Sources inside the EPA are denying reports claiming the White House has put the skids to a potential public debate regarding global warming, according to a report Wednesday from E&E News.
White House aides suggested using public comments on petitions asking the agency to revisit the Obama administration’s endangerment finding, the report notes, which was based on a source inside a meeting on the matter in December.
The new idea could satisfy EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, who has long-wanted a public debate about the science of global warming.
Pruitt has continually dismissed previous reports from E&E in January and The New York Times earlier this month that the White House dinged the idea.
“It’s very important that I think the American people have a transparent, objective discussion about this issue,” he told Bloomberg Wednesday about rumors White House chief of staff John Kelly killed the high-profile exercise.
“The vehicle by which we achieve that is something yet to be determined,” Pruitt added. The new concept would accept public comments on petitions the agency’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gases in cars, power plants and other sources, E&E’s report noted Wednesday.
It would allow the EPA to determine “where the arguments are supporting and rejecting the science,” according to the source.
Pruitt, who famously sued the agency more than a dozen times as Oklahoma’s attorney general, spent more than a year championing the notion of holding military-style exercises to question the validity of climate change.
He even floated the idea of televising the debates, all to bring transparency to the science.
Military and intelligence agencies use a similar debate tactic to expose vulnerabilities to strategic systems.
The tactic would give needed balance to climate science, a field of research many believe has been monopolized by activists, skeptics say.
Some in the administration were enthusiastic supporters, however, Kelly and others were skeptical of the proposal.
White House officials were in agreement that Pruitt’s idea was unwise, according to a March 9 report from The NYTimes.
Their main objection was that a public debate on the hot-button issue of climate science could create an unnecessary distraction as Trump seeks to pull back elements of former President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy.
Some inside the administration worried the debate would muddy the waters of Pruitt’s de-regulatory mission.
The EPA finalized 22 deregulatory actions in 2017, which could save $1 billion in regulatory costs. The agency is working on another 44 deregulatory actions, including the repeal of the Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Rule.
Taking comment on the petitions would be easier. Several homeowners filed one petition the day of Trump’s inauguration, according to E&E’s report Wednesday.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market group based in Washington, D.C., filed another petition in February of 2017.
To open a public debate, the agency could simply issue a notice asking for public comment on the petition.
The move would not include obligations for EPA to take regulatory action, and it could score the administration some political points on the right.
Read more at Daily Caller
In between WW I and WW II the New York Pravda(Times)covered up for Stalin and Hitler Walter Duranty was the New York Pravda’s biggist propagandists for Stalin while later Herb Mathews covered up for Castro both worked for the New York Pravda
Seems to me the fact that they acknowledge that a public debate has not happened yet $$trillions have been spent is a failure of government and a purposeful abuse of public trust .
Here is what EXXON knew .
Climate models used to amplify global warming fear are proven to grossly overstate any warming which as it turns out is not alarming at all .
Governments have knowingly mislead the public on the issue to achieve their political goals and reward donors who have been on the receiving end of $billions in tax payer funded subsidies .
All without open debate or a balance of perspectives . The “science is settled ” was a con job to stifle debate and shut down actual science . Yes it’s likely warming as we exit the most current ice age . Would the world be better off upon the return of the next ice age ? Think Antarctica with a population less than a high school
football game .