A Judge Ordered Trump's EPA to Release Science Behind Their Anti-Climate Science Views, and the Deadline Is Almost Here

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 7: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on December 7, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images)

Scott Pruitt has his own version of science and is using it to make decisions that will impact every living thing on the planet. Now a federal judge is requiring that he produce evidence to support his claim that human activities, such as extracting and burning fossil fuels, clear-cutting forests, paving vast sections of the country, fracking, and pouring millions of gallons of chemicals into agricultural lands, have no impact on the environment or climate change.

Critics of the head of the Environmental Protection Act say that Pruitt will not be able to produce such evidence, because no such evidence exists. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed evidence collected by thousands of scientists over many decades does exist to support that claim that human activity has a significant negative impact on the environment and is the main cause of climate change.

But maybe Pruitt knows something all those scientists don’t. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act to find out. The group requested “EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.” The chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, has ordered the agency to comply.

“Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable,” said Howell. Pruitt will have to produce evidence by July 2—evidence that refutes the science that the Obama administration used to create its regulations on environmental issues, regulations that Pruitt has been dismantling.

“I expect the documents will show the scientific case for Pruitt’s claim is not only thin, but positively anorexic,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “They may reveal even greater contacts with the climate denial community than has already been shown.

“This could also strengthen the challenges to some of the deregulatory actions by the administration, showing they have no valid basis.”

Scott Pruitt has been in the spotlight for a series of somewhat ridiculous personal expenses (paid by taxpayers) such as “tactical pants” ($3,000),  12 fancy personalized pens ($130 each), a soundproof telephone booth ($43,000), and a 24/7 security detail ($4.6 million) as well as well as first class travel around the world, art leased from the Smithsonian for his office, cheap housing and an all-around lavish lifestyle funded by taxpayers. Even Republicans are questioning Pruitt’s spending habits. “This doesn’t look good,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said. 

Despite the many scandals of Pruitt, he remains immune to consequences, mainly because he has been effective in advancing Trump’s environmental agenda. The personal scandals may even serve as a distraction as Pruitt makes enormous changes to U.S. science and environmental policy.

“I think that the scale of impact is pretty extraordinary, with federal regulatory measures that will impact every single person in the United States, when it comes to things like pesticides and toxic chemicals and air pollution and water pollution. The consequences of it are so enormous,” said Eric Lipton, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the New York Times, who has been following Pruitt’s activities at the EPA.

National Geographic is keeping a running list of the ways Pruitt and Trump are working to damage the environment. Pruitt’s grotesque ethics violations have a financial impact on taxpayers. But behind the scenes, his collaborations with polluters will ultimately have a much more dire impact.

Blaze TV

Continuing a steady slide to the right since her tenure as President Donald Trump's United Nations ambassador, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is under heat for recent comments regarding the Confederate flag.

The comments came during an interview with far-Right Blaze TV host Glenn Beck.

Keep reading... Show less
Fox News

Former Vice President and current 2020 Presidential candidate Joe Biden erupted at a man during an Iowa town hall who accused him of actively working to get his son Hunter a board position on the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. Biden called the man a "damn liar" before challenging him to pushups.

Republicans seized on the moment as an opportunity to discredit Biden as a candidate, but Fox and Friends cohost Ainsley Earhardt's reaction may be the most deluded yet.

Keep reading... Show less
Bryan Woolston/Getty Images // @parscale/Twitter

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly made clear that, after President Donald Trump solicited Ukrainian leaders to announce investigations that personally benefitted him, the decision to launch impeachment proceedings wasn't a political maneuver, but a constitutional mandate.

The move came after years of Trump's supporters, as well as some critics, insisted that impeachment would be political suicide for the Democrats.

Since shortly after the inquiry's announcement in September, support for impeachment outweighed its oppositon as more revelations surfaced of Trump's dealings with Ukraine, but his 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale attempted to show that Pelosi's move to impeach would lose Democrats their House majority.

Keep reading... Show less

Shortly after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that representatives would begin drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy took the podium to defend the President and the Republican party as a whole.

It could've gone better.

Keep reading... Show less
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images // MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

One day after the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a press conference announcing that the House would begin drafting articles of impeachment, with a possible floor vote as soon as Christmas.

The press conference signaled the beginning of the end of the impeachment inquiry in the House.

Keep reading... Show less
Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee, in its public impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, consulted four constitutional scholars for greater insight to the legal implications of the President's Ukraine scandal—and whether they merit impeachment.

Three witnesses, called by Democrats, each made compelling arguments for the articles of impeachment with which Trump could be charged.

George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley—invited by Republicans—was the lone dissenter.

Keep reading... Show less