It is tempting to call Hairball Trump’s henchman at the Environmental Protection Agency an idiot and a moron. Yet, Scott Pruitt is neither. Rather, he is the kind of demagogue that is more difficult to deal with than a simpleton would be.
Never mind that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is human-induced. Scott Pruitt, the man, does not believe it. Why? Because he is ideologically against anything that anybody would TELL him. In this he is like most of his buddies in the fossil fuel industry. These guys KNOW that they are dealing with a kind of industry that is on the way out. Not because there is no more oil, coal or gas, but because the world is ready to move on to cleaner and cheaper forms of energy.
The fossil fuel industry claims that there will be a tremendous loss of jobs if their commodities are controlled or done away with. Yes, there will be the loss of drilling and mining jobs, but the green fuels industry would more than make up for those lost jobs. And the industrialists know this but, by God, no one is going to TELL them what to do.
So, it’s not really about the loss of jobs. After all, many occupations and their livelihood are a thing of a past. How many farriers do you know? Or wagon wheel makers? And how many people today say that “my grandpappy was a cooper, my father was a cooper, I am a cooper and a cooper I shall stay.” Yet, that’s exactly what many coal miners are saying today.
Scott Pruitt may be a climate change denier. He was specifically chosen by the Bannon-Trump team because of this. But there is no denying that global carbon dioxide levels met or exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) last years. The vast majority of scientists consider 350 ppm to be the “tipping point” in accelerated global warming.
I often talk with my students about this issue. And what I ask them is this: If there were a landmine the size of one square foot buried in an acre of land (43,560 square feet), you would have 1 in over 43,500 chances of being blown up. Wouldn’t you still be cautious about where you stepped? Wouldn’t you use some method, like a metal detector, explosive sniffing dog, etc., to ensure your safety, despite the small odds of being killed?
The point of the above questions is this: if there is only a 50 percent chance that humans cause the current global warming crisis, wouldn’t we still want to take steps to curtail our emissions? You can deny global warming all you want, for short-term profit or simply out of stubbornness. But what legacy are we going to live for our grandchildren? Are we going to live that land mine in that acre of ground?