EPA Chief Wants TV 'Debate' on Climate: Scientists Call Foul
A red team/blue team debate on climate science is in its "formative stages" at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the agency may consider putting the event on television, according to EPA chief Scott Pruitt.
In an interview with Reuters, Pruitt said the debate idea "advances science," while skirting around the question of how the agency would ensure no conflicts of interest with debate participants.
"I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that," he said, referencing the possibility of a televised debate. "I think they deserve it."
When asked directly about the EPA's endangerment finding, Pruitt said the red/blue team activity "is intended to have an open transparent debate about something that is a policy issue that is extremely important in this country that is not taking place."
Climate scientists rejected Pruitt's idea Tuesday. According to BuzzFeed:
Peter Gleick, a scientist who co-founded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet" and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."
"The effort by Pruitt and Trump's EPA to pretend to put together a 'debate' is no more than another attempt to open the door to the voices of climate denial, delay, and confusion that have already postponed international action almost to the point of disaster," Gleick added.
Michael Mann, a climatologist and geophysicist at Penn State University, said that a debate is already going on and "it's called science." He also said the debate amounts to a "bad faith effort."
"What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.
For a deeper dive:
The move comes after regional authorities declared a state of emergency over the weekend after sightings of more than 50 bears in the town of Belushya Guba since December.
This year's letter from Bill and Melinda Gates focused on nine things that surprised them. For the Microsoft-cofounder, one thing he was surprised to learn was the massive amount of new buildings the planet should expect in the coming decades due to urban population growth.
"The number of buildings in the world is going to double by 2060. It's like we're going to build a new New York City every month for the next 40 years," he said.
By Shana Udvardy
After a dearth of action on climate change and a record year of extreme events in 2017, the inclusion of climate change policies within the annual legislation Congress considers to outline its defense spending priorities (the National Defense Authorization Act) for fiscal year 2018 was welcome progress. House and Senate leaders pushed to include language that mandated that the Department of Defense (DoD) incorporate climate change in their facility planning (see more on what this section of the bill does here and here) as well as issue a report on the impacts of climate change on military installations. Unfortunately, what DoD produced fell far short of what was mandated.
Trump is losing his rallying cry to save coal. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) voted on Thursday to retire two coal-fired power plants in the next few years despite a plea from the president to keep one of the plants open.
Earlier this week, the president posted an oddly specific tweet that urged the government-owned utility to save the 49-year-old Paradise 3 plant in Kentucky. It so happens that the facility burns coal supplied by Murray Energy Corporation, whose CEO is Robert Murray, is a major Trump donor.