Protect the environment, reject Pruitt’s nomination
Much of the debate over human-caused climate change has been focused on whether the threat has been overestimated. But what if the threat has been underestimated?
Scientists are constantly being surprised by how quickly the planet is changing. Last year was the warmest since modern record-keeping began. Rising temperatures contributed to killer heat waves in Asia and the Middle East, a supersize wildfire in Canada, the retreat of glaciers across the globe and the vast bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef off Australia.
The world’s largest iceberg — the size of Delaware — is preparing to break off from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Climatologists say the Arctic could be icefree in summer within a decade or two. Scientists now believe that, under the worst scenario, oceans could rise 8 feet or more by century’s end, inundating coastal cities.
In a bid to stave off catastrophe, nearly 200 nations last year joined the Paris Agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the Obama administration mandated cleaner power plants and more fuel-efficient cars.
Much of this progress could be reversed under President Trump, who has expressed skepticism about climate change, has threat- ened to pull the United States out of the Paris accords, and could jettison Obama’s regulations on power plant emissions and gas mileage standards.
Heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and Trump could not have nominated someone more opposed to the agency’s mission than Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be its new administrator.
Pruitt, a champion of the fossil fuel industry, has sued the EPA 14 times to block environmental regulations. In 13 cases, co-plaintiffs included industries that contributed money to Pruitt’s political campaign or affiliated committees. During recent confirmation testimony, the nominee declined to say whether, as EPA administrator, he would voluntarily recuse himself from dealing with the lawsuits he filed against the agency.
Pruitt offered a very carefully worded response about climate change. He conceded it was happening. But as to whether the burning of fossil fuels was a primary cause? Debatable, he said. Actually, climate scientists attribute 80% to 90% of recent warming to human causes.
On Thursday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committeee approved Pruitt’s nomination, despite a Democratic boycott, and sent it to the full Senate, where a vote is expected next week.
Elections have consequences and, in most cases, if a nominee is qualified, a new president should be allowed his or her choice. No one should be under the delusion that if Pruitt is turned down, Trump will pick Al Gore to be his EPA chief. But when the future of the planet is on the line, the choice of someone so openly hostile to the EPA’s mission is unacceptable. The Senate should send that message to the White House and reject the Pruitt nomination.