Federal overreach is a phrase beloved of Scott Pruitt, head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. It was a central theme in his recent high-profile interview with the New York Times.
Since his appointment, Pruitt, infamous for suing the agency he now runs on 14 occasions while he was Oklahoma鈥檚 Attorney General, has set the ethos of a new, post-fact EPA, one he packaged compellingly in Friday鈥檚 as 鈥渂ack to basics鈥�.
Pruitt is always quick to hearken back to the EPA鈥檚 origins as President Nixon鈥檚 focused fix for pollution, before the Obama administration began liberally interpreting statutes to regulate greenhouse gases. He wants to return the EPA to the narrower mission he romanticises. Part of that means handing power back to states.
Advertisement
However, in his haste, Pruitt seems to have forgotten a few things: chief among them is that the EPA was created not just to reduce pollution, but to curtail states competing to lower the bar on environmental protections to attract business. Pruitt himself was of doing this in 2014, when contesting EPA rules that might hinder Oklahoma鈥檚 Devon Energy.
Weaponising the law
As someone beholden to state interests at the time, lobbying and lawsuits on behalf of businesses under the banner of 鈥渟tate鈥檚 rights鈥� made sense. But as head of the EPA, he should acknowledge that neither pollution nor the EPA鈥檚 purview stop at state lines.
And then there is his stance on regulating greenhouse gases. In the interview, Pruitt was quick to declare the EPA鈥檚 job as enforcing environmental law, coyly suggesting that his hands are tied by the US Congress not having written into law the EPA鈥檚 obligation to regulate climate change.
He forgot to mention that the Supreme Court did just that. In 2007, the court established the EPA鈥檚 responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases, provided it could prove they posed a public health hazard 鈥� which the EPA did for gases, wielding a of scientific evidence. The Supreme Court even this position in 2014.
But according to Pruitt on Friday, Obama鈥檚 EPA wasn鈥檛 doing its duty by regulating pollution. It was 鈥渨eaponising鈥� statutes to 鈥減ick winners and losers鈥�, like solar over coal.
Where debate begins
Pruitt is right. The EPA鈥檚 philosophy was to eventually choke out industries like coal, before they choke us. However, 鈥渓osers鈥� were not picked in a vacuum or a whirlwind of ideology. They were being held accountable for their toll on US citizens and prospects for a sustainable future 鈥� things eminently under Pruitt鈥檚 purview.
In the interview, Pruitt offered one concession: climate change is real. But he couldn鈥檛 resist muddying the waters. 鈥淭he debate about the impact of CO2 is important for us to wrestle with as a country,鈥� he said, and 鈥渋t鈥檚 pretty arrogant for people in 2018 to say, 鈥榃e know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100鈥�.鈥�
No, determining the impact of greenhouse gases a debate. It鈥檚 the realm of the Pruitt has denigrated as 鈥渁rrogant鈥�. Planning and prioritising action is the jurisdiction of public debate.
However, it seems at least one person with the power to galvanise such action has forgotten he is a servant to the public 鈥� and has confused willing individual ignorance with the borders of scientific knowledge.
