The EPA Polluter, Scott Pruitt, Was (and is) Anti-EPA

This is an excerpt from the 2018 Steve Dustcircle book, Trump’s Cabinet: The Rise of Each Appointed Deplorable, available in ebook and paperback from The book contains links to multiple references and citations.


The reason the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exists is to—redundantly put—protect the environment. The person in charge of the EPA makes sure that not only is our environment (air, earth and water) is health today, but will remain so tomorrow. When the environment is protected and nurtured, a more ideal life can thrive, both in the forms of plants and animals (which includes humans).

The concerns over how we humans treat the environment, either by individual, by corporation, or by nation, are great. In staggering bewilderment, there are non-scientists who deny the evidence of climate change and global instability.

The EPA should be employed and ran by scientists, and a futurist or two within its ranks couldn’t hurt anything. We have yet to see either in the new appointee.

E. Scott Pruitt, former governor, senator and Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, is known for being against the EPA’s “activist agenda.” He is very anti anti-pollution, which is strange that he is now in charge of the very agency he vowed to get rid of.

He has rejected the fact of climate change, calling it a Chinese hoax and fraud, of which he recanted at his confirmation hearing to Senator Ed Markey. He also wrongfully said that because of President Obama, we couldn’t use hairspray anymore.

His knowledge about the environment is highly lacking, and he erroneously claimed in the National Review that “scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” He ran along these lines in his confirmation hearing with Senator Bernie Sanders.

The idea that climate change is not caused by humanshas been debunked, but is vastly ignored for some reason by the scientifically illiterate. Humans’ actions are largely to blame for the planet’s warming, and most scientists have known and proclaimed this since the 1990s. Since then, the consensus has grown and almost no scientist would rebuttal this fact. The main debate is: to what extent?

As an broad-stroke endorser of President Trump’s policies and promises, Pruitt will likely be used—along with his legal knowledge—to tackle the regulations that the previous EPA and presidential administration had set up.

He is actually considered by Governing magazine as being “sue-happy.” He is known to have filed lawsuits every chance he got, even previously against his own EPA. Regarding former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Scott Pruitt was the first person to file a lawsuit against the new health care options.

The Clean Air Act (and the Clean Power Plan, which aligns the U.S. into compliance with the Paris Agreement) has been Pruitt’s favorite target. In 2014, he sued to block the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, which protected national parks and the air around them.

While he won several lawsuits in the past, he lost this case. He also sued and lost against a law restricting how much mercury could be dumped into the air by dirty coal plants. He also tried and failed to keep many Sierra Club’s lawsuits from being settled by the EPA. That case was dismissed by the judge.

Pruitt has also filed a lawsuit to ensure the continued depletion of the Ozone layer, a case yet to be heard. Sadly, he doesn’t care about how the thinning of the ozone layer is the increased cause of asthma and premature infant deaths.

Professionals say that the main contributors to climate change are natural gas, burning oil and generating coal. All three—hand-in-hand—Pruitt courts with passion.

In the past, Scott Pruitt has worked closely with environment-crippling corporations like oil and gas in order to attack environment-protecting plans. He has filed papers using his letterhead and signature, with work on it done by Devon Energy lawyers and attorneys. Devon Energy has also donated large amounts of money to Pruitt’s own Republican Attorneys General Association.

He was asked by Oklahoma County District Judge Aletia Haynes to release his emails between himself and these fossil fuel companies. Even as of recent, his office still denies access to these courting and romancing records with the big three. There are allegedly thousands of emails. This is one request of about 50, claims Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Pruitt had instituted Oklahoma’s first federalism unit to protect the federal government from “unwarranted regulation and overreach.” Ironically, it’ll be interesting to see what he does in each state being in charge of a federal agency.

Ken Kimmell of the Union of Concerned Scientists said that Scott Pruitt is at best an inappropriate choice to head the EPA, saying, “The EPA plays an absolutely vital role in enforcing long-standing policies that protect the health and safety of Americans.” Our safety and health can now be at risk.

Interesting to add, he’s pro-fracking (where the ground is drilled and high-pressure water is torpedoed into the earth to extract gases), against power plant pollution control, clean water regulation, and much more. One of his biggest supporters, however, is President Trump’s energy advisor, Harold Hamm, head of Continental Resources, a major player in the oil producing industry.

New York state’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, also reminds the American people that when faced with the choice between the protecting air and water and protecting the oil and gas industry, it was the people’s air and water that suffered. Pruitt has verbally struck back, so we should be expecting to see both Schneiderman and Pruitt dance in the ring a few times once deregulation begins.

Party lines formed on his appointment and confirmation but for three people. Two Democrats voted for Pruitt (Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia) and one Republican voted against him (Susan Collins of Maine).

We should expect him to face intense opposition from within the agency, as Civil Service rules forbid Pruitt from terminating federal workers, but this won’t keep him from being subversive in retaliation.

As we have seen in the past, in both Reagan’s and Bush’s administrations, weakening the regulations to protect the environment (and civilian health) is hugely unpopular.

The ones who will stand up to the destruction of the environment will be the Senate, the courts and climate stability advocates, and possibly you. Just don’t ask him about chickens.


For eight years in the Oklahoma State Senate, he supported religious “freedom” discrimination laws. He claims science is a religion, yet discriminates against the [religious freedom?] of scientists.

He also says he is “pro-life,” but only for the fetus. His stance on what happens to the baby afterwards will be seen in how pro-life he is with the environment and those of us that are alive, as he hasn’t been exactly known to be for clean water.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s