I am writing in opposition to the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency. I view the EPA as one of the most important agencies for public safety in the United States. Environmental pollution by industry and agriculture can have far greater negative impacts on large numbers of people than almost any other threat the public faces. Pruitt’s record in Oklahoma makes it very unlikely that he will take serious enforcement stance against industry to put health of the people ahead of corporate profits.
At a time when government intrusions on personal liberties, such as oppressive personal searches by TSA and interference in personal health choices, particularly for women, raise public ire, I view the actions of the EPA to limit widespread air and water pollution as one of the serious good works by our federal government in preventing local government’s short-sighted calls for less regulation to benefit a few economic interests at the expense of public health.
I view unregulated burning of fossil fuels and widespread production and application of pesticides both in agriculture and otherwise as some of the greatest dangers in our world. We must support policies that will combat man-made global warming by the reduction of the combustive uses of fossil fuels to dampen the severe effects sea level rises is having both in coastal Alaska as well as many island nations around the world. The policies set and enforced by U.S. EPA have consequences both here at home and around the world. I do not think that Scott Pruitt would be a willing administrator to take on this important position.
John M. Gerrish,
Juneau