Scott Pruitt, today, is proving he does not regard the US Congress as important.
Today, Scott Pruitt is proving he is not prepared to answer ethical questions, except, to delegate responsibility for any oversight of his life and department to others.
Scott Pruitt as Secretary of the US EPA should be PREPARED to answer any and all questions put to him. He is under oath and seeks to dodge the truth. At the very least, rather than handing off his responsibilities to others, including his personal accountant, he should be prepared to FIND THE ANSWERS to the Congress' questions.
There have been thousands of these meetings in the history of the USA. When cabinet Secretaries are asked a question they cannot answer immediately, always offer to find the answer and report back.
Pruitt is treating this legitimate meeting of the US Congress as a trial hearing. That is worrisome. The people have the right to have their questions answered. Those questions are submitted to their Congresspersons to be presented at these meetings. There is a reason these meetings exist and it isn't about legal harassment of a Secretary. Pruitt is not respecting the public trust at all.
Scientists publish their methods and data in professional journals. There is COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY. Pruitt and Flores are deceiving the public and violating the public trust as they provide election rhetoric as fact.
I am completely convinced, Pruitt has done nothing but evade direct questions regarding his violation of the Clean Air Act.
Pursuant to Clean Air Act § 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), (click here) Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and D.C. Circuit Rule 15, California Communities Against Toxics, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Citizen Action, and Sierra Club (collectively, “Petitioners”) hereby petition this Court for review of the final action taken by Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Administrator Scott Pruitt in the attached memorandum from William L. Wehrum, dated January 25, 2018 (Attachment 1), and the Federal Register notice published at 83 Fed. Reg. 5543 (Feb. 8, 2018) and titled “Issuance of Guidance Memorandum, ‘Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act’” (Attachment 2).
Pruitt is a liar and those that hand him rhetoric instead of pertinent testimony don't care about the people. Polluters have had decades to modify their effect on the environment and climate. It is more than obvious there is no intention of any industry to modify their operations to reduce pollutants and GHG.
23 April 2018
By Dana Nuccitelli
In doing cost-benefit analyses, (click here) the EPA accounts for all direct benefits and indirect co-benefits of its regulations. Certain industry groups and conservative pundits don’t like that approach, because they care more about polluter profits than they do about clean air and healthy Americans. However, during the George W. Bush administration in 2003, the Office of Management and Budget issued a guidance saying that it’s important to consider co-benefits:
Your analysis should look beyond the direct benefits and direct costs of your rulemaking and consider any important ancillary benefits and countervailing risks. An ancillary benefit is a favorable impact of the rule that is typically unrelated or secondary to the statutory purpose of the rulemaking (e.g., reduced refinery emissions due to more stringent fuel economy standards for light trucks)…
Pruitt wants to disregard this Bush-era guidance and instead consider only the costs and benefits of regulating the “targeted pollutant” (mercury, in our example). They want to ignore the lives saved by also incidentally reducing particulate matter pollution. To be blunt, this makes no sense, unless your goal is to protect polluters at the expense of public and environmental health....
I don't believe the country has been battling against pollutants to the air since the 1955 Air Pollution Control Act and still have old stalwarts to the petroleum industry alive today.
There is nothing productive happening today at the EPA hearing at the cost of the American Middle Class Taxpayer.
New Agricultural Practices (click here) have increased the phosphorus run off into Lake Erie.
- More fall fertilizer applications are occurring rather than the spring.
When there aren't crops to absorb the fertilizer it can be a runoff due to rain and/or snowmelt.
- The use of broadcast application not incorporated into the soil
The same principle applies. If the chemicals applied to the soil are not incorporated into it; the chemicals will runoff due to weather. I don't think the USA government wants to stop the rain or snowfall, does it, because then the wind has to be contended with. These practices need to be regulated.
- No till farming increased in use leaving the chemicals applied on top of the soil/crop stubble.
The argument exists that the indifference of the USA Government to the climate crisis and the incidents of drought and flooding has an agenda to the outcome impacts on people and resources available to them. It isn't as though the USA was never told of the outcomes. I take that observation seriously. Little to no mitigation exists while people die regularly from tornadoes and hurricanes. This is ridiculous. One of the reasons strong storms were even monitored was because people died in the thousands with the occurrences. The science regarding storms, climate and it's outcomes is a well established practice within the USA government. The purpose has always been to save lives.
The precautions that saved lives were carried out by observation of the storms and warnings provided. The people were then expected to act to save their own lives. In the case of climate, the job of the government is far less passive, but, requiring legislative actions to change the course of GHG emissions of which the USA is among the leaders of the emissions and it leads First World countries in emissions.
The climate concerns presented by USA scientists extends back nearly a century and the USA government has not done enough to end the heating trend that increases due to GHG. Instead of acting to save lives, the government has largely purposely ignored its responsibility in favor of political cronies. I do believe that is Quid Pro Quo.
Scott Pruitt has no character. He has power and the will to be corrupt. Scott Pruitt removes EPA personnel because he practices 'the idea' (not written law) of loyalty. Whistleblowing (legislated law) is not loyalty.
