Scott Pruitt Issues Chilling New Statement About Global Warming

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt argued in at least two recent interviews that green groups, scientists, and other advocates working to slow the climate crisis are "arrogant" in saying that humans should work to keep the earth from warming.


"Do we know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100 or year 2018?" he said in an interview with News 3 in Las Vegas on Wednesday. "It's fairly arrogant for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100."

Watch:

Pruitt put forth a similar argument while speaking with the New York Times last week, leading to a rebuke by journalists including Emily Atkin, science and environmental reporter for the New Republic.

Climate scientists have put forth a number of possible scenarios should the earth continue to warm in the coming decades. As Common Dreams  reported in December, a study by the Carnegie Institution for Science found that there is a 93 percent chance that the Earth will warm to a dangerous degree—more than 4 degrees Celsius or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit—by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current level. 

In his interview with News 3, Pruitt also brought up the idea of holding "honest, transparent debate" between climate scientists—97 percent of whom agree that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming—and people who disagree with their assessment.

The debate would allow Americans to "be informed and make decisions on their own," Pruitt said.

Pruitt's suggestion that climate crisis may help humans to "flourish" instead of causing droughtfamine, perilously rising sea levels, and other harmful effects that experts have warned of for years, is only his latest attempt to deflect from green groups' push to protect the earth from the carbon emissions that cause warming: a year ago, the EPA administrator denied climate crisis existed at all. 

"As the evidence becomes ever more compelling that climate change is real and human-caused, the forces of denial turn to other specious arguments, like 'it will be good for us,'" Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, told the Guardian. "There is no consistency at all to their various arguments other than that we should continue to burn fossil fuels."

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.