EPA - Scott Pruitt and His 'Corporation Protection Agency'

Celebrate, Celebrate, happy days are here again!  The man who ran his 'Corporation Protection Agency' is gone!

"How EPA chief Scott Pruitt has withstood so many allegations" PBS NewsHour 7/4/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt faces new allegations of impropriety.  On top of the dozen or more different federal investigations underway into Pruitt, it's alleged that he asked an aide to help his wife secure a high-paying job.  William Brangham learns more from Jennifer Dlouhy of Bloomberg.

"What policy impact does Scott Pruitt leave at EPA?" PBS NewsHour 7/5/2018

Pruitt's kissing Trump's...... fails to save him.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Controversial and embattled EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has resigned.  For months, Pruitt survived scandal after scandal, brushing off calls for his firing from members of both parties.  On the policy front, Pruitt spearheaded President Trump's promised agenda of deregulation of key industries.  William Brangham reports, and Judy Woodruff learns more from Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post.

ON THE HOT SEAT - Scott Pruitt

Scott Pruitt, Trump's (anti-science, anti-regulation) servant trying to dismantle the EPA.

"On the hot seat at the House, Scott Pruitt makes few concessions" PBS NewsHour 4/26/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Now, we turn to one of the President’s top cabinet members who’s been under fire himself, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt.  His appearances before two House committees today were ostensibly about budget matters.  But lawmakers put him on the hot seat for all sorts of different reasons.

In a moment, Jeffrey Brown talks with Lisa Desjardins about the politics and the policy at issue.  But we begin with Lisa’s look at Pruitt’s day on Capitol Hill.

OPINION - Shields and Salam 4/6/2018

"Shields and Salam on China tariff tit-for-tat, Scott Pruitt under fire" PBS NewsHour 4/6/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review executive editor Reihan Salam join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Trump’s escalating calls for tariffs on Chinese imports, the decision to deploy the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border, ethics concerns for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. 50 years after his death.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  From calling for a National Guard presence at the U.S.-Mexican border, to floating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, the President’s announcements this week raised more questions than answers.

And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Salam.  That is indicated — syndicated…

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  … columnist Mark Shields and “National Review” executive editor Reihan.

Reihan, welcome to the program.

And, Mark, you are more than indicated.  You’re syndicated.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  Part of the syndicate.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  So let’s start, Mark, with the lead tonight, and that is these mixed signals mining from the top of the administration over trade.

The President putting out the word, the White House, late last night that they were looking seriously at more taxes, more tariffs on China.  And then the President’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, saying — today saying, well, no, no, we’re still in negotiations.

What are we to make of this?  The President clearly wants to send some sort of signal to China.

Mark Shields:  No question about it, Judy, and he has, I think it’s fair to say.  Larry Kudlow is an interesting case.

I first ran into him, he was working on the anti-war campaign of Senator Gene McCarthy, a Democrat, then worked for Senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat, and then became a supply-sider, free trader with Ronald Reagan, and is now whatever Donald Trump is economically, and one can’t be absolutely sure.

But I think his time is short, because he’s been cast as the interpreter of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump fancies himself the world’s greatest communicator, and he doesn’t need an interpreter.

But that having been said, I think it’s fair to say that China in the short run — in the long run, is in tougher shape on this than we are, because we’re a bigger share of their market.  But in the short run, which is where we all live, especially in a November election and the Republican majorities hanging by a thread, I think the pressure will mount on Donald Trump politically from his own base.

These are red states particularly being felt on the soybeans and the retaliation by the Chinese.  So I think that’s where it is politically.  I mean, if you’re a Republican up for reelection this year — and I would just point that more Republicans have retired in the year 2018 than any year since 1930, which was the middle of the first Depression, which tells you something about how they see it.

You want to talk about tax cuts.  That’s what you want to talk about.  You don’t want to talk about trade and immigration and borders, quite frankly.  And I think that’s where the President’s returned.

Judy Woodruff:  Reihan, how do you see the calculus?

Reihan Salam, National Review:  I disagree politically.

Mark raises a very good point when he says the Chinese have been shrewd.  They are targeting Republican constituencies, rock-ribbed, middle-of-the-country, farm Republican constituencies, et cetera.

But there is also the fact that Donald Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican.  He was a sort of third-party candidate running under the Republican banner.  And protectionism is an idea that is awfully popular with many people.

Now, when you’re talking about the negative impacts here, the thing is that sometimes we have a tendency to overstate them, because a lot of the negative impact is borne by companies that have relied on those supply chains, right?

But the thing is that, overall, think back to the Soviet grain embargo.  You had a lot of farmers who said, yes, this is going to hurt me, but ultimately I support the policy.

You might wind up having a lot of people rally around the flag and saying that, yes, China, they engage in a lot of trade abuses, and this is something where they need to get clamped down.  And so that’s why I think that, as opposed to tax cuts, which are a classically orthodox Republican thing to do, here Donald Trump left to his own devices is trying to do something a bit different that might be appealing to people who otherwise don’t vote Republican.

Judy Woodruff:  But you don’t see mixed signals coming from the administration, or do you?

Reihan Salam:  Oh, I absolutely see mixed signals.

So, part of this could be the savviness of, hey, this is my opening bid, and then I try to get something halfway, but there are definitely mixed signals.

Mark Shields:  I respectfully disagree, in the sense that, if you want to go back to the grain embargo, you ask Democrats who lost their seats at that time under Jimmy Carter.

I do think, quite bluntly, that Donald Trump is playing Presidential politics, and he’s keeping his promise.  He’s talking about his constituents.  That’s why he returns to tariffs.  That’s why he returns to the border and the hordes of rapists descending upon us, quite contrary to fact and reality.

But I don’t think, Judy, that this is helping Republicans, who are in an increasingly discouraging situation and condition heading into November 2018.

TRUMP AGENDA - War on EPA

"EPA is rolling back fuel standards.  What do automakers want?" PBS NewsHour 4/2/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that the previous administration's rules on auto fuel economy go too far.  Under the Obama-era standards, gas mileage would have doubled in new vehicles by 2025.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Amy Harder of Axios.

TRUMP AGENDA - Poisoning of the Environment Legal Setback

"Trump’s rollback of Obama-era rules hits setback in court" PBS NewsHour 7/4/2017

Also note that methane is explosive.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Environmental Protection Agency cannot delay implementation of a rule limiting methane emissions from new oil and gas drilling wells, according to an appeals court ruling on Monday.  William Brangham speaks with Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post about the obstacle for the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse environmental regulations and the wider implications.

U.S. CONGRESS & OBAMA - A Rare Agreement

"Congress, Obama find accord on regulation of household chemicals" PBS NewsHour 6/22/2016

CAUTION:  The new regulations could work IF Congress actually funds the EPA with enough to hire investigators and run the program.  Underfunded programs do NOT work.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Obama reached a rare agreement with Congress on a new law to regulate toxic household chemicals.  The legislation, signed Wednesday, will give the EPA the authority to vet and ban tens of thousands of substances potentially harmful to humans, including chemicals in detergents, cleaners and furniture.  Gwen Ifill learns more from political director Lisa Desjardins.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  The President and Congress have reached rare agreement on a new law that will regulate everyday toxic chemicals.  The President signed it today, setting in motion the biggest changes in four decades.

The Environmental Protection Agency now has new authority to review, and eventually restrict or ban, tens of thousands of chemicals that could be carcinogenic or otherwise harm human health, among them; substances found in household detergents and cleansers, flame retardants and furniture.

But it may take a while.

Lisa Desjardins joins us to fill in the picture.

Lisa, why is this significant?

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  This is incredibly significant.

We’re talking about a vast universe of things that we touch in our everyday lives.  Some estimate that one out of every three sort of processed products that we buy, not food, but everything else, could have toxic chemicals in it.

And what happened, Gwen, was the law passed 40 years ago was essentially toothless.  So the EPA wasn’t even able to regulate forcefully something like asbestos, which we know from scientific evidence is lethal and may — causes a lethal form of cancer, but yet it’s not banned because the law previously wasn’t strong enough.

GWEN IFILL:  You and I both have covered Washington for a while.  We know how hard it is to get bipartisan agreement on anything.  Why this, why now?

LISA DESJARDINS:  Imagine.

GWEN IFILL:  Wow.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Nothing is getting done in Washington.  A sweeping bill over an $800 billion industry?  Well, that’s the answer.  The industry got on board.

The chemical industry felt this was in their interest because, up until now, they have self-regulated and states have regulated, Gwen.  So the chemical industry has dealt with 50 different sets of laws across this country.  They found that it was in their interest at this time to have a national law, have the EPA take this over.

So what we’re going to have now from this law is the EPA having dominance, being able to override states, with some exceptions, in general when it comes to chemical safety.

ENVIRONMENT - Clean Power

"Will new clean power regulations stand up to challenges?" PBS NewsHour 8/3/2015

The opposition is again putting short-term money issues before long-term concerns for Earth's environment and our health.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Obama laid out new regulations that reset emissions standards for power plants and call for 28 percent of U.S. power to be generated from renewable energy.  States, industry groups and politicians pushed back, setting the stage for legal challenges.  Gwen Ifill gets views from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  The President has made his climate change plans a major part of his second-term, legacy-making agenda.  Today, he laid out new details about a key component of his strategy: regulating power plant emissions.

But within moments of his speech, opponents within some industries and in many states were resisting the stricter standards.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  Today, after working with states and cities and power companies, the EPA is setting the first ever nationwide standards to end the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from power plants.

(APPLAUSE)

GWEN IFILL:  With that, the president formally announced an even tougher clean power plan than expected.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  So, the idea of setting standards and cutting carbon pollution is not new.  It’s not radical.  What is new is that starting today, Washington is starting to catch up with the vision of the rest of the country.

GWEN IFILL:  The rule, to be implemented by the EPA, means power plants must cut carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030.  That’s from 2005 levels.  Such a reduction would be up from a 30 percent cut in the original draft.  The revised rule also calls for generating 28 percent of U.S. power from renewable energy, up from 22 percent.

At the same time, it gives states extra time to begin reducing emissions.  Industry groups and a number of states pushed back today, saying the rule will cost jobs and cause spikes in energy prices.  And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, representing the coal state of Kentucky, promised to block the plan.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), Majority Leader:  It represents a triumph of blind ideology over sound policy and honest compassion.  And in Kentucky, these regulations will likely mean fewer jobs, shuttered power plants, higher electricity costs for families and businesses.  So, I’m not going to sit by while the White House takes aim at the lifeblood of our state’s economy.

ENVIRONMENT - Farmers vs EPA

"Why farmers are concerned about EPA’s new rules on protected water" PBS NewsHour 5/29/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have finalized new rules about what kinds of waterways are protected under the Clean Water Act, adding the smaller streams, tributaries and wetlands that feed drinking water for some Americans.  Political editor Lisa Desjardins reports on what the shift means, and why it’s drawn both praise and criticism.

Editor’s note:  The new rules regarding America’s waterways were issued jointly by Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. Read more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  This week, the United States changed the way it looks at one our most precious resources, water.  The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a new rule about what kinds of waterways it protects, to include things like tributaries.

The change has brought both applause and sharp criticism.

Our political editor, Lisa Desjardins, reports on what this shift means.

SEAN O’BYRNE, Owner, Great Waters Brew Pub:  What can I get you guys?

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  Sean O’Byrne owns the Great Waters Brew Pub in downtown Saint Paul, and the main ingredient in the beer he crafts is local well water.

For the past several years, a kind of fear has mounted for him, that some of the protections initially offered by the 1972 Clean Water Act have eroded, putting Minnesota’s great waters at risk.

SEAN O’BYRNE:  I’m a little scared at what people are trying to do to it, take some of the teeth out of it.

LISA DESJARDINS:  That’s why he’s cheering the new rule finalized this week by the Environmental Protection Agency, a rule meant to clarify which bodies of water can be regulated by the federal government.