Scott Pruitt Signals Dramatic Shift in EPA Priorities
The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2017 Amy Harder
In speech before employees, the new chief emphasized giving business certainty about rules
Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, spoke to employees of the agency in Washington on Tuesday PHOTO:JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS
WASHINGTON—In his first speech as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt stressed a dramatic change of priorities at the agency, stating the importance of the agency’s communication and relationship with businesses but giving few details about policy changes.
Mr. Pruitt didn’t touch on the hard-fought issues that arose during his confirmation process, including his work as Oklahoma attorney general suing the EPA and comments President Donald Trump has made about nearly eliminating the agency.
The new administrator focused instead on his general aspirations for the agency, such as giving businesses certainty regarding environmental rules and striking an appropriate balance with states when it comes to regulations.
“Regulations ought to make things regular,” said Mr. Pruitt, repeating a line he used at his confirmation hearing in January. “Those that we regulate ought to know what they can expect from us.”
That is a clear difference in message and focus from the EPA under President Barack Obama, which emphasized first what the agency was trying to protect with its regulations on clean air and water.
Mr. Pruitt’s speech at agency headquarters, which went a little over 10 minutes, was aimed at striking a balance between the administrator’s mandate from Mr. Trump to roll back Mr. Obama’s environmental regulations and persistent concerns from inside and outside the agency about that very mandate. It didn’t include questions from either media or the assembled EPA staffers in Washington. EPA employs about 15,000 people across the U.S.; thousands were able to watch the speech online.
“You can’t lead unless you listen. I seek to listen and learn and lead with you to address these issues we face as a nation,” Mr. Pruitt said.
Mr. Trump’s plans for EPA have attracted particular attention, given his stated goal of making wholesale changes at the agency. Current and former officials of the agency had publicly urged the defeat of Mr. Pruitt, saying they were concerned about his close relations with the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma. The Senate narrowly confirmed him on Friday mostly along party lines.
Mr. Pruitt’s comments Tuesday didn’t ease some critics’ concerns.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/02/22/scott-pruitt-emails-oklahoma-epa
It’s going to be so refreshing to have an EPA Director willing to follow the law. Other than that this propaganda, yawn, outlet looks, yeeaaahhhwwnnnn, to be full of zzzzzzzz…
As a public employee, all of Scott Pruitt’s correspondence is in the public domain and is the property of the US taxpayer, as far as I’m aware. So, unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no problem releasing them for public scrutiny.
Can you point to some of those emails that demonstrate malfeasance?
No?
I didn’t think so.
Funny, you squealed like a stuck pig when Hitlery’s highly incriminating emails were leaked…
What a sad little hypocrite you are!
15,000 employees? 15 THOUSAND?
Higher math says that is 300 per state. Methinks some downsizing is in order…start with 50%
I’ve read that 9000 of them are unionized. This sounds like a long track.
The broader point is that the Greens live for the game while ordinary citizens and average skeptics are just bothered by climate politics. Reading many claims of “victory” over climate extremism makes me that much more skeptical we are anywhere near the end. The Greenshirts are fanatical and the general skeptical community weak/divided and often incoherent on common policy objectives. Greens can gain politically even if they are currently losing short-term controls being one fear. Too few share the common vision of the evil they represent. Hence, climate agenda will certainly survive in incubation mode.
Shutting Paris and the IPCC down should be in the public debate but generally this isn’t on the table. I don’t think Trump wants a quick unwind given that 2 million jobs are related to “green” energy and thereby “climate” in some form. Is Elon Musk really going to have his car subside pulled for example? it’s quite a large political economy already created. 200k + on garbage solar panels another example. I’m sure 15k oil and gas workers can match that net energy output but what are the political consequences?
The country is pretty far gone, the greens will suffer a bit but find plenty of establishment supports to plan their next assent and you can bet it will be even more totalitarian in design.
The skeptical base is very similar to the softball go along get along GOP factions. Think John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Look at the hairsplitting to appease climate policy. Do you see many leading skeptical voices formally calling for the end of the IPCC process??
50% reductions at the EPA or the 10 other climate infested government departments are a likely prelude to disaster in the making. The climate belief system has to be purged and eradicated but I don’t see the political strength in many imagined skeptical harbors.
Look I see the recent progress
Look I see the recent progress but the general dynamics against the global climate orthodox is what should be in discussion. Decades more of spaghetti chart debates? Uncertainty? It’s like the climate debate preservation society.
Less states…. or less employees? :<)
Ah yes another appointee w a mighty task ahead
https://youtu.be/BUmNud_3lcQ