounted to regulatory overreach. Pruitt framed his stance on regulations as a question of following the rule of law and supporting economic growth.

“As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I saw examples where the Agency became dissatisfied with the tools Congress has given it to address certain issues, and bootstrapped its own powers and tools through rulemaking,” Pruitt said in his remarks, as prepared for delivery. “This, unfortunately, has resulted only in protracted litigation, where the courts suspended most of these rules after years of delay.”

Pruitt—who sued the EPA 13 times during his tenure as attorney general—faced sharp questions from Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranging from his close ties to the oil and gas industry to his planned approach to toxic chemical regulation.

The nominee approached most questions with a more moderate tone than Trump and at one point even refuted the President-elect’s characterization of climate change as a “hoax.” But Pruitt’s views on global warming—along with a slew of other issues discussed—still remain incompatible with the view of the vast majority of climate scientists who say that humans are the primary driver of global warming.

Pruitt acknowledged global warming as a reality, but said he was unsure how much humans contribute to the problem. “The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner,” said Pruitt. “I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate.”

Pruitt’s understanding of science also appeared muddy when he said he was unsure the concentration of lead the human body can withstand. The EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) both say that lead is unsafe at any level.

Regardless of Pruitt’s scientific views, he acknowledged that the EPA has an “obligation” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions—the primary contributor to climate change—in order to comply with federal law and court rulings. The statement suggests that the incoming Trump administration will not try to overturn a scientific conclusion from the EPA, known as an endangerment finding, which concluded that the federal government needs to regulate carbon dioxide to protect human health. Because of that finding Pruitt and Trump will need to create their own measure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions if they nix Obama’s Clean Power Plan as the president elect repeatedly promised to do on the campaign trail.

Another tense moment came as Democratic Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts challenged Pruitt to commit to recusing himself from the many matters where he has sued the EPA. Pruitt promised only to follow the guidance of the agency’s ethics office.

Republicans on the committee seemed eager to praise the nominee for what they described as appropriate use of the law to protect the environment during his time in Oklahoma. GOP Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma—who has himself denied the science of climate change—introduced Pruitt as “a defender of the rule of law” and an “expert of balancing economic growth and environmental stewardship.”


Without Republican opposition to Pruitt’s nomination he will likely win easy confirmation, but nonetheless several Democratic senators and environmental groups have expressed ardent opposition to the choice. Opponents of the nomination pointed to a long record of close ties to oil and gas companies as the foremost reason to block his nomination. Pruitt has has received more than $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2002 and has often supported the interests of those companies in court. In one striking example, he sent a confrontational letter to the EPA with text copied nearly verbatim from language suggested to him by industry lobbyists.

“A public office is about serving the public,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, at the Wednesday hearing. “Why do you need an outside oil company to draft a letter when you have 250 people working for you?”

[alexw]

Its the usual denialist crap that the denialists come out with in order to do nothing.

"We don't know the exact extent to which its man made and we need more study".

Ergo lets do nothing right now and "study" it for a couple of centuries until we can be 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure its 100% man made.

[Dezerte]

Let's make some more money off pollution before we do anything.

[Dug]

Cop out answer

[Gamdwelf]

Even if humans have zero to do with global warming why not invest in renewable energy etc because in the long run it's going to be better for everyone.

[Vizardlorde]

OK we get it lets stop it with the appointment threads. It was funny at the beginning, but at this point its no longer funny.

[TZucchini]

I have no earthly idea why Trump thinks this guy is qualified to head the EPA.

Let's look at the people Obama appointed:

Lisa Jackson is a Chemical Engineer who had worked for the EPA since 1987. She also worked for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Gina McCarthy was the assistant administrator of the EPA under Lisa Jackson. Prior to that, she worked for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protections, and is generally considered an expert in environmental policy.

Scott Fucking Pruitt has worked as lawyer, and later as the Attorney General of Oklahoma. He's sued the EPA 14 times, and in the past, has been highly skeptical of climate change.

Completely unqualified.

[Glorious Leader]

I have no earthly idea why Trump thinks this guy is qualified to head the EPA.

Let's look at the people Obama appointed:

Lisa Jackson is a Chemical Engineer who had worked for the EPA since 1987. She also worked for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Gina McCarthy was the assistant administrator of the EPA under Lisa Jackson. Prior to that, she worked for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protections, and is generally considered an expert in environmental policy.

Scott Fucking Pruitt has worked as lawyer, and later as the Attorney General of Oklahoma. He's sued the EPA 14 times, and in the past, has been highly skeptical of climate change.

Completely unqualified.

Hes qualified if the objective is to dismantle the epa as an effective force for environmental regulation.

[Gamdwelf]

Because in our economy the goal is to establish yourself within atop a particular sector and then stifle all innovation that might be costly to you in the short run. Since politicians largely vote in favor of their donors, it's pretty easy.

Doing the opposite is working for Tesla.

[Kiri]

Can't we just take the guy from the Simpsons movie? Sure, he was crazy, but at least he was against pollution, so he seems more qualified.

[LaserSharkDFB]

OK we get it lets stop it with the appointment threads. It was funny at the beginning, but at this point its no longer funny.

I'd be okay with a Trump Cabinet Megathread, honestly.

[Endus]

Pruitt acknowledged global warming as a reality, but said he was unsure how much humans contribute to the problem. “The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner,” said Pruitt. “I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate.”

He wants to scale back the EPA but not destroy it.

Disputing the human contribution to climate change is climate change denial. The literal definition of the conspiracy nuttery. And if he's just admitting to outright ignorance on the matter, then maybe he should phrase it to underscore that he's outrageously ignorant and will educate himself, rather than pretending that uncertainty is somehow a position unto itself.

Though that level of ignorance should be a demonstration that he's entirely unfit for that position. Seriously, between this guy and Devos, it's like Trump is picking the worst possible] candidates for these positions. Not "someone with views I disagree with but who has a valid position", but people who are proudly and definitively ignorant about fundamental basics that their positions are rooted upon.

[Mafic]

The reason why he along with Rex acknowledge the existence of global warming now is because it is a threat to all countries right now worldwide. Soon, the US eastern seaboard will have to start building pumps as the majority of U.S. population is along the eastern seaboard + Californian coast + Gulf coast.

Miami has started to build pumps and other coastal cities will follow.

[Belize]

OK we get it lets stop it with the appointment threads. It was funny at the beginning, but at this point its no longer funny.

Welcome to the next 4 years.

"Well, that everyone in the highest office of the land is incompetent was funny for the first week or so, but then shit went south for everyone and it really wasn't funny anymore..."

[Gamdwelf]

Welcome to the next 4 years.

"Well, that everyone in the highest office of the land is incompetent was funny for the first week or so, but then shit went south for everyone and it really wasn't funny anymore..."

Thanks Dems.

[oplawlz]

Even if humans have zero to do with global warming why not invest in renewable energy etc because in the long run it's going to be better for everyone.

The EPA is not responsible for investing in energy.

[Alvito]

Because in our economy the goal is to establish yourself within atop a particular sector and then stifle all innovation that might be costly to you in the short run. Since politicians largely vote in favor of their donors, it's pretty easy.

For most people on here you will have to explain it in a way they will understand. Like showing how Intel has dominated their field and as a result nothing has really improved there for over a decade.

[Belize]

Thanks Dems.

They didn't rig the election hard enough to save us from ourselves

[Gamdwelf]

The EPA is not responsible for investing in energy.

I understand that but even if you think climate change isn't real it makes sense to use renewable energy, from an environmental standpoint.

[satimy]

He didn't drink enough Koop aid from the global warming cultists