Dems plotting to block Trump’s EPA pick

Democratic lawmakers are planning a confirmation battle over President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

Democrats have labeled Pruitt a “climate denier” who will do Daily Caller  New Foundation the bidding of “Big Oil,” and some are plotting to, at the very least, make a show out of his confirmation hearings. They’ve joined environmentalists in whining about Pruitt’s appointment.

“We have a fight on our hands and Republicans have to do a moral gut check and a political one,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz told Politico. “This is absolutely a fight worth having and we’re ready for it.”

“I don’t think you can have an EPA administrator who’s anti-science. You just can’t,” echoed Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who just ran a failed election bid as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential nominee.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley said they would “thoroughly vet” Pruitt. Merkley and other Democrats claim Pruitt colluded with energy companies to attack EPA regulations.

Pruitt has been involved in numerous challenges to Obama scott-pruittadministration energy regulations, including the EPA’s global warming rule for power plants.

“It doesn’t get any swampier than this,” Merkley, who’s on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee, told Politico. “The public record of misuse of office is extensive and certainly inappropriate for service in any federal capacity.”

Republican lawmakers will likely move quickly to get Pruitt and other Trump appointees past the Senate. Pruitt needs just 51 votes for his confirmation, so Democrats would have to convince a few Republicans to join the opposition.

That’s not likely. What’s more likely, however, is Democrats peeling away to support Pruitt’s taking over EPA.

Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia have both met with Trump for potential cabinet roles. Both have been ardent EPA critics in recent years and could join Republicans.

“He’s doing something right,” Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson told an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation Thursday morning, referring to Democratic outrage at Pruitt’s appointment.

Pruitt will likely carry out Trump’s pledge to roll back EPA regulations targeting U.S. energy production, including the Clean Power Plan — Pruitt joined 27 other states in suing to stop this rule from going into effect.

Early on in the campaign, Trump said he would eliminate the EPA, but softened his stance to refocusing the agency away from global warming to protecting air and water quality.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  • Brin Jenkins

    Plotting, now thats a very good word, they are in fact conspiring it seems?

    • Earl

      Breathing together?……….That IS what it means..

  • Guy Thomas DiDio

    Plot away! Won’t do any good.

  • Les Segal

    um, how about the governer of Hawaii (big oil is bad you know), put his mouth where his pocket book is – no more airplanes or ships into Hawaii unless they’re powered by

    pixie dust. how can these people be so foolish.

    • Tomahawk

      They are paid handsomely. Kickbacks.

  • James Bond

    OMG Give me a break you dumbassdems republicans didn’t whine cry and bitch about everything Obummer did so accept it shut up and move on !

  • James Bond

    All scared because there getting backhanders from the so called green power scam companies

    • Tomahawk

      Exactly.

  • Dire Wolf

    The Dems can plot whatever gong show they want. It won’t do squat. They ended filibusters and now it has come back to bite them.

    Hilarious !

    • Tomahawk

      Yep. LOL

    • J T

      Yup. 2017 is gonna be a good year!

  • Diogenes60025

    Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.

    Others have shown the likely causes of climate change, and they DO NOT include human use of fossil fuels. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital
    changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. I make a further point here.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological
    paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter
    (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.

    Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030–$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

    A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas. Coal has always competed effectively with natural gas. Illinois Basin coal now costs less than 1/3 the equivalent cost of natural gas at their respective sources. Coal is more competitive with gas today than it was in 1995.

    • Tomahawk

      You do realize that this post certifies you as a “Denier”, according to the Greenies, right? I don’t know if your math is right, and I don’t care. You’ve given a great example, and there are many more, that “their” proclaimed science is demonstrably refutable, and in fact, false. CO2 shouldn’t even be on their list, but without it on there, there’s not enough money in it. Kudos to ya, Dio. Great post.

      • Diogenes60025

        Thanks.

    • Earl

      A couple of points to add here. One is that when the IPCC came up with their famous hockey stick temperature jump, They “cherry picked” the data and ignored the rest of the chart-old news. There hasn’t been any temp increase in the last 17 years. On top of that, It has been said the east coast tidal levels are actually falling a bit……

      The other is that quite a number of meteorologists including Dr. Bastardi, of Accuweather fame has said we are entering a period of global COOLING, and possibly another ice age of sorts. Sure looks like it to those northern states whose teeth are chattering right now and are digging out from the most recent blizzard…..

  • John

    President Obama knows that man caused global warming/ climate change is a lie. Why else would he want new Boeing 747 airplanes to replace the current air force 1s, instead something like the Bombardier DH-8-Q- 400 turbo-prop airplanes. They are reasonably fast, use less material to make, use much less fuel, and have a much smaller CO2 foot print. So why doesn’t he put himself to action to go along with his words?

  • rpabate

    The first thing Pruitt should do is remove CO2 as a pollutant and toxic gas. They should make a big deal about the change in designation. The fact that the science societies and professional associations, the media, the universities and Congress did not raise hell about the pollutant and toxic gas designations indicates to me just how incredibly screwed up our country has become.