EPA’s Scott Pruitt wants to televise a debate on climate change

Pruitt says there are many unanswered questions about climate change.

SOURCETrue Activist

Trump-appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt wants to continue the “debate” about climate change. He’s gunning for the EPA to publicly challenge scientists to prove global warming is a serious threat, despite the fact that the scientific community and the world at large reached consensus years ago.

“There are lots of questions [about climate change] that have not been asked and answered,” said Pruitt. “Who better to do that than a group of scientists… getting together and having a robust discussion for all the world to see?”

Pruitt told Reuters he was inspired by an article that appeared in the New York Times this April. “Climate of Complete Certainty” by Bret Stephens references another review “My Climate Change” by Andrew C. Revkin. Pruitt also cited Steve E. Koonin’s “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” which attempted to propagated that “The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.”

When asked if he thought the debate should be televised, Pruitt replied “I think so. I don’t know yet, but you want this to be open to the world. You want this to be on full display. I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that.”

Trump memorably gained Pruitt’s support in butchering the EPA’s budget, and then Pruitt called Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement a “decision of courage and fortitude.” Before a sick twist of fate lead to Pruitt’s control of the EPA, he was Oklahoma’s attorney general, a title to sue the EPA 14 times in defense of fossil fuel operations.

Recently, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the EPA over Pruitt’s connections to the energy industry. They questioned whether Pruitt is complying “with ethical rules and whether he is favoring stakeholders that share his ideology concerning regulatory matters.”

The unfortunate aspect of what could potentially be a good idea – and giving a platform to credible scientists – is that conservative players (along with their cousins in fossil fuel and big agriculture) have a long history of “investing” in research to fuel their capitalist agendas, and continue violating the planet and human rights.

There is very little chance that Scott Pruitt will demonstrate the integrity of presenting the American public an un-bias dialogue on global warming.


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.