E.P.A. Chief Off to a Blazing Start

Environmental advocates watching in horror.  Largest regulatory rollback over so short a time in the agency’s history.


Scott Pruitt

“In the four months since he took office as the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt has moved to undo, delay or otherwise block more than 30 environmental rules, a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history,” says this article in the New York Times,

 The article, written by Coral Davenport, describes how Mr. Pruitt’s supporters, including President Trump, have hailed Pruitt’s moves, while environmental advocates have watched in horror.

But both sides agree, says Davenport, that Pruitt “is moving effectively to dismantle the regulations and international agreements that stood as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s legacy.”

Kudos to Mr. Pruitt.

And Kudos to President Trump for keeping his promises. He is slowly dragging us back from the edge of insanity.

See entire article.

21 thoughts on “E.P.A. Chief Off to a Blazing Start

  1. Beware of corruption disguised as legitimacy. While the Paris Agreement may have been a joke, the EPA serves a vital role in protecting the people from corporate abuse. Want to know what live in the U.S. would be like without the EPA? Just look at Beijing. That is what your air quality looks like without corporate accountability. Want to bring back the terrible smog that plagued US cities a few decades ago? Want to bring back lead based paint? Want to bring back the Love Canal incident? Without the EPA to keep businesses honest, they will dump their chemicals in your drinking water, and pollute your air so badly that the air becomes a national disaster. We don’t want to be China.

      • Sorry, but he is right. Corporations are blind to anything except short term profit. They will do anything that they think they can get away with, for $$. Nevertheless, I all for everything Trump has done so far.

    • You can’t seriously be suggesting that it’s only because of bureaucracy that there are environmental protections can you?
      Only a few people want to be China, where only a few people get a say.

    • I was an Environmental Health Officer in Queensland Australia and my experience was that small business people were the most co-operative and posed the least risk yet paid licence fees that weren’t warranted.

      Most larger enterprises were the same and co-operated in somewhat more justified regulatory compliance.

      The most polluting industries were administered by the State government.

      Of these many still do not comply with the 1994 Act – YES that’s right 1994 – 23 years of non compliance !

      One nickel smelter recently went bankrupt putting all employees out of work in a city with little other opportunities.

      Of course the government attacked the owner as corrupt. He may well have acted in breach of the law BUT he bought the refinery from BHP in 2009 and the government approved the transfer of the environmental licence!

      Now you tell me – if the refinery doesn’t comply in 2017 and it hasn’t been deliberately sabotaged how could the government approve the sale and transfer of the environmental licence in 2009 ???

      Why hadn’t the environmental conditions been enforced in the 15 years before the 2009 sale ?

      But I do agree that we absolutely need some regulatory agency – it’s what I did most of my working life.

      We simply need to monitor pollution and realise CO2 is not a pollutant – never was and most likely never will be.

    • Get off your high horse. Smog in cities has been a persistent issue and greedy corporations have always poisoned the water in spite of the existence of the EPA. In many cases the EPA looked the other way because that’s why it’s there; to protect their assets from the law and to prosecute their competitors.

    • You’re completely wrong Dan.

      Your statement was true decades ago, but since its inception state and local governments have all implemented their own environmental protection agencies. And with legislation such as the clean air acts and clean water acts, there will never be a return to the pre 1980’s environmental pollution.

      The Federal EPA has long outlived its productive usefulness and has become nothing more than a weaponized bureaucracy to abuse citizens’ and small business’ private property rights.

    • A regulatory system is needed, but its scope must be narrow or it will continue to grow beyond where the benefits out weight the costs.

      The real problem is corruption thinly disguised as lobbying. The worst words ever uttered by a politician is that “business and government need to work together.” The TV Series ‘Continuum’ revolves around a government in the future controlled by corporations. The reality is that future is now; the difference being the government disguises this fact in a way that would make Orson Welles ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ proud.

    • To echo Rocco’s reply below…just look at the Animas River in Colorado that the EPA turned Orange with toxic waste. Look at what the State of CA allowed at Oroville…massive erosion, downstream river bank collapses, millions of salmon deaths (when a pump failed at a back up hatchery facility)…Lots of examples in the US where if any company or individual did the same they would be ruined.

  2. “Science for Sale” by David L. Lewis, PhD is a great book to read about corruption at the EPA. I highly recommend it. “Sludge magic” indeed.

  3. If and or when the EPA takes the food out of the gas tanks of America’s vehicles, then I will believe.

  4. It’s true I want clean air and water. I also understand that the enviro movement has gone off the rails. I enjoy my air-conditioning in the summer. I want all the benefits of electricity. I do not want someone else to decide how and when I can cook, clean, drive, watch TV or go online. I’m happy with the job Trump is doing so far. Government should spend more time on the big picture of infrastructure and less on the way the ordinary citizens live and work. Do I believe that individuals and businesses will try to get away with illegal environmental issues, you bet I do. Go after them with the full weight of the law. However most people are not. Lately, all our government agencies have been targeting innovation and families. The cost in money and time, the deliberate destruction of families and ordinary people because of the racketeering and collusion of the EPA and environmental groups. The last eight years of the desert we have suffered through is enough. It’s time for common sense. It’s time for real science. It’s time to close the book on chicken little’s lies on the sky is falling.

  5. Unintended consequences:

    Smog returned to London last winter for the first time for many decades because of the Green fad for wood burning stoves in the city

    A tower block burned, killing at least 80 occupants, because of the insistence of the Council be have better Green insulation at the cheapest price.

    • In looking at the reports the panels were no different in insulation properties, but the cheaper they were, the more combustible they became.
      The real cost saver was changing the skin of the panel from Zinc coated steel to Aluminium, the latter burns, the former melts. Press reports suggest a cost saving of over £240K per tower block.

      But you are correct the driver was AGW insulation, to reduced the buildings CO2 energy footprint, pre cladding the building would have retained the fire to internal units.

      Checkout what happens to Aluminium superstructures of warships in the Falklands conflict.

      My thoughts remain with the families of those lost, but carry a determination that those who scrimped, or defrauded should pay a heavy price for their criminality.

  6. listening to naomi oreskes outright lies and mistruths on aus abc radio this sat arvo
    their way to reinforce the slight speech they allowed played by “deniers” they wont use sceptic..
    made me fume
    the evil pollutant co2 etc etc
    epa once DID do s seriously needed job making sure rivers especially were kept cleaner and toxic waste wasnt dumped in them but cleaned first..that was and should pretty much have stayed their remit
    serious chemical pollution on land water air
    co2 is not now and never was or will be a “pollutant”

  7. Unfortunately, the naysayer is correct about American business owners. Remember, there were more then one business involved in the cyuga river fire, each was dumping into the river just a little. But little bits add up. One day the river caught fire. The same for lead solder on pipes. One day you get a acid source in the water, leaching the lead. Flint. You spread enough pesticides, the birds health declines to where they cannot fight off avian flu, fewer birds mean more pesticides, killing the bees, the EPA was here to look at these problems and devise ways to notify the people in those areas of the problems. Then the people could choose a effectively try to correct the problems. But, the few with the bucks, who wanted to be more profitable. EPA also put out data sheets which were a boon to your local emergency services, keeping them a bit safer.

  8. Look up “Regulatory Capture”.

    A interesting economics observation that all regulatory agencies eventually are captured by their industry and act to protect it.

    Regulations tend to favor the huge at the expense of the small. Industry consolidates into the oligopoly that xan afford a few $ Million a yer of “regulatory burden”. Then the only supply of “experts” to provide the mandated expert opinion for “opinion making” is them. Similarly, all the government agency employees know their only career path (other than wating for their boss to die of old age) is with those oligopolies, so rulings that hurt are avoided.

    The end stage is an expensive ineffective and ossified agency, making rulings to protect the favored few, and taking guidence from them.

    Notice that The People are not in this dynamic.

    Liability and tort do a better job of regulating long term. Though short term government rules work better, until regulatory capture sets in. The worst case is when government regulations set the approved method, and it does harm, but luability is avoided as it was in compliance with government regulations.

    Watch for just that defense in the London Fire Tower aftermath. Everyone will point at compluance with law and regulation and claim they had no choice so no liability.

    Yes, upper management of companies can be evil. So can upper management of governments and agencies. At least with companies you have a choice… and can choose the lesser evil.

    The EPA was pretty much done with their job about 1990. Maybe earlier. But needing to justify ever larger budgets and ever larger government control for political ends, have marched well past their “sell by” date.

  9. @Laurel
    – I quite agree, CO2 is not a pollutant, never was, never will be. It is a critical trace constituent of the air that enables life on Earth.
    – ALL carbon-based fuels (coal, oil, nat. gas, wood, dung, and other “biofuels” like corn and oilseed products) produce CO2 as their MAIN PRODUCT upon burning. The heat generated is a “by-product.”
    – Few journalists, politicians, judges, etc. understand that. And the EPA made certain that these facts remained hidden from them.
    – Smoke, smog, sulfur dioxide, particulates, etc. in the air are true pollutants. They can be removed from smoke stacks via scrubbers (as common in North America), can be removed from car exhausts (that’s why they have catalytic converters), and can be kept to ultra-low trace levels with proper technologies.
    – The SAD TRUTH is that the “Anti-CO2-Religion” is causing more problems all over the world by distracting from the real (both pollution and other) challenges. As a result, valuable time and research resources are being wasted to chase non-existent ghosts of “global warming” (later renamed to “climate change”).

Comments are closed.