This article mentions Scott
Pruitt, who ironically is now the leader of the Environment Protection Agency.
Pruitt is a former Oklahoma attorney general who throughout his career has sued
the agency he now leads. Most of the people assigned to these top positions in
EPA are skeptical about climate change and they intent to cut back on the
environmental regulations. They see some of these laws as harmful to business
and therefore are looking for a way in which they can get rid of them. Gina
McCarthy, who was the head of the EPA under Obama’s administration mentioned
how it is good to have different opinions on how to meet the mission of the agency.
However, she believe that Pruitt is not committed to the agency’s mission.
Douglas Ericksen, a current Washington
state senator is being considered as the regional administrator of the E.P.A.’s
Pacific Northwest office. Ericksen has been active in opposing a climate change
state law that would tax carbon pollution. Unlike these new administrators, Obama
had aimed to have better EPA regulations that reduced global warming and the
usage of coal-fired plans. Pruitt is expected to mandate a higher fuel economy
standards. This, however, will cut the EPA budget by about 24 percent, or $2
billion from $8 billion that we spend now.
I find it interesting how the
new leaders of the EPA are opposed to laws that deregulate laws that protect
our environment. Also, leaders that do not believe in climate change and
believe that it is a good idea to cut spending from this program.
Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?ref=business&_r=0
4 comments:
For those of us that do believe in the negative impacts of climate change, this is terrifying. I understand that the President has placed an emphasis on promoting business over the environment, but I do not think it is wise to neglect the environment completely, particularly on such an important matter. It might even be economically beneficial to incentivize companies that revolve around the renewable energy sector. It seems as though these measures go against public objectives. I have also heard that the current administration is debating eliminating the EPA altogether, which would be catastrophic. I could definitely see the benefits of reorganizing or increasing the efficiency of the EPA, which is a bureaucratic behemoth. But to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency completely would be disastrous. I also do not think that a budget cut would be too terrible, but would need to be accompanied by some major renovations within the agency. It will be very interesting to watch this process unfold!
I read about Pruitt's comments on climate change this past Thursday where his remarks appeared to fundamentally call into question whether the EPA has a role in the regulation of greenhouse gases that drive global warming, including not only carbon dioxide but methane. Last week, Pruitt’s agency withdrew an agency request to oil and gas companies to report on their equipment and its methane emissions, which could have laid the groundwork for tighter regulations. I agree with Rachel it'll be interesting to see how this situation unfolds.
Yeah it is a bit scary assigning Scott Pruitt to an organization that he has sued and doesn't seem to support in many ways. The budget cut seems drastic, about 1/4th of the whole company. In addition, Douglas Ericksen, the Washington state senator that has been in active opposition of many climate change polices. I too am curious to see what comes of this and hope for the best.
That's really terrifying. Even though there are a lot of sayings about the speed of global warming or how to digitalize the influence, climate change has been recognized by most scientists. We can actually feel the climate change, and the more and more frequently happened extreme weather events. How can he oppose the fact and just focus on the short term benefits! Also, most of the international emission control activities are lead by America, if America gives up giving more controlling, how they can require other countries to cutting emission. This would be kind of public tragedy. What's more, this kind of policy would discourage the development of green industry. People who work in environment related field would be pushed into unemployment.
Post a Comment