Read­ers de­bate mer­its of Scott Pruitt as Pres­i­dent-elect Trump’s choice to lead EPA.

The Denver Post - - NEWS -

Re: “Pruitt at EPA? Too ex­treme,” Dec. 9 edi­to­rial.

The Post’s edi­to­rial board pro­claims Donald Trump’s pick of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA “reckless.”

Pruitt is cur­rently Ok­la­homa’s at­tor­ney gen­eral. Yes, he has and will con­tinue to ques­tion the anti-fos­sil-fuel agenda of Hol­ly­wood. The Post il­log­i­cally at­tempts to seize the en­light­ened moral high ground of lib­eral-land: man’s use of fos­sil fu­els bad; green en­ergy good.

The edi­to­rial seeks to le­git­imize its stand­ing as be­ing fact-based — backed by a whole lot of sci­en­tists. Their of­ten-mis­di­rected in­ten­tions ig­nore this fact: the EPA’s green agenda costs too much and is fre­quently clumsy and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive. Their ob­jec­tive has been to ex­pand their reach, di­lut­ing state sovereignty.

There are other pri­or­i­ties need­ing at­ten­tion. It is the EPA that is too ex­treme. For­rest Mon­roe, Lone Tree

BBB Donald Trump has cho­sen Scott Pruitt, a cli­mate-change de­nier and anti-EPA cam­paigner, to head the EPA. This agency leads Amer­ica’s re­sponse to the cli­mate threat, pro­tect­ing the Earth for fu­ture gen­er­a­tions. Ap­point­ing Pruitt is im­moral. Ron Binz, Den­ver The writer is a for­mer chair­man of the Colorado Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.