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
Green groups advocate keeping fossil fuels in the ground to end one of the biggest drivers of climate change. EPA head Scott Pruitt has said in recent weeks that "true environmentalism" involves using natural resources to their fullest potential. (Photo: Takver/Flickr/cc)
EPA Head Pruitt Attempts to Redefine Environmentalism as Excuse to Pollute the Planet
"I find myself wondering whether Scott Pruitt actually believes this stuff, or if he's a careful student of George Orwell."
Dec 27, 2017
Green groups and Trump critics derided recent comments by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt on Wednesday, in which he advocated for a new understanding of environmentalism--one that focuses on getting the most use possible out of natural resources rather than protecting the earth from pollution and exploitation.
"We have been blessed, as a country, with tremendous natural resources," said Pruitt last month at an event hosted by the Federalist Society, as if to suggest that the nation's borders are one of the planet's naturally occurring features. "I believe that we have an obligation to feed the world and power the world, with a sensitivity, as far as environmental stewardship, for future generations."
Pruitt has fought against environmental protection advocates' efforts to end the practices of fracking, coal mining, and other methods of extracting natural resources from the earth in the interest of energy creation, arguing in a soon-to-be-released interview with the National Review many have fought for these restrictions "even though people may starve, may freeze, though developing countries may never develop their economies."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a longtime foe of green groups who has disputed the view of 97 percent of peer-reviewed scientists who say humans have fueled climate change, agreed with Pruitt's assessment, telling The Hill: "He's right on target, and he's being realistic. There's no way we can run this machine called America without fossil fuels."
In fact, the U.S. is home to a burgeoning solar power industry that's rapidly growing even in pro-Trump areas in the Midwest and South, employing more Americans than the oil, gas, and coal industries combined.
Green groups scoffed at the former Oklahoma Attorney General's claim that protecting the environment causes suffering for disadvantaged populations. Many developing countries have been found to be especially vulnerable to climate change, which has been exacerbated by carbon emissions from the fossil fuel industry that Pruitt argues should be given free rein to mine in the name of "environmental stewardship."
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, told The Hill that Pruitt's words left him worried for the country's future but struggling to take the EPA administrator seriously.
"I find myself wondering whether Scott Pruitt actually believes this stuff, or if he's a careful student of George Orwell. If he repeats something enough, again and again and again, at least some portion of the public will begin to believe it," said Brune.
Other critics on social media also objected to Pruitt's attempt to redefine environmentalism.
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.
Green groups and Trump critics derided recent comments by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt on Wednesday, in which he advocated for a new understanding of environmentalism--one that focuses on getting the most use possible out of natural resources rather than protecting the earth from pollution and exploitation.
"We have been blessed, as a country, with tremendous natural resources," said Pruitt last month at an event hosted by the Federalist Society, as if to suggest that the nation's borders are one of the planet's naturally occurring features. "I believe that we have an obligation to feed the world and power the world, with a sensitivity, as far as environmental stewardship, for future generations."
Pruitt has fought against environmental protection advocates' efforts to end the practices of fracking, coal mining, and other methods of extracting natural resources from the earth in the interest of energy creation, arguing in a soon-to-be-released interview with the National Review many have fought for these restrictions "even though people may starve, may freeze, though developing countries may never develop their economies."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a longtime foe of green groups who has disputed the view of 97 percent of peer-reviewed scientists who say humans have fueled climate change, agreed with Pruitt's assessment, telling The Hill: "He's right on target, and he's being realistic. There's no way we can run this machine called America without fossil fuels."
In fact, the U.S. is home to a burgeoning solar power industry that's rapidly growing even in pro-Trump areas in the Midwest and South, employing more Americans than the oil, gas, and coal industries combined.
Green groups scoffed at the former Oklahoma Attorney General's claim that protecting the environment causes suffering for disadvantaged populations. Many developing countries have been found to be especially vulnerable to climate change, which has been exacerbated by carbon emissions from the fossil fuel industry that Pruitt argues should be given free rein to mine in the name of "environmental stewardship."
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, told The Hill that Pruitt's words left him worried for the country's future but struggling to take the EPA administrator seriously.
"I find myself wondering whether Scott Pruitt actually believes this stuff, or if he's a careful student of George Orwell. If he repeats something enough, again and again and again, at least some portion of the public will begin to believe it," said Brune.
Other critics on social media also objected to Pruitt's attempt to redefine environmentalism.
Green groups and Trump critics derided recent comments by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt on Wednesday, in which he advocated for a new understanding of environmentalism--one that focuses on getting the most use possible out of natural resources rather than protecting the earth from pollution and exploitation.
"We have been blessed, as a country, with tremendous natural resources," said Pruitt last month at an event hosted by the Federalist Society, as if to suggest that the nation's borders are one of the planet's naturally occurring features. "I believe that we have an obligation to feed the world and power the world, with a sensitivity, as far as environmental stewardship, for future generations."
Pruitt has fought against environmental protection advocates' efforts to end the practices of fracking, coal mining, and other methods of extracting natural resources from the earth in the interest of energy creation, arguing in a soon-to-be-released interview with the National Review many have fought for these restrictions "even though people may starve, may freeze, though developing countries may never develop their economies."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a longtime foe of green groups who has disputed the view of 97 percent of peer-reviewed scientists who say humans have fueled climate change, agreed with Pruitt's assessment, telling The Hill: "He's right on target, and he's being realistic. There's no way we can run this machine called America without fossil fuels."
In fact, the U.S. is home to a burgeoning solar power industry that's rapidly growing even in pro-Trump areas in the Midwest and South, employing more Americans than the oil, gas, and coal industries combined.
Green groups scoffed at the former Oklahoma Attorney General's claim that protecting the environment causes suffering for disadvantaged populations. Many developing countries have been found to be especially vulnerable to climate change, which has been exacerbated by carbon emissions from the fossil fuel industry that Pruitt argues should be given free rein to mine in the name of "environmental stewardship."
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, told The Hill that Pruitt's words left him worried for the country's future but struggling to take the EPA administrator seriously.
"I find myself wondering whether Scott Pruitt actually believes this stuff, or if he's a careful student of George Orwell. If he repeats something enough, again and again and again, at least some portion of the public will begin to believe it," said Brune.
Other critics on social media also objected to Pruitt's attempt to redefine environmentalism.
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.