Environmental Protection Agency

Trump EPA Nominee: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt

Lots of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending by progressives soon to follow

|

EPAlogo
EPA

President-elect Donald Trump, according to various press reports, has selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as his nominee to head up the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is a fierce opponent of the Obama administration's climate change agenda. Specifically, Pruitt is one of the leaders in the federal lawsuit challenging the legality of Obama's Clean Power Plan that would cut by 2030 U.S. power plant emissions of carbon dioxide about a third. In a 2014 op-ed in The Hill explaining his opposition to the CPP, Pruitt asserted:

Imagine a rule that raises the cost of electricity, hurts the most poor among us, cuts domestic jobs and results in a dramatic re-shaping of the American electricity system. Now imagine that this rule was never voted on by Congress.

This is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, a rule that undercuts the states' abilities to manage their own power grid and will raise the cost of energy dramatically.

Those hurt most by the Clean Power Plan will be the most vulnerable among us-the poor, the single mothers, the elderly and minorities. Households earning less than $10,000 per year spend an astounding 60-80 percent of income on energy costs, and those earning between $10,000 and $30,000 per year spend greater than 20 percent of their income on energy. It is no surprise that the inability to pay utility bills is a leading cause of homelessness in U.S.

The EPA's proposed rule could increase the typical household's annual electricity and natural gas bills by $680, or 35 percent, by 2020, escalating each year thereafter as EPA regulations grow more stringent, according to a study by Energy Venture Analysis.

As I earlier reported on the EPA's dubious CPP math, Obama administration EPA analysts projected that the economic effects of CPP will be minimal, raising retail electricity prices by around 1 percent by 2030 and decreasing employment by only 30,000 job-years. In addition, the EPA's regulatory impact analysis esimates that the annual global climate benefits using a standard 5 percent discount rate would sum to $6.4 billion by 2030. In addition, the co-benefits—mostly improved health stemming from cleaner air—from reduced coal-burning would amount in 2030 to between $13 and $34 billion per year.

Not surprisingly, David Arkush, managing director of the climate program at the activist group Public Citizen, denounced the choice in a statement:

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a terrible choice to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is cozy with the oil and gas industry and treats the EPA like an enemy. Both of those positions put him at odds with what the American people want and what's best for the country.

Sam Adams, director of the World Resources Institute, agrees:

The selection of Attorney General Pruitt, who has consistently questioned climate science and actively fought EPA's ability to reduce emissions, raises deeply troubling questions. The critical issue is whether EPA will continue to play its vital role in protecting people's health and safety in communities across the country.

Trump met with climate warrior Al Gore earlier this week to talk about climate change. Nominating Pruitt suggests that the former V-P was not persuasive on the issue.

NEXT: Trump to Nominate Gen. Kelly to DHS, Scott Pruitt to EPA, Terry Bransted to China Ambassador, Philly Judge Rejects Jill Stein Request to Digitally Audit Voting Machines, Days Are Getting Longer: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump EPA Nominee: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt

    ANOTHER fucking General?!

    *** regains composure ***

    Well, if he gets rid of that god-awful logo ….

    1. It is a military coup!!

    2. Not to worry. I hear Captain Crunch is first in line for FDA.

      1. I heard it was going to be Major SideEffect.

      2. The Cap’n would be a much better choice to head CDC and get rid of Tommy “Toothsucker” Frieden.

    3. General Disarray for Sec of HHS!

  2. Lots of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending by progressives soon to follow

    I will not listen to them unless they cast ashes on their heads, old testament style.

    1. And rend their garments.

      1. No one wants to see progs naked. So…pasty.

  3. Lots of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending by progressives soon to follow

    Isn’t that pretty much a given no matter what?

    1. But this guy is from Oklahoma and connected to the evil petroleum industry. They are going to lose their fucking minds over this. It is going to be wonderful.

      1. Just when I was getting a salty-ham-tears-hangover, too. Glorious.

        1. I had to have my orphans stack the tear barrels so high that it’s now a daily occurrence that I lose an orphan or 2 to falling tear barrels.

        2. This tear train is never going to end!!

  4. Pruitt’s nomination is a breath of fresh air.

    1. Lost in the ozone again, R B?

  5. This is by far and away the best nomination Trump has come up with yet. The EPA more than any other federal entity other than maybe the FED does more to keep Americans poor. Those assholes do more damage. This is great.

    1. Yes, it looks that way. I was beginning to worry when Trump met with Gore.

      If the only good thing about Trump is draining the EPA swamp, he will be better than Hillary. That’s a low hurdle, but it’s a big, nasty swamp.

      By the way, it’s good to see that Californian, Oregonian, and Washingtonian progressives are beginning to understand the 10th Amendment. If the Trump refuse to sacrifice the economy to Gaia in the way they want, they can still ban hydrocarbons in their own states. They can provide an example for the other states, but no fair cheating by importing electricity or hydrocarbon-based products.

      1. IF they actually believed in the 10th Amendment and wouldn’t put the boot on any state they didn’t like if they were ever in power, I would be sympathetic. As it is, fuck em. Treat them the way they always claimed the feds should treat the states. States rights is just a racist dog whistle.

      2. “no fair cheating by importing electricity or hydrocarbon-based products.” hahahaha that is exactly their plan and what they have been doing for years. NIMBY means you can pollute your own state to sell them electricity, just not theirs –of course CO2 goes everywhere…

        1. CO2 isn’t pollution. I really don’t care if it’s emitted locally.

          Also, it’s easy to calculate indirect emissions.

      3. Ah, that could be it. Maybe it went something like this:

        Milania: “So, Al, I admire your work and it would be nice if most of it continued. There are a lot of great candidates out there, from universities to Hollywood. But who do you think would be a very bad choice?”

        Gore: “That Sssssscott Pruett is such a sssssavage knuckle dragging neanderthal …”

        Milania: “Thanks Al, so nice to meet you and have a nice day.”

        Gore: “Sssssso about that massssssage, can I get it on the bed?”

        Milania: “Security, you know what to do. Just do it gently. Don’t want to excite anybody.”

        1. I know it’s supposed to be Al Gore, but I can only seem to read it in the Futurama Nixon voice.

      4. The 10th amendment isn’t supposed to be about banning things.

    2. C’mon Ron even said these regulations that Trump is going to do away with would only increase prices by 1%. However, considering that Obama also said Health care would be less expensive after Obamacare passed, the skys the limit on the increase in electrical prices if these regulations are allowed to stand.

  6. Lots of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending by progressives soon to follow

    Imagine the amount of fossil fuel and water wasted on the outrage though.

    1. Dude loves puppies, so there.

  7. “treats the EPA like an enemy”

    But now they’ll be friends. Trump bringing people together.

    1. Consider him a frenemy.

  8. Lots of teeth-gnashing and garment-rending by progressives soon to follow

    Please, government, create more burdensome regulations so that there won’t be any jobs!

    Hey, I can’t get a job!

    /progtard

    1. You really can’t overstate how stupid they are. They honestly believe not only that we could afford to just use solar and wind for electricity but that doing so would make us rich. Letting Progs determine energy and environmental policy is no different than appointing to run HHS a faith healer whose solution for providing medical care to the old is a national program of prayer. They are that fucking stupid.

      1. Well, every time someone tries to overstate how stupid they are, the next thing you know, they say or do exactly what you say even though you what you said was intended as sarcasm or hyperbole. I agree, every time you think they can’t be THAT stupid, they’re going to prove you wrong.

  9. “The critical issue is whether EPA will continue to play its vital role in protecting people’s health and safety in communities across the country.”

    Assuming facts not in evidence.

    1. They’d have to start, first…

  10. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a terrible choice to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is cozy with the oil and gas industry and treats the EPA like an enemy. Both of those positions put him at odds with what the American people want and what’s best for the country.

    Yes clearly the American public chooses an agency that fines the crap out of them over issues they never voted on, over an industry that provides products they willing buy in mass quantities daily.

    1. The arrogance of the EPA isn’t just limited to how they ruined people- small time harmless actors – by using the Clean Water Act as a club. There are all kinds of civil sanctions that get piled onto myriad of stupid “infractions.” Rather than the ostensible goal of helping some hapless actors correct, they are at liberty to wield the club of fines to scare out large cash shakedowns. Pruitt claims to want to reform an out of control bureaucracy, and I support that. I hope he castrates his own agency to the full capabilities of his authority.

  11. Now lets just get Alex Epstein as head of the DOE and we can really get a salty tear stew going.

    1. Alex Epstein! Excellent choice for DOE. And Peter Schiff for the Fed, as noted by commenter Atananarivo here.

      1. Unfortunately Yellen’s term does not end until 2018. I think you also have to be on the Board first to be Chair of the Board too. Those terms are 14 years.

        1. Thermodynamics might intervene before 2018. You seen Ol’ Yeller give a speech lately?

        2. No, the president can appoint anyone to be FED chair. They technically don’t have more power than any other governor, they just run the meetings.

      2. Ha, I’ve actually heard of that Madagascan city from some reading years ago on plant communities native to the island, but had to google to remind myself.

        I’m actually named after a movie about an Inuit legend or something.

  12. EPA’s costs and benefits calculation are hilariously made up numbers. For benefits, they use the social cost of carbon, which is based on very alarmist scenarios of warming and the damage it causes, plus numerous other added fudge factors. For the costs, they claimed that no coal plants would be closed because of the rule, since no one would be building them anyway with gas being cheap. However, if you try to run all coal plants on nat gas, it becomes no longer cheap. It also represents direct control of the grid by the feds.

  13. The EPA needs to be treated as an enemy, they are waging a jihad against every American that dosnt work for them.

    1. Funny thing is, the progs want the EPA to be the enemy of anybody within their domain.

      1. There are two things you are allowed to do in prog-topia:

        1. Find a job from the ever-shrinking list of jobs that have been approved by all the right-thinking people
        2. Collect a welfare check, vote for them, and otherwise STFU unless it advances their political interests

  14. We’ll all be enjoying salt water soon enough, when the oceans swallow the coasts.

    Good grief, folks. I was just getting over the stereotype of libertarians as a bunch of entitled college sophomores who didn’t give a crap about anyone but themselves, and then I read comments like these.

    What about the libertarian tears? Libertarian ideals (and despite my first two paragraphs here, I still have a few of them) took a walloping in this election. It wasn’t just that Gary Johnson was apparently too stoned to read up on the news. The GOP took what was left of its libertarian wing out back and shot it.

    But if you’d rather have a president spend money on a wall (OK, fortified fence or whatever he’s claiming now) instead of trying to stave off long-term environmental disaster (which, we should remember, will cause long-term economic disaster), all with a vice president whose attitudes on social issues are straight out of Puritanism, then are you “libertarian” in the first place?

    1. Good grief, folks. I was just getting over the stereotype of libertarians as a bunch of entitled college sophomores who didn’t give a crap about anyone but themselves, and then I read comments like these.

      You obviously have us confused with those other anti-Trumpers in Portland.

    2. We’ll all be enjoying salt water soon enough, when the oceans swallow the coasts.

      Did you glean this from the Mayan calendar or Biblical numerology?

      1. Yes.

    3. libertarians … didn’t give a crap about anyone but themselves

      Right, the people whose standard of living has been materially diminished by the EPA’s regulatory overreach are all a bunch of self-serving libertarians.

    4. Hahajahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. Where’s the obligatory “denier” pejorative?

      1. I think they’ve moved on to “anti-science” now because it sounds better.

        1. I like the “denier” shit better because it sounds like some creepy accusation hurled at heretics during the Spanish Inquisition.

          1. That is the most likely reason for the change. If you don’t want to look like a cult, maybe don’t act like a cult so much.

            1. New incoming regime means tactical regroup, which means a new lexicon. There’s been some duds out of the marketing department over past couple years though; climate ‘weirding’ for instance came and went like New Coke.

    5. You don’t seem to understand how this works. We’re wrapping up 8 years of Mr. Hopey Changey doubling down on the worst of the Bush policies. The Libertarian Party did marginally better in an election featuring the two worst candidates for President in modern times. That butt hurt you’re feeling now is how I’ve felt after every election cycle for the last 25 years. But to see Hillary go down in flames to a buffoon like Trump is just delicious to Libertarians. The hand-wringing over executive over reach after you and your ilk spent 8 years shitting on the Constitution is also delicious.

      After January, we’ll get 4-8 years to bitch about what an abomination Trump is. But for the next 6 weeks or so, we will console ourselves and fortify ourselves for the upcoming administration by drinking of your salty ham tears, comrade.

      1. Ooooh … “comrade”! Nice one!

        But where’s “bleeding heart”? I’m so disappointed.

        Seriously — I grew up Libertarian and outgrew it a bit when I got into the real world and saw that not all poor people are jerks who deserve it (and that “trickled-down” theory doesn’t solve the problem). But I also found that most people who espoused Libertarian ideals were fighting for their right to piss out of dorm-room windows and coming up with rationalizations for not giving a crap about other people or the long-term future of the planet.

        And yet, I’m here because I think Libertarians have something to offer, especially as we deal with Mr. Authoritarian Bully-Boy as our next president. You weren’t particularly attached to reproductive rights, gay rights and free trade, were you?

  15. X is a terrible choice to run the Y. X treats the Y like an enemy.

    Please let us hear this formula for many more govt organizations Y.

  16. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,513 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  17. Woah. wait. Look at the quote from the Attorney General and do a little math. It is great to worry about the poor. as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..21012.html points out, $30K is 53% of the population. But, I live in Northern VA have a wife, 2 kids, 2 dogs, a cat. Money is very tight for my wife and I so we have maintained a google spreadsheet of all my electric bills since May 2008–water and gas since sep 2010. The average monthly bill for electric is $145/month, Gas $63 and water $57 or $265/month and $3180/year. If I only make $10K/year(which according to the huffingtonpost.com link is 24.2% of the U.S. population), that is only 32% of my yearly income spent on utilities. If 60-80% of their yearly income is spent on utilities that would be $6K to $8K/year which is double or more what I spend. Are you going to tell me that utilities in Northern VA are 50% cheaper than in Oklahoma? really? Or is the math that Attorney General Pruitt used in his 2014 op-ed a little off?

  18. I forgot gas. $150/month on gas for my cars. for about $5K. that is still $1K+ less than what the op-ed claims.

  19. You idiots who want to gut the EPA. Ever consider trying to work with the EPA to reform their bad ideas? Every big public organization will have inefficiencies and well intentioned policies gone bad. But for some to want to destroy the EPA is ridiculous. Do you really want the US to have more Flints? The reaction to Flint should have been to hire better EPA administrators who could have acted as a better check on the incompetent and indifferent MI local government authorities. I lived in pittsburgh through the dark ages when my childhood pics had smoke everywhere and the rivers were crap.

    Funny thing about some of the conservatives who pose as libertarians. They have no problem enforcing the height of your lawn because they value visual pollution more than air and water pollution. (I do not live in a subdivision, so I should be able to maintain my yard the way I want, but nooo, there are many city codes. Yet, I rarely see any conservatives complain ).

    Sierra Club at one time had more republicans. Republicans are conceding the environmental safety issues to the left and when you do that , you end up with the left controlling the agenda for good or bad. The environment needs to be bipartisan for the best ideas to thrive. You want to hire someone to head the EPA not because they want to gut it or strip it of all power, but want ot make it better so it can use the feedback from the public to safeguard our water and air.

  20. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  21. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  22. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  23. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.