Scott Pruitt, the
new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, gave an interview
on CNBC on Thursday during which he denied carbon dioxide was a
primary contributor to global warming. Pruitt also said that there is
‘tremendous disagreement’ over the extent to which human activity
such as CO2 emissions are affecting the earth, despite widespread
agreement in the scientific community
EPA
head Scott Pruitt denies that carbon dioxide causes global warming
Trump
adviser shocks scientists and environmental advocates with statement
that negates EPA policy and ‘overwhelmingly clear’ evidence on
climate change
Oliver Milman in New
York
@olliemilman
Thursday 9 March
2017 19.12 GMT
Scott Pruitt, Donald
Trump’s head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has
dismissed a basic scientific understanding of climate change by
denying that carbon dioxide emissions are a primary cause of global
warming.
Pruitt said on
Thursday that he did not believe that the release of CO2, a
heat-trapping gas, was pushing global temperatures upwards.
“I think that
measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something
very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about
the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary
contributor to the global warming that we see,” he told CNBC.
Trump
administration: EPA studies, data must undergo political review
before release
Read more
“But we don’t
know that yet ... We need to continue the debate and continue the
review and the analysis.”
This stance puts
Pruitt at odds with his own agency, which states on its website that
carbon dioxide is the “primary greenhouse gas that is contributing
to recent climate change”. This finding is backed by Nasa, which
calls CO2 “the most important long-lived ‘forcing’ of climate
change”.
Scientists have
understood for more than a century that CO2 traps heat. Atmospheric
concentrations of the gas have increased by more than a third since
the industrial revolution, driven by the burning of fossil fuels and
deforestation.
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from 2014, which
summarized the findings of 2,000 international scientists, states it
is “extremely likely” that the steep rise in CO2, along with
other greenhouse gases such as methane, has caused most of the global
warming experienced since the 1950s.
Pruitt’s comments
were quickly condemned by scientists, environmental activists and
even his immediate predecessor as EPA chief, Gina McCarthy.
“The world of
science is about empirical evidence, not beliefs,” said McCarthy,
an appointee of Barack Obama. “When it comes to climate change, the
evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction
is unacceptably high.
“I cannot imagine
what additional information the administrator might want from
scientists for him to understand that.”
Kevin Trenberth,
senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
said: “Pruitt has demonstrated that he is unqualified to run the
EPA or any agency. There is no doubt whatsoever that the planet is
warming, and it is primarily due to increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels.
“Carbon dioxide is
a greenhouse gas and we can demonstrate clearly that the observed
warming of the planet would not have occurred without that change in
atmospheric composition. These are scientific facts, not opinion, and
it is incumbent on politicians to take account of the scientific
evidence.”
Pruitt has
previously equivocated on the issue of climate change, telling his
Senate confirmation hearing that while he accepts the world is
warming it is “hard to measure with precision” the human
influence.
A core EPA function
is the regulation of greenhouse gases, including CO2. Pruitt, in his
previous role as attorney general of Oklahoma, sued the EPA to halt
Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which imposes emissions limits on
coal-fired power plants.
The plan, similar to
many of the other Obama-era policies to combat climate change and
safeguard clean air and water, is likely to be dismantled by the
Trump administration. The president has previously called the EPA a
“disgrace” and promised to reduce it to “tidbits” in order to
spark economic growth.
The EPA faces severe
cuts under a proposed White House budget proposal, with Pruitt set to
review the agency’s role in vehicle emissions standards, methane
emissions and protection of America’s waterways.
Pruitt sued the EPA
14 times while attorney general of Oklahoma and has worked in concert
with fossil fuel interests in many of these cases. The recent release
of thousands of Pruitt’s emails during his tenure showed an
extremely close relationship between Pruitt’s office and oil and
gas companies.
The EPA
administrator has insisted that the regulator does work that could be
delegated to the states, has overreached and needs to be reined in.
“There are a lot
of changes that need to take place at my agency to restore the rule
of law and federalism,” Pruitt said last month.
Climate
change denial in the Trump cabinet: where do his nominees stand?
Critics
say the president-elect’s picks represent ‘unprecedented’
influence from the fossil fuel industry. Their statements do little
to dispel the notion
Mazin Sidahmed in
New York
Thursday 15 December
2016 17.55 GMT
As Donald Trump
assembles his cabinet, one consistent theme has emerged: many of his
nominees have expressed doubt about the science of human-caused
climate change.
“We’re seeing an
unprecedented amount of influence from the fossil fuel industry in
Trump’s cabinet,” Jeremy Symons, who works on climate politics
for the Environmental Defense Fund, said. “What’s missing from
this cabinet is the balance one would expect to bring the other side
to the equation and it really leaves us wondering: who is looking out
for us? Clearly the oil companies are well attended, but who’s
looking out for us?”
Here is where
Trump’s cabinet nominees stand on climate change.
Environmental
Protection Agency: Scott Pruitt
a attorney general
has been a longtime adversary of the EPA and a close friend to the
fossil fuels industry. He helped lead a lawsuit from 28 states
against the agency’s clean power plan, an Obama administration
initiative to cut carbon pollution from coal power plants. He has
also accepted more than $250,000 in donations from the oil and gas
industry over the course of four campaigns for attorney general,
lieutenant governor and state senator. In a joint op-ed in the
National Review, Pruitt wrote that the debate on climate change is
“far from settled”, adding: “Scientists continue to disagree
about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to
the actions of mankind.” In fact, the overwhelming majority of
scientists agree climate change is happening and caused by humans.
Department of the
Interior: Ryan Zinke
Zinke is a Montana
congressman, former Navy Seal commander and Iraq war veteran who has
consistently voted in favor of oil and gas drilling projects on
federal lands. As interior secretary he will have oversight over the
use of federal lands and controversial pipeline and drilling
projects. The congressman supports the Keystone XL pipeline and and
supported measures to remove protections of endangered species, while
opposing legislation to regulate fracking. The League of Conservation
Voters gave him a lifetime voting scorecard of 3%. While previously
acknowledging the science behind climate change, Zinke said in 2014
that it “is not proven”.
Department of
Energy: Rick Perry
The former Texas
governor will be nominated to take over the agency he famously wanted
to abolish but could not name during his presidential bid in 2012. In
2011, Perry said that global warming was an unproven scientific
theory.
Department of State:
Rex Tillerson
The former chairman
and CEO of ExxonMobil was nominated to be the country’s top
diplomat. Much has been made of his ties to Russia and how that may
affect his role, while Tillerson’s position on climate change has
been less of a focus. On the surface, Tillerson acknowledges the
science of human-caused climate change and supported a carbon tax in
2009; ExxonMobil issued a statement of support for the Paris
agreement while he was at the helm. However, Exxon is currently under
investigation by New York’s attorney general for misleading
investors on the risks of climate change. The company has also
consistently lobbied against climate change proposals. Exxon has also
pushed to open the Arctic up for drilling.
Department of
Defense: James N Mattis
Mattis would be
taking over a defense department that has identified climate change
as a national security “threat multiplier”. He has made few
public statements on climate change, but according to a 2010 report
on the military’s energy policy the former Marine general asked to
“unleash us from the tether of fuel” during the drive into
Baghdad. His longtime colleague, retired Marine Corps Brig Gen
Stephen Cheney, told Climate Change News that Mattis “gets climate
change”.
Department of
Housing and Urban Development: Ben Carson
Carson has said that
he is not convinced by the science behind human-caused climate
change. “I know there are a lot of people who say ‘overwhelming
science’, but then when you ask them to show the overwhelming
science they never can show it,” Carson told the San Francisco
Chronicle. In multiple exchanges, he acknowledged that the climate
was changing before asserting that the climate has always changed,
but “when things stop changing, then we’re dead”. He told a
crowd at a campaign event in New Hampshire last year that he believes
in taking care of the environment but does not think the issue should
be politicized.
CIA: Mike Pompeo
Pompeo is among the
most the outspoken critics of climate change legislation. He has
expressed skepticism over the science that climate change is caused
by humans, saying in 2013: “Look, I think the science needs to
continue to develop. There are scientists who think lots of different
things about climate change. There’s some who think we’re
warming, there’s some who think we’re cooling, there’s some who
think that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate
environment.” He derided Barack Obama last year for describing
climate change as a national security threat. Pompeo referred to the
Paris agreement as a “radical climate change deal”.
National security
adviser: Michael Flynn
The former general
does not view climate change as a priority. He slammed President
Obama on Fox News for discussing climate change after a terrorist
attack. Speaking on Fox News in June, he said: “Here we have the
president of the United States up in Canada talking about climate
change. I mean, God, we just had the largest attack, as you just
said, on our own soil in Orlando. Why are we talking about that? Who
is talking about that? You know, I mean, Fort Hood, Chattanooga,
Boston. People forget about 9/11.”
Attorney general:
Jeff Sessions
Throughout his time
in the US Senate, Sessions has consistently voted against climate
action, with the League of Conservation Voters giving him a scorecard
of 7%. He said on the Senate floor in 2003: “I believe there are
legitimate disputes about the validity and extent of global warming …
Carbon dioxide does not hurt you. We have to have it in the
atmosphere. It is what plants breathe. In fact, the more carbon
dioxide that exists, the faster plants grow.” Sessions reportedly
said last year that the fight against climate change hurts poor
people. In 2015, he reiterated his claim that increased carbon
dioxide was not bad for you: “Carbon pollution is CO2, and that’s
really not a pollutant; that’s a plant food, and it doesn’t harm
anybody except that it might include temperature increases.”
Department of
Homeland Security: John F Kelly
Kelly has made few
public statements on climate change but told the Senate committee on
homeland security and governmental affairs: “As with the campaign
today to raise awareness of climate change – whether one agrees or
disagrees with the cause-and-effect claims – all are at least fully
aware of the issue. Even those who reject the science have reduced
their energy consumption and know it is good for the environment.”
Department of Health
and Human Services: Tom Price
Tom Price is a noted
climate change skeptic. In a statement supporting a bill to fight EPA
regulations on carbon dioxide, Price said: “This decision goes
against all common sense, especially considering the many recent
revelations of errors and obfuscation in the allegedly ‘settled
science’ of global warming.” He has consistently voted against
incentivizing renewable energy sources with tax credits and in favor
of increased oil exploration. He signed a pledge created by Americans
for Prosperity, a conservative thinktank funded by the Koch brothers,
to oppose climate legislation.
Department of
Commerce: Wilbur Ross
The commerce
department encompasses the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which has a key role in monitoring the effects of
climate change. Ross’s views on the issue are not clear. In his
career of buying distressed companies, he has invested hundreds of
millions into oil and gas businesses.
Department of the
Treasury: Steven Mnuchin
Trump’s financier
during this campaign and a former Goldman Sachs executive, Mnuchin
has made little public comment on climate change. Having never held
public office, his views on the issue have not been interrogated.
Department of
Education: Betsy DeVos
DeVos is the
chairman of the Windquest Group, an investment company she founded
with her husband in 1989 that invests in clean energy technology. She
may have the most measured views on climate change in the
administration.
Department of
Transportation: Elaine Chao
Chao was previously
a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank that
opposes policies to fight climate change. “Chao’s connection to
institutions that manufacture climate denial, like the Heritage
Foundation, requires the public demand she prioritize both public
health and the impacts of climate change when managing our
transportation infrastructure,” said Greenpeace USA spokeswoman
Cassady Craighill. She wrote a blogpost in 2009 for the foundation in
which she derided a proposed cap-and-trade system, a market-based
approach to reducing pollution by providing incentives to reduce
emissions.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário