Pruitt is one of TIME’s 100 most influential people for his efforts to maximize polluters’ profitsTIME magazine announced final week that Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is among their 100 most influential people of 2018. George W. Bush’s former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman delivered the scathing explanation:whether his actions continue in the same direction,during Pruitt’s term at the EPA the environment will be threatened instead of protected, and human health endangered instead of preserved, or all with no long-term benefit to the economy.
Your analysis should look beyond the direct benefits and direct costs of your rulemaking and consider any important ancillary benefits and countervailing risks. An ancillary benefit is a favorable impact of the rule that is typically unrelated or secondary to the statutory purpose of the rulemaking (e.g.,reduced refinery emissions due to more stringent fuel economy standards for light trucks)…Studies demonstrate an association between premature mortality and fine particle pollution at the lowest levels measured in the relevant studies, levels that are significantly below the [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] for fine particles. These studies have not observed a level at which premature mortality effects attain not occur. The best scientific evidence, and confirmed by independent,Congressionally-mandated expert panels, is that there is no threshold level of fine particle pollution below which health risk reductions are not achieved by reduced exposure.While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, and Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at EPA. Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars. Rent was about market rate,travel expenses OK. Scott is doing a distinguished job!whether Pruitt finalizes the Clean Power procedure repeal or any other rule by revising consideration of co-benefits in this way, or dropping them entirely, or you can be 100% certain that we and others will sue,probably in D.C. Circuit challenges to his actions. We are confident the courts will hold this reversal of practice arbitrary and capricious. The only sound way to assess the benefits of a rule, and to weigh them against costs when that is allowed, and is to assess all the benefits that can be reasonably expected to come from the action. Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com