Scott Pruitt’s Crusade Against Ecology

The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change is the only tangible decision made by the Trump government in its five months of existence. The American president himself hesitated at length, before leaving it up to a militant, committed member of his staff: A certain Scott Pruitt, the ecologists’ enemy number one.

In this baroque, incompetent administration, Pruitt appears as one of the rare people capable of articulating what the president thinks. Having worked as a lawyer then as Attorney General in Oklahoma, Pruitt is one of the conservative fundamentalists for whom Trump’s election finally offered an opportunity to transform an until-then marginal vision of the world into national policy. In a reflection of his ideology, Pruitt is rigid and unmoving, discoursing without nuance, refusing to listen to either the questions nor the contradictions. A sort of human-faced bulldozer puffed up with certitude, as some U.S. evangelical preachers can be.

Everything is simple for Pruitt: God created the world in seven days, the United States is an exceptional nation, and if the climate changes, well, it’s God’s work. According to him, Obama ruined America by adopting the doctrine of ecologists who do not like America, capitalism or economic growth. It seems ecology is the Leninism of our times; an external enemy which, to make matters worse, has also infiltrated the very machinery of the federal administration. The biggest mistake made by the ecologists, so says Pruitt, is not accepting it is possible to simultaneously boost national wealth and protect nature.

Pruitt is the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a powerful body that imposes severe constraints on companies that threaten the environment. And yet, during his career as a lawyer, Pruitt defended CEOs in the coal mining and gas and oil drilling industries against the very agency he now manages. He personally sees no contradiction, stating his role is to get the agency back on track by returning to its original purpose of protecting the quality of water and air, and nothing else. And no one can say he has failed to pursue that objective since taking up his functions.

The current EPA administrator laments the Obama government’s obsession with global warming. He claims it abandoned its most important mission, and allowed mountains of polluting chemical waste to accumulate while it devoted itself exclusively to battling CO2 emissions released by coal, oil and gas energies. “The war on coal is done,” Pruitt declared; all energy sources are now free to compete against each other without fear of state favoritism under the pretext that some may be more “renewable” than others. The market is now the sole judge. It just so happens that on the day I met with Pruitt in New York, we were welcomed by a group of ecologist militants. A demonstration that left the EPA administrator entirely indifferent.

Does this therefore mean there is no climate change, and if there is then carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it? Pruitt claims we do not know, ignoring the general consensus on the subject in the scientific community. He doesn’t even believe in scientific truth in this particular field. As he sees it, there are right-wing and left-wing experts, and both cherry-pick the facts to better promote their ideologies. In an effort to prove this odd yet not completely inaccurate argument, Pruitt plans to assemble a balanced commission of republican and democrat researchers, lock them in a climate conclave, and see what they come up with. This idea is reminiscent of the great theological conclaves in the late Middle Ages, when religious dignitaries were asked to argue over sacraments and salvation. The debate that began in the 16th century between the pope, Luther and Calvin, is still raging today. Does this mean the climate is a theological subject? It is probably what Pruitt is striving to prove.

By fanning the flames of controversy around the issue of climate change while reducing the field of ecology to the protection of air and water, Pruitt intends to stimulate energy production in all its forms to guarantee U.S. autonomy and make the country a leading exporter, thereby reducing the political influence of the Gulf countries and Russia. And it’s a popular policy. It may well be the only popular, coherent part of Trumpism. The ecologists certainly have their work cut out if they want to contain such a determined, unscrupulous adversary.

  • Bonjour Guy,

    Pourquoi toujours s’attaquer aux personnes sans vraiment les connaitre ? Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux regarder les faits et surtout s’assurer que tout le monde a bien été entendu et cela sans préjugé aucun ?


  • While the United States already meets the Guidelines of the Paris Agreement, others (e.g., India and China) will not come into compliance anytime in the near future (i.e., the next 10 years). So why then should “Uncle Sugar” pay the lion’s share of the costs while the vast majority ride free?

    The “free ride” is over; thank you Mr. Trump.

  • Article 28: “enables parties to withdraw from agreement after sending notification to the depository three years after the agreement goes into force in that country and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depository is notify”. The agreement entered into force in the US on 11/04/2016. The earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the US will be 11/04/2020.

  • Why should “uncle sugar” pay the lion’s share? Because he was considered a world leader for a while! And also because he had the means to do it. Because he WAS an example to be followed and reckoned with. Great civilizations have always been the ones that set directions and defend values worldwide (and not for Pittsburgh primarily). “Uncle sugar” seems to have fallen back on himself chillingly. And it’s too bad because he could have played such an important role in a sounder world! Think of what happened in Flint, in California and in so many parts of the world!

  • Definitely Calvinism still has a very good time. The only articulate things are the beliefs in the invisible hand, the gift given by God to help the blessed human beings exploit our resources and people endlessly for God’s glory. We are on the verge of a kind of religious Renaissance that will affect more the choices in politics economics and in our social lives.

  • I am an Independent U.S. voter and generally enjoy the regular articles in France-Amerique. However, I am getting a little tired of the fact that my subscription to France-Amerique is helping to subsidize Guy Sorman’s personal agenda in his editorials. In case you hadn’t noticed, he is President of France-Amerique.

  • Related

    • The Global Warming Cool-DownThe Global Warming Cool-Down Donald Trump already appears to be bogged down in U.S. bureaucracy. His hands are tied by multiple counter-powers, starting with his own Republican Party. The President-elect is now […] Posted in Opinion, Subscribers Only
    • A Quiet ReliefA Quiet Relief The French are relieved — even delighted — by Donald Trump’s departure. But will Joe Biden’s election herald the return of amicable French-American relations? The 45th president of the […] Posted in Opinion