Supporters of Scott Pruitt’s nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency clearly believe the Oklahoma attorney general would be good for business. A climate denier and avowed foe of the agency he’s poised to head, Pruitt appeals to conservatives because he understands “that regulations affect our property rights, our ability to compete, and our livelihoods,” according Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, III, who joined Pruitt in suing the EPA over air pollution limits. Among the 23 ultra-right groups that signed a statement supporting Pruitt posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute are the Exxon-funded Frontiers of Freedom and several groups tied to the Koch brothers, including the Independent Women’s Voice, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Coal and oil companies are probably correct that Pruitt, whose Senate confirmation hearing will be held Wednesday, would save them money, at least in the short run. The Oklahoma attorney general teamed up with companies that were subject to federal environmental regulations in 13 of his 14 attempts to roll back these measures through the courts. But what about the cost to the public? Although it’s hard to precisely quantify all the devastation a Pruitt EPA could wreak, consider the financial stakes of just one case. In 2011, Pruitt filed suit — along with Murray Energy, Peabody Energy, and Southern Power Company, all of whom donated to Pruitt and his political action committee — against the EPA challenging the agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).
Oklahoma Attorney General and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 6, 2017.
Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
That regulation, first adopted in 2011, aims to limit emissions from coal- and oil-burning power plants in 27 states, pollution that drifts into other states in the form of soot and ozone, also known as smog. Conservative groups have balked at the estimated cost of its implementation: $800 million, according to a regulatory impact analysis done by the EPA.
But the cost of not putting the rule in place is far greater, according to the same analysis. By reducing CO2 emissions, the rule would avert significant costs from climate-related incidents, such as floods, droughts, rising sea levels, and damage to coastlines. And because smog and soot cause illnesses and sometimes even death, limiting emissions can amount to between $120 and $280 billion in health savings annually.
That startling sum represents the cost of vast human suffering, including:
- 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma
- 1.8 million days of missed work and school
- 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and
- Up to 34,000 premature deaths
Pruitt lost his suit in 2014, when the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of upholding the Cross-State pollution rule. But as head of the EPA, he would be in a position to undermine this rule and others that would save both money and lives.
Protecting Americans from the health consequences of pollution is part of EPA’s mission. According to John Walke, director of the Clean Air Project and Climate and Clean Air Program at Natural Resources Defense Council, Pruitt’s decision to make them secondary to business interests “reveals not just a fierce opposition to health and environmental protections but an antipathy toward the U.S. EPA that he wants to head.”
Top photo: Heavy smog shrouds the Los Angeles city skyline on May 31, 2015.
Climate Denier! What a ridiculous coined phrase to make those who don’t buy every piece of the made up B.S. climate scientist have put together to forward their agenda.
Obama fired top scientist who’s truth did not line up with his agenda! Deny that!
This is the kind of sloppy journalism that feeds the hatred of climate change deniers and capitalists. In a probabilistic world, practically anything “could” happen. Part of the problem in dealing with the hidden costs of pollution is correctly assessing them. Doing so is extremely difficult, especially in a scientifically illiterate society such as ours. Making grandiose claims does nothing to help the situation.
A better approach would be to study the effects of the regulations that are about to be rolled back, to instill in the minds of the public what progress had been made so that at a later time they can conclude for themselves whether the regulations were worthwhile after all. The only effective way to convince them that unfettered capitalism is harming them is by demonstrating it to them using their very own experiences.
To see how truly stupid we are, I suggest you read Michael Lewis’ latest book.
Hydrogen cars and LFTR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
We are getting our asses whipped by a combination of absurdly stupid people and moderately clever tactics. I mean, have a look at the Drudge Report’s latest foaming-at-the-mouth rampage, delivered courtesy of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/
Yes, you can supposedly make $2500 a month protesting things like Trump’s inauguration. Let’s go, eh?! Their incontrovertible source for this is a Backpage.com ad (in two dozen cities, mind) leading back to the Demand Protest mystery web site. That site sounds like a mercenary operation in tone, and doesn’t even promise to be anti-Trump; they just have the “ad” out and an interface that lets clever, active liberals turn in all their friends and social media accounts for someone’s perusal. You think there’s a law that says that people who post a job actually have to hire someone?
And so now the entire conservative media has the homeopathic advertising it was looking for. Everyone knows the right wingers are paid mercenaries for despicable people, so they set out a narrative where everybody else is. Everyone knows that the Boss Class gets paid big money for doing nothing, so they make their dumbass believers think that protesters are getting paid big money for doing practically nothing, running around six times a year maybe.
There’s a reason why liberals consistently have higher IQ and academic performance than conservatives. You have to be really dumb to believe that stuff. And yet … that’s where our environmental policy is coming from now. From the best tricksters, people too smart for their own good, followed by their herds of domesticated followers.
Anyone who honestly believes that liberals are mentally superior to conservatives has obviously never encountered William F. Buckley. Moreover, how can anyone make that claim given the intellectual bankruptcy of their most recent presidential candidate? She is so mentally challenged that she discounted the possibility that the electorate would see her for the double dealing hypocrite that she is.
What about the current EPA, Sharon? Did you know they successfully fought environmental groups that went to court to force the EPA to stop seed coating with neonics. This court decision will allow the continued devastation of bee populations.
““It is astounding that a judge, EPA or anyone with any common sense would not regulate this type of toxic pesticide ”
– Andrew Kimbrell, Director of the Center for Food Safety
(Obama is truly the Bees Knees)
Or what about Obama’s EPA and their recent push to massively increase allowable radioactive levels in drinking water.? The proposed limits for some particles are 10,000 times Safe Drinking Water Act limits.
““The Safe Drinking Water Act is a federal law; it cannot be nullified or neutered by regulatory ‘guidance.’”
– PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch
Moral of the story: Liberals don’t care about the environment or rising healthcare costs resulting from its degradation. They brush under the rug of their cognitive dissonance serious and dangerous positions by the EPA when a ‘D’ President is in office and only sound their fake alarm when an ‘R’ is in office.
If Sharon wanted to educate herself, she could write a compare and contrast of Trump’s EPA pick and Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick in 2008 … both are hardcore enemies of the environment.
Let us study the Obama/Trump continuities … not the bread and circus of safe-space liberals.
You are absolutely correct. The Obama administration compiled a truly dismal record on the environment, starting almost at day one, when they torpedoed the Copenhagen talks. For the first two years of his administration they controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency, and did NOTHING except pass a deeply flawed health care bill that is about to be repealed.
In the US, the very notions of so-called conservatism and liberalism have been rendered obsolete by the rise of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism, which are two different names for the same thing: corporatism. Virtually every major political office holder has received the bulk of his or her campaign financing from large corporations, and, quid pro quo be damned, will do whatever is necessary to keep that money flowing. Even a moron knows that doing that means serving the interests of those corporations.
This is all perfectly easy to understand. The costs of providing healthcare to the victims of Pruitt’s hands-off approach to polluters and pollution — as well as, perhaps, someday, the costs of cleaning up the worsening environmental mess — are all additions to the GDP.
So, the polluters, the healthcare industry and (maybe) future remediators all make money.
Regulatory capture: it’s good for business and promotes growth. Make America great again.
“Create the problem, sell the cure,” I get it … But it’s a big data scheme, and in the end, that data is great until it’s not, and when it’s not, Pruitt and his boys will lose. For example, does the data factor in every possible clean energy advancement unknown to us at the moment? Nope, because it can’t. They’ll be left holding the bag and the pipelines all stuffed inside it, soon enough.
[smiles]
You and Benito should form a comedy duo!
This is the third publication today that hasn’t raised my eyebrows one bit. I feel jaded.