Why Susan Collins (and All Senators) Must Stand Against Pruitt
When it was announced that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Maine's U.S. Sen. Susan Collins reportedly said, "I don't know who he is. I truly know nothing about him or his views. I didn't even know his name."
When it was announced that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Maine's U.S. Sen. Susan Collins reportedly said, "I don't know who he is. I truly know nothing about him or his views. I didn't even know his name."
It wouldn't take Collins very long to learn that Pruitt has touted himself as "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." And that's no idle boast -- Pruitt has repeatedly sued the agency he might soon lead. His record of protecting industry polluters and opposing sensible protections for public health make him a terrible choice to lead the EPA.
"Scott Pruitt's appointment would be a disaster for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air."
Sen. Collins has carefully cultivated a reputation as the most environmentally conscious Republican leader in Washington. The Pruitt pick demands that she speak out in opposition.
Pruitt has been on the wrong side of almost every issue touching on public health and environmental protection. He wrote last year that the science connecting human activity to climate change is "far from settled" -- which is utterly false.
He has opposed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon, an essential tool in the fight against climate catastrophe. He has also opposed common sense regulations to regulate factory farm pollution, and has done nothing to protect Oklahomans who are dealing with frequent earthquakes linked to oil and gas fracking.
He has tried to thwart efforts to regulate air pollutants such as mercury and arsenic, and one of his lawsuits against the EPA sought to overturn a rule to protect streams and wetlands.
With a record like that, it is no surprise that Pruitt has enjoyed tremendous financial support from the polluting industries counting on him to lead the EPA. He has even literally carried water for his industry backers. In 2011, in his capacity as attorney general, Pruitt sent a sternly-worded letter to the EPA complaining that the agency was wrong about the air pollution caused by gas drilling in Oklahoma. But the letter was not actually written by Pruitt at all; it had been drafted by lawyers from one of the gas companies doing business in his state.
For years, Collins has enjoyed a reputation as the Senate's most environmentally-friendly Republican. Unlike Pruitt, she accepts that climate change is real, and caused by human activity. She knows the unique threats to Maine's environment and economy; everything from tourism to our lobster industry is at risk from climate catastrophe. Not to mention the fact that Maine faces an urgent drought problem right now.
It is not unusual for there to be partisan disagreements over agencies such as the EPA. But Trump's decision to nominate one of the agency's most persistent antagonists, who has built a political career backing the very industries the EPA must regulate, is astonishing -- though perhaps not surprising.
In one of the Republican presidential debates, Donald Trump vowed to "get rid" of the EPA. He can't really say, "You're fired!" to an entire government agency. But choosing Scott Pruitt might be close enough. Pruitt's appointment would be a disaster for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air.
Sen. Collins has enjoyed the support of state environmental organizations for many years, and she has a record of standing up to fossil fuel-friendly lawmakers in her own party. Now she must demonstrate the courage to say no to the climate denier Trump wants to put in charge of the EPA.
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 |
When it was announced that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Maine's U.S. Sen. Susan Collins reportedly said, "I don't know who he is. I truly know nothing about him or his views. I didn't even know his name."
It wouldn't take Collins very long to learn that Pruitt has touted himself as "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." And that's no idle boast -- Pruitt has repeatedly sued the agency he might soon lead. His record of protecting industry polluters and opposing sensible protections for public health make him a terrible choice to lead the EPA.
"Scott Pruitt's appointment would be a disaster for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air."
Sen. Collins has carefully cultivated a reputation as the most environmentally conscious Republican leader in Washington. The Pruitt pick demands that she speak out in opposition.
Pruitt has been on the wrong side of almost every issue touching on public health and environmental protection. He wrote last year that the science connecting human activity to climate change is "far from settled" -- which is utterly false.
He has opposed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon, an essential tool in the fight against climate catastrophe. He has also opposed common sense regulations to regulate factory farm pollution, and has done nothing to protect Oklahomans who are dealing with frequent earthquakes linked to oil and gas fracking.
He has tried to thwart efforts to regulate air pollutants such as mercury and arsenic, and one of his lawsuits against the EPA sought to overturn a rule to protect streams and wetlands.
With a record like that, it is no surprise that Pruitt has enjoyed tremendous financial support from the polluting industries counting on him to lead the EPA. He has even literally carried water for his industry backers. In 2011, in his capacity as attorney general, Pruitt sent a sternly-worded letter to the EPA complaining that the agency was wrong about the air pollution caused by gas drilling in Oklahoma. But the letter was not actually written by Pruitt at all; it had been drafted by lawyers from one of the gas companies doing business in his state.
For years, Collins has enjoyed a reputation as the Senate's most environmentally-friendly Republican. Unlike Pruitt, she accepts that climate change is real, and caused by human activity. She knows the unique threats to Maine's environment and economy; everything from tourism to our lobster industry is at risk from climate catastrophe. Not to mention the fact that Maine faces an urgent drought problem right now.
It is not unusual for there to be partisan disagreements over agencies such as the EPA. But Trump's decision to nominate one of the agency's most persistent antagonists, who has built a political career backing the very industries the EPA must regulate, is astonishing -- though perhaps not surprising.
In one of the Republican presidential debates, Donald Trump vowed to "get rid" of the EPA. He can't really say, "You're fired!" to an entire government agency. But choosing Scott Pruitt might be close enough. Pruitt's appointment would be a disaster for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air.
Sen. Collins has enjoyed the support of state environmental organizations for many years, and she has a record of standing up to fossil fuel-friendly lawmakers in her own party. Now she must demonstrate the courage to say no to the climate denier Trump wants to put in charge of the EPA.
When it was announced that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Maine's U.S. Sen. Susan Collins reportedly said, "I don't know who he is. I truly know nothing about him or his views. I didn't even know his name."
It wouldn't take Collins very long to learn that Pruitt has touted himself as "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." And that's no idle boast -- Pruitt has repeatedly sued the agency he might soon lead. His record of protecting industry polluters and opposing sensible protections for public health make him a terrible choice to lead the EPA.
"Scott Pruitt's appointment would be a disaster for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air."
Sen. Collins has carefully cultivated a reputation as the most environmentally conscious Republican leader in Washington. The Pruitt pick demands that she speak out in opposition.
Pruitt has been on the wrong side of almost every issue touching on public health and environmental protection. He wrote last year that the science connecting human activity to climate change is "far from settled" -- which is utterly false.
He has opposed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon, an essential tool in the fight against climate catastrophe. He has also opposed common sense regulations to regulate factory farm pollution, and has done nothing to protect Oklahomans who are dealing with frequent earthquakes linked to oil and gas fracking.
He has tried to thwart efforts to regulate air pollutants such as mercury and arsenic, and one of his lawsuits against the EPA sought to overturn a rule to protect streams and wetlands.
With a record like that, it is no surprise that Pruitt has enjoyed tremendous financial support from the polluting industries counting on him to lead the EPA. He has even literally carried water for his industry backers. In 2011, in his capacity as attorney general, Pruitt sent a sternly-worded letter to the EPA complaining that the agency was wrong about the air pollution caused by gas drilling in Oklahoma. But the letter was not actually written by Pruitt at all; it had been drafted by lawyers from one of the gas companies doing business in his state.
For years, Collins has enjoyed a reputation as the Senate's most environmentally-friendly Republican. Unlike Pruitt, she accepts that climate change is real, and caused by human activity. She knows the unique threats to Maine's environment and economy; everything from tourism to our lobster industry is at risk from climate catastrophe. Not to mention the fact that Maine faces an urgent drought problem right now.
It is not unusual for there to be partisan disagreements over agencies such as the EPA. But Trump's decision to nominate one of the agency's most persistent antagonists, who has built a political career backing the very industries the EPA must regulate, is astonishing -- though perhaps not surprising.
In one of the Republican presidential debates, Donald Trump vowed to "get rid" of the EPA. He can't really say, "You're fired!" to an entire government agency. But choosing Scott Pruitt might be close enough. Pruitt's appointment would be a disaster for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air.
Sen. Collins has enjoyed the support of state environmental organizations for many years, and she has a record of standing up to fossil fuel-friendly lawmakers in her own party. Now she must demonstrate the courage to say no to the climate denier Trump wants to put in charge of the EPA.