Mr Pruitt, what are your intentions with our environment?

Dear Mr. Pruitt, thank you for your response to my earlier letters.

I have to admit, however, I have a hard time taking your responses (OK two form letters with digital signatures) very seriously. Your top priority is protecting our nation’s air, water and land? You want regulatory “certainty” so that industries will know exactly what’s expected of them? You “look forward to working with the agency’s dedicated employees, stakeholders and” and state partners with a “shared vision to protect our environment for future generations”? Is that why you dismissed all those members of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board?

When you write you aim to protect our environment, do you mean, protect it so that it may continue to serve as a receptacle for toxic waste?

I think the only part of your letter that has a hint of honesty is that you strive to “strike a balance between protecting your water, air and natural resources and building our economy.” Except by “our economy” I think you mean the corporate economy.  When you kick off your “back to basics” agenda (Environment, Economics and Engagement) on location at a coal mine which is part of a mining complex charged with  millions of dollars in fines for polluting local rivers, well, it doesn’t instill much confidence in those of us who really do care about the environment.

Mr. Pruitt, look – there is no secret to your agenda. So why even use the words protect and environment in tandem when you have no intention of doing so? It’s insulting.

Respectfully yours, Emily


Excerpt of letter from “The Administrator” in response to all those letters I’ve been writing (Boilerplate, by the way.  With a digital ink signature.)

%d bloggers like this: