![\"George](\"https:\/\/travelingboy.com\/travel\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/George-Orwell-Quote.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Allow me to introduce a friend, Elliott Negin, who writes for the\u00a0Union of Concerned Scientists<\/strong>. The UCS<\/a>, marshals\u00a0volunteers and a network of twenty-thousand scientists for a variety of objectives including fighting misinformation and attacks on science, on matters from global warming to pollution to nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n Elliott just wrote an essay considering a speech by Scott Pruitt<\/a>, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, before CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, The analysis underscores Pruitt\u2019s startling hypocrisy, most recently on display in Congressional hearings<\/a> exploring some of the many oddities of Pruitt.<\/p>\n Tough competition, but Pruitt is a contender for the most glaring example of Trump Administration venality, and of the easy willingness of the Administration to plant time bombs in the environment and in the public health in the service of puppeteers like the Koch brothers. A menace like Pruitt is best exposed when he preaches to the choir. Eight minutes into his CPAC presentation Pruitt sits down with interviewer Gina Loudon who asks for a show of hands of \u201cthose of you that kind of hoped that\u00a0Administrator\u00a0Pruitt will just sort of make the EPA go away\u201d. Big cheer. Now, that\u2019s a choir.<\/p>\n Getting a major appointment from Donald Trump is like sitting in the barber chair of\u00a0Sweeney\u00a0Todd. Bets are now placed on whether the President will find it expedient to give Pruitt the Trump Heave-Ho or keep him to placate Pruitt supporters like Senator Rand Paul. \u201c@EPAScottPruitt is likely the bravest and most conservative member of Trump\u2019s cabinet,\u201d tweeted Paul on April\u00a05. \u201cWe need him to help @realDonaldTrump drain the regulatory swamp.\u201d Pruitt\u2019s so brave he seeks to hide in his forty-three grand cone of silence. Paul\u2019s tweet reminds us how prescient George Orwell was. Note that\u00a0draining the swamp<\/em>\u00a0has morphed into\u00a0draining the regulatory swamp<\/em>.<\/p>\n If you can persevere or jump to the last two minutes of the CPAC speech<\/a>, about twenty-one minutes in, Loudon and Pruitt are rolling out doublespeak that would leave Orwell in awe.<\/p>\n It\u2019s instructive to examine the realities behind three points of emphasis in Pruitt\u2019s CPAC speech:\u00a0attention to process, rule of law and federalism<\/strong>. However this game of White House Chutes and Ladders plays out, those realities are still the bedrock of Trump\u2019s environment and energy agendas, no matter who is in charge at EPA.<\/p>\n EPA Chief Pruitt Even Violates His Own Principles<\/strong><\/a> by Elliott Negin<\/p>\n With Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt\u2019s job now hanging in the balance, it is a good time to recall that, just after his Senate confirmation, he gave a\u00a0speech<\/a>\u00a0at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that emphasized the three principles he said would stand at \u201cthe heart of how we do business at the EPA\u201d: process, rule of law, and federalism.<\/p>\n A little more than a year into his tenure, he has violated all of them.<\/p>\n \u201cNumber one,\u201d Pruitt told his CPAC audience, \u201cwe\u2019re going to pay attention to process.\u201d<\/p>\n In fact, as we now know, Pruitt has a long track record \u2014 going back to his\u00a0days in Oklahoma<\/a> \u2014 of flouting official procedures when it suits him.<\/p>\n Most troubling is Pruitt\u2019s disdain for EPA policy procedures, which have a considerable impact on public health. Just this week, Pruitt undercut the EPA\u2019s long-established process for drafting strong, protective regulations by proposing that the agency no longer accept studies if all of their data isn\u2019t publicly available. That would mean the agency would have to ignore most epidemiological studies, which rely on private medical information that cannot and should not be shared.<\/p>\n Polluter-funded members of Congress have tried to pass bills instituting this restriction for years, despite the fact that it would violate the EPA\u2019s obligation to use the best available science to protect public health. Sure enough,\u00a0emails<\/a>\u00a0obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists show that political appointees, not career staff or scientists, were behind the proposal, and they only considered its potential impact on industry. In response, nearly 1,000 scientists sent a\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0to Pruitt asking him to back off.<\/p>\n Pruitt also\u00a0packed<\/a>\u00a0the EPA\u2019s Science Advisory Board (SAB) with industry scientists, overturning four decades of precedent by banning scientists who have received EPA grants from serving on the SAB or any other agency advisory panel. Why? Pruitt claims they have a conflict of interest. Pruitt did not renew terms for a number of respected members and dismissed several independent scientists before their terms were up, shrinking the SAB from 47 to 42 participants and more than doubling the number of its polluter-friendly members.<\/p>\n Likewise, Pruitt clearly has little use for standard EPA administrative procedures. The Government Accountability Office, for example, recently found that he violated federal law by ordering a $43,000 soundproof phone booth. Political appointees, it turns out, have to clear office improvement purchases over $5,000 with Congress. Unlike his predecessors, he has routinely flown first class, and so far it has cost taxpayers more than $150,000. He tripled the size of the administrator\u2019s\u00a0security team<\/a>\u00a0to 19 agents, and according to CNN their annual salaries alone cost at least $2 million. He has a 24-hour-a-day bodyguard. He rented a condo for $50 a night \u2014 well below market value \u2014 from the wife of an energy lobbyist who met with Pruitt last July and lobbies EPA on behalf of his clients. The list of Pruitt\u2019s ethical infractions goes on and on.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen rule of law is applied it provides certainty to those that are regulated,\u201d Pruitt explained during that CPAC speech. \u201cThose in industry should know what is expected of them. Those in industry should know how to allocate their resources to comply with the regulations passed by the EPA.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to argue with that. Of course industrial facility owners should be clear about their responsibility to curb emissions. Under Pruitt, however, polluters can be certain about at least one thing: There\u2019s a good chance they won\u2019t be prosecuted. For Pruitt, the rule of law is made to be broken.<\/p>\n In its first year in office, the Trump administration resolved only 48 environmental civil cases, about a third fewer than under President Barack Obama\u2019s first EPA director and less than half under President George W. Bush\u2019s over the same time period, according to a\u00a0February report<\/a>\u00a0by the Environmental Integrity Project. The Trump administration recovered just $30 million in penalties from these cases, nearly 60 percent less than the $71 million the Obama administration recovered in its first year.<\/p>\n A\u00a0December analysis<\/a>\u00a0by\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>\u00a0comparing the first nine months of the Trump regime with previous administrations, also found a marked decline in enforcement. It determined that the EPA under Pruitt initiated about 1,900 enforcement cases, about a third fewer than during the Obama administration and about a quarter fewer than the Bush administration over the same time frame.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Pruitt \u2014 who\u00a0sued<\/a>\u00a0the EPA 14 times to block stronger air, water and climate safeguards during his tenure as Oklahoma attorney general \u2014 is now trying to roll back environmental protections from the inside. Since taking office, he has moved quickly to delay or weaken a range of Obama-era regulations, including ones that protect the public from toxic pesticides, lead paint and vehicle emissions.<\/p>\n Ironically, Pruitt\u2019s cavalier attitude about following procedures has thus far blunted his wrecking-ball campaign. \u201cIn their rush to get things done, they\u2019re failing to dot their \u2018I\u2019s and cross their \u2018T\u2019s, and they\u2019re starting to stumble over a lot of trip wires,\u201d Richard Lazarus, a Harvard environmental law professor,\u00a0told<\/a>\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>. \u201cThey\u2019re producing a lot of short, poorly crafted rulemakings that are not likely to hold up in court.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSo process matters, rule of law matters, but let me tell you this: What really matters is federalism,\u201d Pruitt told the CPAC faithful. \u201cWe are going to once again pay attention to the states across the country. I believe people in Oklahoma, in Texas, in Indiana, in Ohio, and New York and California, and in all the states across the country, they care about the air they breathe, and they care about the water they drink, and we are going to be partners with these individuals [sic], not adversaries.\u201d<\/p>\n California? He must have forgotten that when he lashed out at the state for embracing stronger vehicle fuel economy standards than what he and the auto industry would prefer. \u201cCalifornia is not the arbiter of these issues,\u201d Pruitt\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0in an interview with\u00a0Bloomberg TV<\/em>\u00a0in mid-March. California sets state limits on carbon emissions, he said, but \u201cthat shouldn\u2019t and can\u2019t dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be.\u201d<\/p>\n California, which has a waiver under the 1970 Clean Air Act giving it the right to set its own vehicle emissions standards, reached an agreement with the Obama administration and the auto industry that established the first limits on tailpipe carbon emissions. The next phase of the standards calls for improving the average fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks to about 50 miles per gallon by 2025 in lab tests, corresponding to a real-world performance of about 36 mpg. By 2030, that would reduce global warming pollution by nearly 4 billion tons, akin to shutting down 140 coal-fired power plants over that time frame.<\/p>\n California wants to stick with the standards. Pruitt, echoing the specious claims of auto industry trade groups, announced in early April that he wants to roll them back. Putting aside the fact that the auto industry\u2019s own\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0concluded that carmakers can meet the 2025 targets primarily with conventional vehicles, what happened to Pruitt\u2019s \u201ccooperative federalism\u201d ideal, especially since California is not acting alone?<\/p>\n Thirteen states, mostly in the Northeast and Northwest, and the District of Columbia have adopted California\u2019s stricter emissions standards. Together they represent at least a third of the U.S. auto market. And in response to Pruitt\u2019s roll-back announcement, 12 state attorneys general and 63 mayors from 26 states released a\u00a0declaration<\/a>\u00a0supporting the stronger standards. \u201cSuch standards are particularly appropriate given the serious public impacts of air pollution in our cities and states and the severe impacts of climate change\u2026,\u201d the declaration reads. \u201cIf the administration attempts to deny states and cities the basic right to protect their citizens, we will strongly challenge such an effort in court.\u201d<\/p>\n That declaration sounds a lot like what Pruitt endorsed at the conclusion of his CPAC speech, but of course he was referring to state efforts to\u00a0weaken<\/em>\u00a0federal environmental safeguards, not strengthen them. \u201cWe are going to restore power back to the people,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are going to recognize the regulatory uncertainty and the regulatory state needs to be reined in, we\u2019re going to make sure the states are recognized for the authority they have, and we are going to do the work that\u2019s important to advance freedom and liberty for the future. It\u2019s an exciting time.<\/p>\n \u201cThe folks in D.C. have a new attitude,\u201d Pruitt continued. \u201cIt\u2019s an attitude that no longer are we going to dictate to those across the country and tell them how to live each and every day. It\u2019s an attitude that says we\u2019re going to empower citizens and the states. It\u2019s an idea of federalism and believing in liberty.\u201d<\/p>\n The CPAC crowd gave him a standing ovation, but the reception he\u2019s now getting from both Democrats and Republicans alike is considerably cooler. At this point, Mr. Pruitt may soon find himself out of a job.<\/p>\n Some of Elliott’s offerings at the UCS and at the Huffington Post can be seen here<\/a>\u00a0and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Allow me to introduce a friend, Elliott Negin, who writes for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The UCS, marshals volunteers and a network of twenty-thousand scientists for a variety of objectives including fighting misinformation and attacks on science, on matters from global warming to pollution to nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":6314,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[256],"tags":[809,1089,1093,1092,1094,1090,1091],"class_list":["post-6316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","tag-donald-trump","tag-elliott-negin","tag-environmental-protection","tag-environmental-protection-agency","tag-federalism","tag-scott-pruitt","tag-union-of-concerned-scientists"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"'The](\"https:\/\/travelingboy.com\/travel\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/The-Swamp-Revisited.jpg\")
Subverting Process<\/h3>\n
Breaking the Rule of Law<\/h3>\n
Federalism for all but California<\/h3>\n
![\"'EPA](\"https:\/\/travelingboy.com\/travel\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/EPA-Failure-to-Regulate-Toxic-Waste.jpg\")