Trump and Pruitt, Making America Polluted Again

So Trump’s true legacy may well be defined not by the laws he does or more likely doesn’t pass, but by his decision to put Scott Pruitt in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency.

As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt effectively acted as a servant, not of the public, but of polluting industries. That’s not an accusation; it’s confirmed by his own email trail.

Now, at a time when much of the Trump administration seems paralyzed by lack of leadership and key personnel, Pruitt is firing on all cylinders — but not because he’s making the E.P.A. more effective. On the contrary, he’s engaged in sabotage from the top, moving quickly to undermine his own agency’s mission — not just its efforts against climate change, but its role in protecting the environment across the board.

Trump won’t make America great again, but Pruitt, who clearly has Trump’s full backing, can do a lot to make it polluted again.

This is an unpopular agenda, or it would be if people knew about it.

The improvement in air and water quality since the E.P.A. was founded in 1970 is one of America’s great policy success stories. It’s also largely unsung.

When Donald Trump was young, New York’s air was filthy, and killer smogs sometimes killed hundreds; meanwhile, New York’s own governor described the Hudson as “one great septic tank.” But Trump probably doesn’t remember that or realize that regulation made the difference, and neither do many voters.

True, that could change quickly if people realized that the relatively clean air and water they take for granted was being put at risk. Think of how support for the Affordable Care Act surged once people realized that coverage for millions might really be taken away. There would be a similar but even bigger surge in support for environmental protection if, say, Republicans tried to repeal the Clean Water Act.

As I said, however, Pruitt can do a lot of harm without changing the law. He can, for example, reverse the ban on a pesticide that the E.P.A.’s own scientists say may damage children’s nervous systems. Or he can move to scrap a rule that would limit heavy-metal contamination from power-plant wastewater.

And he can cripple enforcement of the rules he doesn’t undo simply by working with Trump to starve his own agency of personnel and funds. The Trump budget released in May won’t actually become law, but it was an indication of priorities — and it called for cutting funding for the E.P.A. by 31 percent, more than any other agency.

Individually, no one of these actions is likely to be treated as front-page news, especially given everything else going on. Cumulatively, however, they will kill or cripple large numbers of Americans — for that is what pollution does, even if the damage is gradual and sometimes invisible.

By the way, if you’re wondering whether an anti-environmental agenda will at least be good for job creation, the answer is no, it won’t. Coal jobs, in particular, aren’t coming back no matter how much leeway we give corporations to blow the tops off mountains and dump toxins in waterways. This agenda will, however, be worth billions to certain campaign donors.

So don’t say that the administration’s agenda is stalled. Some parts are, but other parts are moving right along. When it comes to environmental policy, Trump will definitely change America — and his legacy will literally be toxic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/trump-pruitt-polluted-climate-.html?ref=opinion

 

Another hit piece by Paul Krugman, the confused economist. The reality is that Pruitt appears to be one the most capable Trump' appointees. All Krugman can put forward is typical liberal whining.

 

The only person whining here is you, Pruitt is a stooge for polluters, nothing more, his own emails prove it.

 

Once again, Krugman's article is one long shrill whine from the left with out providing any context of the regulatory activities from Pruitt within the larger national picture. All the article focuses on is the shrill whine "Pruitt is bad".

 

Do explain the larger picture for reversing the ban on a pesticide that the E.P.A.’s own scientists say may damage children’s nervous systems or the move to scrap a rule that would limit heavy-metal contamination from power-plant wastewater.

 

Well first of all they are not "reversing the ban" on the pesticide - the EPA is merely declining to ban a pesticide that the Obama administration proposed outlawing. "The chemical compound chlorpyrifos, also known as Lorsban, has been used by farmers for more than a half-century to kill pests on crops including broccoli, strawberries and citrus." The majority of farmers, states, and outside scientists support using the pesticide. The assertions that "mounting scientific evidence that prenatal exposure can pose risks to fetal brain and nervous system development" is skimpy and disputed. It should also be noted that outdoor exposure has not shown any documented prenatal issues.

I fully support (as do most scientists specializing in this area) the continuation of using Lorsban. What the EPA should be looking at is the utilization of Neonicotinoids which is possibly responsible for the large-scale decline in bee population. Finally under the Pruitt EPA this is being looked at - the Obama administration declined to have any involvement.

In regards to the heavy-metal contamination from power-plant wastewater; the issue is complex. It balances the regulatory cost of additional equipment required at power plants to comply versus the increased possible health-risks. From the article "Utilities would need to spend about $480 million on new wastewater treatment systems, resulting in about $500 million in estimated public benefits, such as fewer incidents of cancer and childhood developmental defects." Normal rule-making requires the public benefit to be at least 3 times the cost for federal regulations.

Let me not that Pruitt's EPA has not "scrapped the rule" - they have merely delayed the implementation of the rule. This will provide utility operators with more time to comply and time to re-evaluate the rule to see if it should be implemented via a proper rule-making process rather than Obama's presidential executive actions. "While that process moves ahead, EPA’s existing guidelines from 1982 remain in effect."

I support having the EPA doing a complete study on this regulation; however in the end I believe that enhanced standards that decrease discharge are required to reduce heavy-metal contamination from power-plant wastewater.

The EPA should be focused on reducing the discharge from coal power plants of hard particle pollution. Prior the Obama administration, utilities under federal regulations were placing particle scrubbers on power plants that significantly reduced hard-particle pollution. This was very important in states such as North Carolina which had polluted air due to many coal-fired power plants. The Obama administration forced all the coal-fired power plants to remove these effective scrubbers and replace them with equipment that reduces CO2 emissions (as part of the "climate change" agenda") - this increased hard=particle pollution and increased costs to electricity customers.

As always Krugman's shrill whining provides no context of the regulatory actions - he is merely pushing his political agenda.

 

Disputed by who? The analysis was done by EPA itself, you know by actual scientists and not lobbyists.

Delays should be on case by case basis, they can indefinitely delay rules to suit their benefactors.

Your context is nothing but hearsay and lobbyist talking points without any factual counterpoint, not unexpected.

 

You can go read the long industry debate on Lorsban via a simple google search including the conflicting opinions within the EPA, and reports that demonstrate that no documented cases of prenatal problems have ever been found via outdoor exposure.

Likewise you can go read up on all the EPA actions regarding power plants, Duke Power, and the EPA in North Carolina regarding the pollution problems with both air and water pollution. You can also read the commentary from our previous Democratic and Republican governors who stated very directly that Obama's removal of hard scrubbers increased hard-particle air pollution in North Carolina. Check out past articles in the Raleigh News & Observer and local media NC outlets such as WRAL for more commentary.

It might be interesting for you to research and learn the facts instead of just spouting talking points from Krugman - an individual focused on driving a political agenda devoid of facts.

 

The Young Turks is entertainment, not News.

Any reasonable person does not get their new from this outlet. It is similar to getting your news from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck -- but on the left.