Scott Pruitt, the recently confirmed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday. He announced his plans for rolling back regulations and said that what he wants for the agency is what the American people want. He is wrong.
Pruitt was a controversial pick to lead the EPA for many reasons, the most prominent being that he loves suing the agency and he takes his orders from the world’s biggest polluters. This week, an enormous batch of damning email correspondence between Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry was released. And on Friday, it was confirmed that he lied under oath to congress about using a private email server while he was attorney general in Oklahoma.
Pruitt’s appearance at CPAC was his first chance to give details about his plans since he’s been sworn in. He indicated that at least three major regulations will be rolled back as soon as this week. Those are:
- Obama’s clarification of the Clean Water Act
- The Clean Power Plan
- The latest rule for limiting methane gas emissions from oil and gas wells
Because Pruitt now leads the EPA, he needs to take a step back from explicitly arguing against its mission. He wouldn’t say that the agency should be completely abolished but agreed that critics are “justified” when they call for its elimination. For now, he’s framing his elimination of regulations as an attempt to take the EPA back to its core mission of protecting our air and water. He said that “The previous administration was so focused on climate change and so focused on CO2, some of those other priorities were left behind.”
Pruitt would only need to check with the EPA to find analysis of the ways that climate change harms the quality of our air and water. But we could spend all day rebutting various wrongheaded details from his CPAC interview.
Let’s just look at one remarkable assertion that Pruitt made. “People across the country look at the EPA at the way they look at [the Internal Revenue Service],” he said. “We want to change that.”
If by people, he means his friends in the fossil fuel industry, he’s probably correct. But the public at large does not generally hold an unfavorable view of the EPA.
Take a look at Gallup surveys that go back decades and you’ll see fluctuating public attitudes about the environment and climate change. Currently, a majority of the public understands the dangers of climate change and the need for strong regulations that protect our environment. A sampling of data from March of 2016:
- What should be given greater priority?
Protection of the environment - 56 percent
Economic growth - 37 percent
- Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view is the seriousness of global warming?
Generally underestimated - 40 percent
Generally exaggerated - 34 percent
Generally correct - 25 percent
In category after category, the majority of the public agrees with the 97% of actively publishing scientists—climate change is serious and caused by humans. And despite the fact that only 42 percent of the public consider themselves environmentalists, 57 percent believe that the U.S. government is doing too little to protect the environment.
How about abolishing the EPA? Well, a 2013 PPP poll was commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council when a government budget fight virtually shutdown the agency. It found that Americans were outraged. Among the numerous statistics in favor of the EPA, the poll found:
- “60 percent of Americans think the EPA is doing the right amount or not enough to protect our health and environment.”
- “65 percent of Americans oppose a government shutdown that interferes with EPA’s work to develop standards limiting carbon pollution from power plants.”
How does that compare to the IRS? Pew Research found in 2013, that 44 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the tax collecting agency. Compare that with the 62 percent of Americans who had a generally favorable view of the EPA.
More recently, Pew found in 2015 that the public’s biggest criticism of the IRS is that corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes—another point that would likely find Pruitt’s corporate friends at odds with the majority of Americans.
As an appointed official, Pruitt won’t directly need to worry about the public’s perception of his performance. But his boss, the president, will. Considering the fact that Trump has historically low favorability ratings for an incoming president, one might think there’s nowhere to go from here but up. If this administration has taught us anything so far, it’s expect the unexpected.