EPA's Running Out of Time to Produce Any Documents That Back Up Pruitt's Climate Denial
New federal court order says agency must turn over documents in FOIA request
Four weeks.
That's how long the Environmental Protection Agency has to "promptly perform a search and produce the documents" in its possession that underpin Administrator Scott Pruitt's claim that human activity is not a "primary contributor" to the climate crisis, and any studies that support that assertion.
The directive comes from a federal court order (pdf), issued Friday, which smacks down the EPA's efforts to reject a FOIA request from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The group first filed that request on March 10, 2017--that's a day after Pruitt, speaking in his official capacity, said on CNBC: "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the EPA's characterization of the FOIA request as "an interrogation" with "simply a reach too far." Instead, she wrote, it was a fair request that reasonably describes the records sought and creates no undue burden, so the EPA is not legally justified in its lack of compliance.
She further noted that "EPA's strained attempt to raise an epistemological smokescreen will not work here to vade its obligations under the FOIA," and: "EPA's apparent concern about taking a position on climate change is puzzling since EPA has already taken a public position on the causes of climate change."
She added:
Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable. Such a premise runs directly counter to "an axiom of administrative law that an agency's explanation of the basis for its decision must include 'a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,'" and the "responsibility of the agency to explain the ratio nale and factual basis for its decision."
Howell also ordered the agency to finish up its search for related records by July 2, 2018 and to disclose them to PEER. She gave the agency an additional week to explain to the group its rationale for withholding any documents.
"The beauty of FOIA is that a government agency can run but ultimately can't hide," stated PEER senior counsel Paula Dinerstein. "This suit forces EPA to determine whether Mr. Pruitt's statements had a factual basis or were full of hot air."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Four weeks.
That's how long the Environmental Protection Agency has to "promptly perform a search and produce the documents" in its possession that underpin Administrator Scott Pruitt's claim that human activity is not a "primary contributor" to the climate crisis, and any studies that support that assertion.
The directive comes from a federal court order (pdf), issued Friday, which smacks down the EPA's efforts to reject a FOIA request from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The group first filed that request on March 10, 2017--that's a day after Pruitt, speaking in his official capacity, said on CNBC: "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the EPA's characterization of the FOIA request as "an interrogation" with "simply a reach too far." Instead, she wrote, it was a fair request that reasonably describes the records sought and creates no undue burden, so the EPA is not legally justified in its lack of compliance.
She further noted that "EPA's strained attempt to raise an epistemological smokescreen will not work here to vade its obligations under the FOIA," and: "EPA's apparent concern about taking a position on climate change is puzzling since EPA has already taken a public position on the causes of climate change."
She added:
Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable. Such a premise runs directly counter to "an axiom of administrative law that an agency's explanation of the basis for its decision must include 'a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,'" and the "responsibility of the agency to explain the ratio nale and factual basis for its decision."
Howell also ordered the agency to finish up its search for related records by July 2, 2018 and to disclose them to PEER. She gave the agency an additional week to explain to the group its rationale for withholding any documents.
"The beauty of FOIA is that a government agency can run but ultimately can't hide," stated PEER senior counsel Paula Dinerstein. "This suit forces EPA to determine whether Mr. Pruitt's statements had a factual basis or were full of hot air."
Four weeks.
That's how long the Environmental Protection Agency has to "promptly perform a search and produce the documents" in its possession that underpin Administrator Scott Pruitt's claim that human activity is not a "primary contributor" to the climate crisis, and any studies that support that assertion.
The directive comes from a federal court order (pdf), issued Friday, which smacks down the EPA's efforts to reject a FOIA request from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The group first filed that request on March 10, 2017--that's a day after Pruitt, speaking in his official capacity, said on CNBC: "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the EPA's characterization of the FOIA request as "an interrogation" with "simply a reach too far." Instead, she wrote, it was a fair request that reasonably describes the records sought and creates no undue burden, so the EPA is not legally justified in its lack of compliance.
She further noted that "EPA's strained attempt to raise an epistemological smokescreen will not work here to vade its obligations under the FOIA," and: "EPA's apparent concern about taking a position on climate change is puzzling since EPA has already taken a public position on the causes of climate change."
She added:
Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable. Such a premise runs directly counter to "an axiom of administrative law that an agency's explanation of the basis for its decision must include 'a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,'" and the "responsibility of the agency to explain the ratio nale and factual basis for its decision."
Howell also ordered the agency to finish up its search for related records by July 2, 2018 and to disclose them to PEER. She gave the agency an additional week to explain to the group its rationale for withholding any documents.
"The beauty of FOIA is that a government agency can run but ultimately can't hide," stated PEER senior counsel Paula Dinerstein. "This suit forces EPA to determine whether Mr. Pruitt's statements had a factual basis or were full of hot air."