EPA Chief Gears up to Kill Planet: Requests Bodyguards

April 12, 2017

If the government is cruel, the governor’s life is not safe.Emerson

Scott Pruitt knows exactly what he’s doing, and he has some big plans for you.

He apparently knows that, if you’re going to be serious about killing and poisoning people’s children, you better get some protection.

Quartz:

While the draft budget for the EPA obtained by the Washington Post this month shows massive cuts to environment, health, and climate change programs—including the elimination of a program to prevent childhood exposure to lead paint—it also includes a request to hire 10 additional security guards to create an around-the-clock personal security detail for Pruitt, the New York Times reports.

The Times calls it a first for an EPA chief, and notes that the 10 additional agents would more than double the agency’s current security staff, which has hovered between six and eight agents in recent years. Similarly, security detail for education secretary Betsy DeVos has reached unprecedented levels: Typically, the secretary of education is guarded by about six agents from within the Department of Education. Since her contentious confirmation, DeVos has been under the protection of the US Marshals Service, costing $8 million over eight months.

Famously, Mr. Pruitt, with no science background himself, second guesses the overwhelming consensus on climate change. But that’s just the beginning. In Mr Pruitt’s universe, toxic poisons, like asbestos, are innocent until proven guilty.

Sokolovlaw:

One of the most important pieces of legislation passed last year was the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The Act overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was passed in 1976. The TSCA “grandfathered” in thousands of chemicals that were in use at the time, and the EPA had no framework to evaluate the safety of those chemicals.

On January 13, the EPA began this much needed process of evaluation to make sure that Americans are not exposed to toxic chemicals.

At his Senate hearing, Mr. Pruitt did pledge to uphold the Frank R. Lautenberg Act, but his answers on asbestos were flavored by his hallmark reticence of information. Consider the following telling exchange between Senator Markey (D-MA):

Sen. Markey: Asbestos is banned in 55 countries across the globe and the World Health Organization says, quote, “all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans”. More than 30 Americans die each day from diseases like asbestosis and cancer caused by asbestos . . . Do you agree with Mr. Trump that asbestos is 100 percent safe once applied or that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob?

Hon. Mr. Pruitt: Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate.

It’s a strange and dodgy answer, given that the science is very clear on the dangers posed by asbestos. If Mr. Pruitt is in charge of the EPA, it’s hard not to think that big business will have a hand in the evaluation process. There is just too much at stake to let this happen.

Quartz:

In the past few years, he has cast doubt on one of the central findings of climate science. He has sued the EPA to block it from enforcing rules against regional smog and airborne mercury pollution. At one point, he copy-and-pasted a letter from an oil company onto official state letterhead, added his signature, and mailed it to the agency he will soon run.

He even has a long-running kerfuffle about chickenshit. Drew Edmondson, Pruitt’s predecessor, alleged that Tyson Foods and other poultry companies were dumping too much chicken manure into the Illinois River. The river had become choked with toxic algae. But after becoming attorney general in 2011, Pruitt dropped that case, downgrading it to a voluntary investigation. He simultaneously dismantled his office’s in-house environmental-protection unit. The poultry industry later donated at least $40,000 to his reelection campaign.

Amid all of this, though, some critics have focused on an environmental problem of a more cinematic variety: human-made earthquakes.

Oklahoma has been ailed this decade by an “induced-earthquake” problem, the consequences of which have wrecked walls, windows, and property values around the state. In a normal year—that is, in almost any before 2009—the state only saw one or two quakes. It now experiences one to two quakes per day. In 2015, it endured 857 earthquakes with a magnitude of 3.0 or higher, more than struck the rest of the lower 48 states combined.

These tremors are not naturally occurring. They are caused by wastewater injection, a process in which million of gallons of salty water are pumped deep underground. This water is often a by-product of fracking, the natural-gas mining process that has spread across the country and revolutionized the U.S. energy industry.

During Pruitt’s time as attorney general, Oklahoma developed the worst human-made-earthquake problem in the country. The state as a whole was slow to deal with the problem, and, for many years, it did not admit the quakes had a human origin. After that, it neglected to rapidly slow the rate of wastewater injection. This has allowed medium-scale earthquakes to continue: In November, a 5.0-magnitude quake damaged the structures of downtown Cushing, Oklahoma.

 

Advertisements

34 Responses to “EPA Chief Gears up to Kill Planet: Requests Bodyguards”

  1. Ron Voisin Says:

    No rational evaluator of the evidence could conclude that CO2 is the primary control knob for the planet.

    And no rational evaluator of the evidence could conclude that the science is settled.

    • lesliegraham1 Says:

      Do you like soccer? Do you support any of the English Prem teams?
      I’d like to know who is your favourite player.

    • schwadevivre Says:

      You seem to be using a definition of rational at odds with the dictionary.

      There isn’t a “control knob” – that is the sort of simplistic mechanistic thinking typical of engineers.

      There is settled science that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas.

      There is settled science that the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has an isotopic mix of carbon matching that of the carbon found in fossil fuels

      There is settled science that the increase in atmospheric CO2 predicts the increasing temperature anomalies.

      There is settled science that increasing temperature increases variability in the oceanic and atmospheric circulation driving weather and climate.

      A rational evaluator would therefor conclude that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is the source of the increase in CO2

      A rational evaluator would conclude that the CO2 added by humans us the primary cause of global warming.

      A rational evaluator would conclude that the climate change is a direct result of human use of fossil fuels.

      • Ron Voisin Says:

        That’s the meme.

        There’s much more than that going on.

      • Ron Voisin Says:

        One at a time:
        There is settled science that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Yes there is!

        There is settled science that the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has an isotopic mix of carbon matching that of the carbon found in fossil fuels
        Nope. This has been debunked.

        There is settled science that the increase in atmospheric CO2 predicts the increasing temperature anomalies.
        Nope. This only exists in “tuned” models. The same models might just as well have been “tuned” to the Sun or pirate attacks.

        There is settled science that increasing temperature increases variability in the oceanic and atmospheric circulation driving weather and climate.
        Nope. The observed temperature increases are concentrated at the poles; that diminishes the thermal gradient that drives storms; and as NOAA points out…severe weather is decreasing as a result.

        A rational evaluator would therefor conclude that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is the source of the increase in CO2
        Most likely untrue. But hell…just in case let’s turn our economy upside down while we deny clean water and sanitation to a quarter of the worlds population.

        A rational evaluator would conclude that the CO2 added by humans us the primary cause of global warming.
        See previous

        A rational evaluator would conclude that the climate change is a direct result of human use of fossil fuels.
        I’d love to give a less confrontational answer, but “not so” is as charitable as I can be.

        • schwadevivre Says:

          Who has “debunked” the isotopic ratios of Carbon? I think you are just making that up.

          So explain the actual matching CO2/temperature graphs or are you going to claim they are all part of some big conspiracy?

          What part of the word “circulation” do you not understand? and, of course, you utterly ignore the fact that the latent heat in your ignorant diatribe. Oh and where did I mention storms?

          Your next are just an unsupported claims based on no more than your utter ignorance and prejudice.

          Do not try quoting Watts the is like you an idiot

    • schwadevivre Says:

      You’re a lunatic.

      There is no such thing as a control knob but there is such a thing as an anthropogenic CO2 excess.

      The science has long been settled.

      Fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are driving the rise of CO2 to 400 ppm a level not seen for 4 million years.

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a fact know for more than 150 years.

      The temperature of the troposphere is rising while the temperature of the stratosphere is falling ie heat is trapped in the troposphere

      In the ocean the thermocline is moving lower in the water column and sea level rise entirely due to thermal expansion is a proven fact.

      Ice mass at both poles, Greenland, the Himalayas, the Rockies, the Andes and the Caucasus is dropping precipitately

    • schwadevivre Says:

      Anthony Watts is not a rational evaluator. He is an ignoramus servicing the preferences of fossil fuel industry financiers.

      Researchers in those industries, for example Shell and Exxon, concluded that anthropogenic climate change exists back 40 or 50 years ago

      • Tom Bates Says:

        How do you know what you claim. Exactly what things are you claiming are not truthful? All I see is hate and more hate from wackos which is the reason the EPA needs more cops.

        One way to evaluate warming claims is to look at ocean rise.
        http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1619000
        at 3 inches in 100 years trend, not much warming is going on.

        Another way is to measure actual CO2 warming.
        http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
        which is 4150 times less than average solar warming. or by 2100, 0.038F warmer than in 2000.

        • schwadevivre Says:

          The truth is Watts fills his blogs with half truths and distortion and gives credence to disreputable and possibly fraudulent commentators.

          Let’s look at the way you and Watts lie and distort sea level rise. 3″ in 100 years? Which 100 years? I suspect you are selectively quoting the estimated rise due to thermal expansion which utterly ignores any contribution from grounded sea ice and loss of Greenlamd and Antarctic ice caps.

          For your information in the 24 years since 1993 sea level has risen 88 mm (3.4 in) in the 100 years since 1910 sea level has risen 210 mm (8.25 in) These figures prove you and Watts to be little more than common conmen

          Frankly any figures you quote cannot be trusted and your views are as incoherent as those of the Flat earth community.

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      You are aware that WUWT has been expanded as We Use Wishful Thinking are you not.

      Whatever, you fit right in with that mantra being something of a knob (a term once oft used for somebody behaving in an idiotic manner).

      As for CO2 and ‘control knobs’ Dr. Richard Alley has laid it out well.

    • Ron Voisin Says:

      Wow…the Ronald D Voisin fella over at WUWT has nailed it. His logic is inescapably compelling.

      • funslinger62 Says:

        Ron Voisin, if you’ve nailed “it” why not get “it” published in a reputable journal and earn a Nobel? Oh, right. That’s because “it’s” utter nonsense.


    • WUWT? How we laughed.

  2. Gingerbaker Says:

    ” if you’re going to be serious about killing and poisoning people’s children, you better get some protection.”

    From your lips to the ears of all. Killing our children is exactly what AGW deniers are doing.

    Hear that, Ron?

    • Ron Voisin Says:

      I hear that I just don’t believe that. But…energy starving a quarter of the world’s population is surely killing other people’s children.

      • schwadevivre Says:

        Energy starving?

        Fossil fuels and nuclear CANNOT provide energy to the quarter of the world’s population you invoke with such ignorance because there is no grid or distribution chain to get that energy to them.

        OTOH local renewable energy such as wind, solar and, for vehicles, biomass can provide such energy.

        Essentially you are a dupe mouthing the pious platitudes of irrelevant pundits.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        “energy starving a quarter of the world’s population is surely killing other people’s children.”

        What a fracking liar you are! Free energy from the sky at a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels is the exact opposite of energy starvation.

        Seriously – just go away.

        • Ron Voisin Says:

          I guess then that there is simply no way this last quarter of human population can hope to come out of poverty the way that the first three-quarters.

  3. Gingerbaker Says:

    “No rational evaluator of the evidence could conclude that CO2 is the primary control knob for the planet.”

    Unless you happen to believe in the laws of physics.

    Good grief, man, this is not rocket science. It is a very easy intelligence test – and you have flunked it. Just tattoo “I am a moron” on your forehead and be done with it. You will impress more people than with your commentary here.

    God what a putz.

  4. webej Says:

    Real populists, these administrators who need to double their body guard detail.

    Administrators to not necessarily have to have affinity with science or education, if they defer to people who do have the understanding. Even if an administrator were a physicist, you don’t expect them to actually get involved with the content of research and policy … you would think they have their hands full getting the organization to run properly: after all, you don’t even expect actual researchers to reach over and get involved in the results of other projects where they lack familiarity and expertise. Generally speaking you expect a division of labor to enhance the result, not somebody to pull rank and supplant the accumulated expertise.

    These people have not been put in charge, they are there to lead a coup; saboteurs that have infiltrated the organization.

    Of course it’s very important to continue this debate, while cutting off funding for any type of research that may bring more considerations to light. Continuing the debat is obviously best served if there is no new input … then we can continue this important debate forever. After all, how better to express the importance of a debate than by arranging all the conditions around it so that it will be perpetual.

    These people need guards because they are dirty traitors.

  5. Sir Charles Says:

    Who is this troll Ron Voisin (I’m not on Fakebook) citing fossil fuel shill Anthony Watts as his only “evidence”? Do we really need to read all his rubbish?

    Here, troll, just for a start:

    • dumboldguy Says:

      You ask who the troll Ron Voisin is? From “About the Author” appended to his bullshit “paper” on WUWT.

      “Ronald D. Voisin is a retired engineer. He spent 27 career years in the Semiconductor Lithography Equipment industry mostly in California’s Silicon Valley. Since retiring in 2007, Ron has made a hobby of studying climate change and has been internet-publishing his thoughts regarding climate change since 2005. Ron received a BSEE degree in 1978 and has held various management positions at both established semiconductor equipment companies and start-ups he helped initiate”.

      In other words, Ron is a dilletante, a climate change “hobbyist” with NO background in any of the sciences that would give him some credible expertise on climate change. He operates from an ideological position of denialism and politics, not scientific analysis of observable facts, and is a classic Dunning Kruger example—-just like those thousands of “engineers” that signed the Oregon Petition. That’s who he is—–feel free to ignore him/

  6. ubrew12 Says:

    Scott ‘Shoot-it’ is going to need protection from his own children in a few years.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: