With An Anti-EPA Man Running The EPA, Does The Environment Stand A Chance?

NORTHPORT, N.Y. - March 3, 2017 - PRLog -- In December 2016, Republican President-elect Donald Trump nominated Edward Scott Pruitt, an American lawyer and Republican politician from the state of Oklahoma, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on February 17, 2017, and environmentalists have been shaking their heads in disbelief ever since.

Why, you many ask? It might have something to do with the fact that the man now currently running the EPA has, for many years, been one of the most outspoken and staunchly anti-EPA individuals in modern American politics, that's why.

Pruitt served in the U.S. Senate representing Oklahoma from 1998 until 2006; in 2010, he was elected Attorney General of Oklahoma, and while serving in that capacity, he was most well-known for his actions and opposition to the EPA, and it's (in Pruitt's words) "activist agenda." In his most recent job before being appointed as EPA chief, Pruitt served as chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, however, it is his actions against the EPA while Attorney General of Oklahoma that have raised the most eyebrows…especially since he is now running the very same organization that he once all-but vowed to put out of business, having sued the EPA (unsuccessfully each time) a whopping total of 13 times by January of 2017.

Described as a climate change denier by his critics, Pruitt – as Attorney General of Oklahoma –  has sued the EPA to block its Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rule, according to the Washington Post.

"Pruitt joined a coalition of state attorneys general in suing over the agency's Clean Power Plan, the principal Obama-era policy aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector," they said. "He has also sued, with fellow state attorneys general, over the EPA's recently announced regulations seeking to curtail the emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas sector."

Pruitt has also sued the EPA on behalf of Oklahoma utilities who were against additional regulation of their coal-fired plants, and criticized the agency in a congressional hearing, as reported by The Oklahoman.

"Pruitt testified before a House subcommittee hearing about the EPA's proposed regulations for new power plants and its plan to formulate rules for existing power plants," they said. "Pruitt said the agency continued to stretch its authority beyond the boundaries of the Clean Air Act and was dictating an 'anti-fossil fuel agenda' to states."

Pruitt has been known to receive numerous campaign contributions from the energy industry, which may explain his strong support of it throughout the years; the oil and gas industry has contributed over $300,000 to Pruitt's campaigns over the years, according to Chicago Tribune.

"He has received more than $300,000 from oil and gas companies during his campaigns over the years," they said. "In 2014, the New York Times reported that a letter ostensibly written by Pruitt alleging the EPA had overestimated air pollution from natural gas drilling was actually written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma's largest oil and gas companies."

So, with Pruitt's anti-EPA bias worn so squarely upon his sleeve and his history of aligning with the oil and gas industry, it certainly left many in Washington D.C. – and, indeed, much of the United States – scratching their heads when President-Elect Donald Trump announced Pruitt as his pick for EPA head, saying that the EPA had an "anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs" and that Pruitt, "the highly respected Attorney General from the state of Oklahoma, will reverse this trend and restore the EPA's essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe."

After an exhaustive vetting process that saw Democrats – rightfully up in arms over someone with such a spotty record when it comes to environmental issues – attempting to block Pruitt at every turn; however, with Republican control in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it was inevitable that Pruitt would eventually prevail, and on February 17, 2017, that very thing happened- the Senate approved Pruitt by a vote of 52–46.

Since taking office, Pruitt has had little time to enact – or retract – any serious measures, but the fact that President Trump has called for cuts to various government agencies –especially the EPA – in order to dig up the funds to support his increase in military spending, it could be argued that Pruitt's presence has already made itself felt in a negative way. After all, he failed to raise anything even remotely resembling a stink over the proposed cuts to his agency, or when Trump signed executive orders rolling back the previous administration's rules regarding dumping coal mining waste in brooks and streams; however, would like to ask if he would he remain so steadfastly silent if the proposed cuts were to come out of his salary…?

Protests on the part of environmental advocates have been coming right and left with Pruitt's appointment as EPA chief; numerous "green" blogs, including https://www.yellowpagesgoesgreen.org, have issued statements denouncing Pruitt and encouraging him to re-evaluate his views on the environment and to treat his job as the head of the EPA with the seriousness and respect that it deserves. Time will tell if this will happen, but with the fate of ecosystems shore to shore hanging in the balance, hopefully Edward Scott Pruitt will come around sooner rather than later.

For more informationon this and other environmental news, visit http://www.YellowPagesGoesGreen.org.