Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
“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’s “Squawk Box.”
“But we don’t know that yet. … We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
Pruitt maintained on Thursday it’s possible to be pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-environment all at once.
“This idea that if you’re pro-environment you’re anti-energy is just something we’ve got to change so that attitude is something we’re working on very much,” he said.
Pruitt also called the Paris Agreement, an international accord aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, “a bad deal.” He said it puts the United States on a different playing field than developing countries like China and India.
The United States has vowed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. In comparison, China has committed to reach peak carbon emissions levels by 2030, but will try to reach that point sooner.
“I happen to think the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, or the Paris Agreement, if you will, should have been treated as a treaty, should have gone through senate confirmation. That’s a concern,” he said.
Your’re right Sonny – true science does not depend on religion for verification. The Scopes Monkey Trial is an interesting comparison. For instance, I am a true believing Christian but I strongly disagree with the way fundamentalists sought to restrict speech and science so as not to conflict with their belief system.
Likewise, I work in the natural sciences and I strongly object to the religious abuse of science by the political left using “denier” tactics and other such measures.
There seems an irony in each case. As a Christian I would argue that we can both acknowledge God as our creator AND embrace the awesome and fascinating phenomenon of evolution and natural selection. The idea that each are opposed is a false premise.
As a scientist I would argue that we can be good stewards of the environment AND use fossil fuels responsibly. The idea that we must choose a leftist political path to atone for “carbon sins” is a grand false premise as well.