SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Bipartisan EPA Alumni Urge Senate to Reject Pruitt's "Troubling" Nomination
Pruitt's track record shows he would "set science aside when the outcome is at odds with his predetermined political point of view"
Jan 16, 2017
On Monday, 13 former heads of state environmental bureaus sent a letter to senate leaders, urging them to reject Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's nomination as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief.
The letter (pdf), organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), implores members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to vote against Pruitt over his track record of opposing EPA rules--a history that calls into question whether he "appropriately respects science-based decision making" or would cooperate with states to protect Americans' health and safety from climate threats.
"While we have worked under both Republican and Democratic Governors, reflect a range of political views, and come from diverse states, we share a common concern about Mr. Pruitt's nomination," the letter reads.
In one instance outlined in the letter, Pruitt challenged the EPA's 2009 assertion that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Along with the fossil fuel industry, Pruitt filed a lawsuit that argued the finding--based on analysis of scientific literature, including research by the United Nations' climate panel--was "arbitrary and capricious."
Although the legal challenge was unsuccessful, Pruitt's argument--that the EPA should not have relied on reports issued by scientific bodies--sheds a revealing light on his environmental positions.
"We find this deeply troubling," the letter states. "The fact that Attorney General Pruitt attacked this finding suggests a lack of understanding as to how environmental protection agencies make science-based decisions or, even worse, an inclination to set science aside when the outcome is at odds with his predetermined political point of view."
Pruitt has also filed a lawsuit to block air pollution regulations, which was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Rather than EPA acting as our partner in state-led efforts to ensure clean air and water for our residents, we fear that an EPA under Mr. Pruitt would undermine the rules that help to make sure that our state regulations are successful," the letter concludes. "For all these reasons, we respectfully recommend that this committee reject Mr. Pruitt's nomination."
The letter is the latest salvo in a campaign against Pruitt's nomination, following a day of action spearheaded by the climate group 350.org that saw protesters rallying outside of lawmakers' offices around the country, urging them to reject the Oklahoma official along with other climate deniers in President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet.
As Common Dreams and other outlets have reported, Pruitt has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and the rightwing billionaires Charles and David Koch. The New York Times on Saturday reported that Pruitt impeded efforts to penalize poultry companies that had polluted Oklahoma's waterways with chicken manure--"one of a series of instances in which Mr. Pruitt put cooperation with industry before confrontation as he sought to blunt the impact of federal environmental policies in his state," the Times' Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport wrote.
Pruitt's confirmation hearing is set for January 18.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
On Monday, 13 former heads of state environmental bureaus sent a letter to senate leaders, urging them to reject Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's nomination as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief.
The letter (pdf), organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), implores members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to vote against Pruitt over his track record of opposing EPA rules--a history that calls into question whether he "appropriately respects science-based decision making" or would cooperate with states to protect Americans' health and safety from climate threats.
"While we have worked under both Republican and Democratic Governors, reflect a range of political views, and come from diverse states, we share a common concern about Mr. Pruitt's nomination," the letter reads.
In one instance outlined in the letter, Pruitt challenged the EPA's 2009 assertion that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Along with the fossil fuel industry, Pruitt filed a lawsuit that argued the finding--based on analysis of scientific literature, including research by the United Nations' climate panel--was "arbitrary and capricious."
Although the legal challenge was unsuccessful, Pruitt's argument--that the EPA should not have relied on reports issued by scientific bodies--sheds a revealing light on his environmental positions.
"We find this deeply troubling," the letter states. "The fact that Attorney General Pruitt attacked this finding suggests a lack of understanding as to how environmental protection agencies make science-based decisions or, even worse, an inclination to set science aside when the outcome is at odds with his predetermined political point of view."
Pruitt has also filed a lawsuit to block air pollution regulations, which was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Rather than EPA acting as our partner in state-led efforts to ensure clean air and water for our residents, we fear that an EPA under Mr. Pruitt would undermine the rules that help to make sure that our state regulations are successful," the letter concludes. "For all these reasons, we respectfully recommend that this committee reject Mr. Pruitt's nomination."
The letter is the latest salvo in a campaign against Pruitt's nomination, following a day of action spearheaded by the climate group 350.org that saw protesters rallying outside of lawmakers' offices around the country, urging them to reject the Oklahoma official along with other climate deniers in President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet.
As Common Dreams and other outlets have reported, Pruitt has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and the rightwing billionaires Charles and David Koch. The New York Times on Saturday reported that Pruitt impeded efforts to penalize poultry companies that had polluted Oklahoma's waterways with chicken manure--"one of a series of instances in which Mr. Pruitt put cooperation with industry before confrontation as he sought to blunt the impact of federal environmental policies in his state," the Times' Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport wrote.
Pruitt's confirmation hearing is set for January 18.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
On Monday, 13 former heads of state environmental bureaus sent a letter to senate leaders, urging them to reject Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's nomination as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief.
The letter (pdf), organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), implores members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to vote against Pruitt over his track record of opposing EPA rules--a history that calls into question whether he "appropriately respects science-based decision making" or would cooperate with states to protect Americans' health and safety from climate threats.
"While we have worked under both Republican and Democratic Governors, reflect a range of political views, and come from diverse states, we share a common concern about Mr. Pruitt's nomination," the letter reads.
In one instance outlined in the letter, Pruitt challenged the EPA's 2009 assertion that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Along with the fossil fuel industry, Pruitt filed a lawsuit that argued the finding--based on analysis of scientific literature, including research by the United Nations' climate panel--was "arbitrary and capricious."
Although the legal challenge was unsuccessful, Pruitt's argument--that the EPA should not have relied on reports issued by scientific bodies--sheds a revealing light on his environmental positions.
"We find this deeply troubling," the letter states. "The fact that Attorney General Pruitt attacked this finding suggests a lack of understanding as to how environmental protection agencies make science-based decisions or, even worse, an inclination to set science aside when the outcome is at odds with his predetermined political point of view."
Pruitt has also filed a lawsuit to block air pollution regulations, which was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Rather than EPA acting as our partner in state-led efforts to ensure clean air and water for our residents, we fear that an EPA under Mr. Pruitt would undermine the rules that help to make sure that our state regulations are successful," the letter concludes. "For all these reasons, we respectfully recommend that this committee reject Mr. Pruitt's nomination."
The letter is the latest salvo in a campaign against Pruitt's nomination, following a day of action spearheaded by the climate group 350.org that saw protesters rallying outside of lawmakers' offices around the country, urging them to reject the Oklahoma official along with other climate deniers in President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet.
As Common Dreams and other outlets have reported, Pruitt has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and the rightwing billionaires Charles and David Koch. The New York Times on Saturday reported that Pruitt impeded efforts to penalize poultry companies that had polluted Oklahoma's waterways with chicken manure--"one of a series of instances in which Mr. Pruitt put cooperation with industry before confrontation as he sought to blunt the impact of federal environmental policies in his state," the Times' Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport wrote.
Pruitt's confirmation hearing is set for January 18.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.