Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

3 Strikes, You're Out

Climate
3 Strikes, You're Out
Photo credit: Lorie Shaull / Flickr

By Liz Perera and Adam Beitman

Scott Pruitt shocked the world last week when he declared that carbon pollution was not the primary driver of the climate crisis. But what was even more shocking was the fact that he clearly and repeatedly misled Congress about his intentions on this critical issue during his confirmation process to serve as the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Pruitt's misleading testimony before the Senate is actually part of a much larger pattern of him misleading Congress.

Pruitt is a baseball fan so let's put it this way: three strikes and you're out. He has proven that he is unfit to do the job he is legally required to do—and unwilling to do it even if he could—meaning he ought to resign. Failing that, the Senate should take action to remove him from his position because, among the most obvious and readily identifiable instances, Pruitt misled Congress at least three times:

  • Strike One: Conducting official state business over a private email account.
  • Strike Two: His position on climate change and EPA's ability to regulate CO2.
  • Strike Three: His history of actively promoting mercury pollution as Attorney General of Oklahoma.

Pruitt Misled Congress About His Emails:

In written testimony to Congress in response to a question from Sen. Cory Booker, Pruitt declared that "I use only my official OAG [Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General] email address and government issued phone to conduct official business."

The Associated Press (AP) revealed that claim to be false when select Pruitt correspondence was ordered released to the public by a court after public interest groups had requested it.

According to AP, multiple instances of such private electronic communication for purposes of conducting public business have been uncovered, "including a 2013 exchange with a petroleum industry lobbyist who emailed Pruitt and a lawyer on the attorney general's staff."

Strike One: Pruitt misled Congress about his use a private email account to conduct official state business.

Pruitt Misled Congress About Climate Change and Regulating Carbon Pollution:

Last week, Pruitt told CNBC that he does not believe carbon dioxide is a "primary contributor" to the climate crisis.

But that's a very different tune from what he sang to Congress. In written testimony, Pruitt certified that "I also believe the administrator has an important role when it comes to the regulation of carbon dioxide, which I will fulfill consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the applicable statutory framework established by Congress."

Separately, in an exchange with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Pruitt said "Senator, I believe that the [EPA] administrator has a very important role to perform in regulating CO2."

By offering and affirming that the EPA administrator has an important role in regulating carbon dioxide in light of the EPA's Endangerment Finding (established in the Massachusetts vs. EPA Supreme Court case), Pruitt clearly acknowledged the role carbon pollution plays in driving climate change.

During separate questioning Pruitt also explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of the endangerment finding, saying: "the endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected." When pressed by Sen. Markey on whether he would review or alter the finding if confirmed, Pruitt affirmed "There is nothing that I know that would cause a review at this point."

Pruitt clearly made the case to the Senate at the time that he had no reason to reverse the finding that carbon pollution poses a danger by causing climate change, whereas now he says publicly that it does not pose a danger, actively denying the role of carbon pollution as a dangerous climate pollutant.

Strike Two: Pruitt misled Congress about his views on climate change and, more importantly, how carbon pollution should be regulated by the EPA as an air pollutant in light of Supreme Court rulings and the agency's "Endangerment Finding."

Pruitt Misled Congress On His Greenwashing of Toxic Mercury:

In his testimony to Congress, Pruitt denied he had ever argued that the EPA should not regulate mercury pollution in his position suing the agency as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Specifically, Pruitt said "there was no argument that we made from the State perspective that mercury is not a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112."

But the truth is that in legal filings, Pruitt did make the argument that the EPA was breaking the law by regulating mercury and other toxic air emissions. Most damningly, Pruitt signed a legal brief contending that that the benefits of protections against mercury pollution are "small, uncertain and in most instances unquantifiable."

Strike Three: Pruitt attempted the absurd task of arguing that Mercury is not-toxic and then tried to cover it up.


Scott Pruitt: Three Strikes—You're Out!

(Want even more examples of Pruitt misleading Congress? Check out the Environmental Working Group's post from late January).

Conclusion: Pruitt has proven that he is unfit to do the job of protecting the American people from toxic pollution and he misled Congress repeatedly during his confirmation process. For these reasons, he ought to resign. If he refuses, the Senate should take action on its own and remove him from his position.

Liz Perera is the Sierra Club's climate policy director. Adam Beitman is the Sierra Club's deputy national press secretary, covering federal policy, politics and international issues.

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less