Category Archives: environmental news

POTUS fails to perform this simple task

Donald J. Trump’s supporters don’t ever seem to hail the president’s empathy, his compassion, his sensitivity to others.

Have you noticed that?

Consider what a veteran broadcast journalist, Dan Rather, has tweeted about the president.

There are many difficult things for presidents to do. Finding space in your schedule (and soul) to speak empathetically about Americans suffering from natural disasters (wildfires, hurricanes) shouldn’t be one of them. And yet Pres. Trump routinely fails in this human instinct.

The president cannot seem to bring himself to express any support for these victims. Instead, he has chosen to blast environmental laws in a nonsensical attack on the wrong culprit.

Donald Trump has failed to perform one of those tasks that we all expect of our president. Ronald Reagan rose to the occasion, as did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. All of them had reason to speak to the nation about the suffering our fellow Americans experienced. They comforted the heartbroken. They fulfilled the role of Comforter in Chief.

The current president cannot bring himself to do what is expected of him? Shameful.

Environmental laws to blame for fires? Huh?

Donald John Trump hadn’t said much — if anything — to offer support for the first responders fighting the fires in California.

Then he weighed in with this message via Twitter:

California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amount of readily available water to be properly utilized. It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Must also tree clear to stop fire spreading!

Huh? That’s what the president of the United States has to say about fires that are ravaging one of our 50 states, killing at least two firefighters, putting residents at risk, endangering human beings?

He talks about “bad environmental laws” that inhibit use of water to fight the fires.

I realize that California went overwhelmingly for the other major-party presidential candidate in 2016. I also am quite certain the good folks in California would appreciate a word of support and assurance that the president has their backs as state and local first responders put themselves in harm’s way to protect the people they take an oath to serve.

Has he offered “thoughts and prayers” for the loved ones of the firefighters who have died?

Cities’ conundrum: whether to limit water use and cut revenue

Janet Rummel, public relations and communications officer for the North Texas Municipal Water District, has a possible word to the wise to city officials who might be reluctant to enact water-use restrictions in the face of a punishing drought.

If you are concerned about a loss of revenue collected from water use fees, then your reluctance to impose water conservation measures carries even greater risk.

You will run out of water, Rummel warned in remarks to the Rotary Club of Fairview.

Much of the state remains caught in drought conditions. The Texas Panhandle, where my wife and I lived until this past May, went through an entire winter with any measurable precipitation. No snow. No rain. Nothing!

North Texas didn’t fare much better than the Panhandle, as I have learned.

So, cities that are pondering whether to impose restrictions on water use face the mother of conundrums: Do they interfere with their revenue stream, depriving their municipal coffers of money used to fund various public services?

The NTMWD, based in Wylie, serves about a dozen communities north and east of Dallas. Rummel talked about the array of measures that the district has taken to improve the quality of water; it also is planning to spend a significant amount of money to improve the delivering of water.

From my standpoint, a city that faces the prospect of running dry — of losing its water supply — has no choice whatsoever than to impose limits, even if it chokes off the revenue it uses to pay for the myriad municipal services it provides. Moreover, I am amazed that city officials would be so reluctant to take a proactive stance that conserves this priceless natural resource.

And yet, according to Janet Rummel, cities are wringing their hands over such a decision. I find the quandary a non-starter.

Seeking no credit for this heat

When we moved to Beaumont, Texas from Oregon in the spring of 1984, I would jokingly take credit when it rained for more than a couple of days in a row.

I would give a nod to the same thought when we moved from Beaumont to Amarillo in early 1995. When we would travel from Amarillo to, oh, damn well anywhere in the States, we’d take credit for whenever the wind would blow hard.

However …

There ain’t no way I’m going to tolerate any references to our former places of residence if someone wants to comment on this damn heat.

We’re setting heat records in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. The temp hit 109 today. A record. It did so on Friday, too. There might be another record in jeopardy on Sunday and again on Monday.

The heat is an annual event in this part of the world. I’ve known that for many years.

It ain’t the same heat that blankets the Texas Panhandle. This one lingers well into the night, unlike on the Caprock, where it dissipates (more or less) when the sun sets, owing to the 3,650-foot elevation on the High Plains.

This heat requires us to get reacquainted with humidity.

The good news? It won’t last forever. I’m already looking forward to autumn.

Oh, this heat just keeps the pressure on

Just about the time I am inclined to link this incessant Texas heat wave to the issue of global warming, I think of Sen. Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and prominent global warming/climate change denier.

We’re broiling in the D/FW Metroplex with temps hovering around 110 degrees (if you factor in that “heat index”). It’s been several days with temperatures topping out at around 100 degrees. I might say, “See, I told you that the climate is changing.”

Sen. Inhofe? Oh, he quite famously walked onto the floor of the U.S. Senate during a recent winter snowstorm in Washington, D.C. He was packing a snowball about the size of a large grapefruit. He then proceeded to declare in a Senate floor speech that the existence of that snowball and the bitterly cold temperatures in the D.C. area proved that the planet isn’t warming up.

I wrote at the time that Inhofe was nuts to use a real-time episode in one community as a way to debunk an event that scientists around the world have said is occurring.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/02/look-at-global-picture-sen-inhofe/

So, with that said, I am going to refrain from linking to this hideous heat to the notion that Earth’s climate is changing.

There. Are you climate change deniers happy now?

Pruitt’s gone, but EPA’s mission remains intact

I was among the millions of Americans who cheered the news that Scott Pruitt had resigned as Environmental Protection Agency administrator.

His corruption and utter lack of ethical conduct became unbearable. I also am astounded that he didn’t get the boot long ago. Then again, he did work in an administration led by Donald John Trump Sr., so maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised.

OK, so Scott Pruitt is gone.

Is that reason to continue cheering? Hardly. EPA remains an agency under siege. Donald Trump has declared climate change to be a “hoax” concocted by China and other economic powers that want to undermine the U.S. fossil fuel industry.

To think for a moment or two that such idiocy comes from a man who admits that he doesn’t read much. He relies on TV news talk shows to inform him. He once said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals.”

So, the president who denies the existence of climate change is able to appoint EPA bosses who adhere to his nonsensical point of view. That’s what he did when he asked Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general who took great delight in suing the Obama administration over environmental rules and regulations.

It might be that Trump — who likely didn’t even know Pruitt when he selected him — was unaware he was appointing an ethical slug to run the EPA.

The man in charge of EPA at this moment is deputy administrator Andrew Wheeler, who comes from the coal industry. I don’t know much about Wheeler, so I cannot comment directly about what he’ll do. I feel comfortable, though, in believing that if he signs on to run the EPA in a Donald Trump administration, he likely adheres to the climate change view espoused by the Big Man.

Am I still cheering Scott Pruitt’s departure from EPA?

Not any longer.

What? Trump lied — again! — about Pruitt resignation?

The Liar in Chief has done it again.

He said former Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt resigned all on his own. It was “100 percent” Pruitt’s decision, said Donald John Trump.

Oops! Now comes Bloomberg News to report that the president sent Pruitt a message via White House chief of staff John Kelly that he wanted the EPA boss to quit. Pruitt reportedly was devastated by the request, according to Bloomberg, which reported that Pruitt had no intention of quitting — until he got the word from Kelly.

To be honest, I am glad the president asked Pruitt to go. He should have done it weeks — maybe months — ago. Pruitt had been eaten alive before our eyes by scandal after scandal. Questions were being raised almost weekly about this or that extravagant expense, or allegation of conflict of interest.

Why, though, must he lie about the EPA boss’s resignation? Why does he insist that Pruitt was doing a “great job” when he wasn’t? And why does he look the other way publicly at the questions about Pruitt’s conduct?

If he did ask Pruitt to quit, then he ought to acknowledge it.

Liars, though, cannot tell the truth. No matter how badly the lie makes them look.

Pruitt shows sickening fealty to POTUS

Scott Pruitt is gone as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The myriad ethical scandals overtook him. I’ve already commented on that. With this post, though, I want to offer a brief look at the sickening letter of resignation that Pruitt sent to Donald J. Trump.

So help me, Pruitt didn’t understand something about the job he occupied. Which is that he worked for you me. He didn’t work exclusively for the president. Yet his letter speaks of how “God’s providence” helped elect Trump.

His letter says in part: My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people.

Good grief.

It’s the kind of fealty that Trump demands of those who join his administration. To that end, Pruitt fulfilled his charge.

The rest of us paid the price.

Scott Pruitt had no business caring for the nation’s environment. He exhibited little interest in environmental protection. Instead, he demonstrated time and again a commitment to his own creature comfort.

He worked for us, not for the man who selected him for the job.

Finally! Pruitt calls it quits

Scott Pruitt is out.

What in the world took so damn long for the Environmental Protection Agency head to hit the road? He had been buried under a mountain of scandals relating to ethical conduct, excessive spending and conflict of interest.

It was bad enough that the former Oklahoma attorney general was stripping the EPA of its “protection” rules and regulations under the guise of saving jobs. He was fulfilling the charge handed down by Donald J. Trump.

The other stuff relating to the conflicts of interests, high-end spending, wasteful policies, and a flouting of ethical standards was just too much.

I guess I have to give some credit to the young woman who confronted Pruitt the other day at the D.C. restaurant, challenging him to resign.

Perhaps he heeded her more than he let on.

Donald Trump vowed to “drain the swamp.” Pruitt, however, became the administration’s Swamp Creature. All the questions over his ethical conduct made it impossible for this man to stay in office.

Finally, we have some good news to report from the Trump administration. I fear it’ll be short-lived, given that the president’s mission to dismantle EPA’s rules aimed at protecting the environment remains intact.

The ‘swamp’ is getting swampier

Good grief, man! Can anything persuade the president of the United States to dump the director of the Environmental Protection Agency?

EPA boss Scott Pruitt now reportedly is being investigated for pushing friends and allies to get his wife a $200,000 a year job somewhere in big business.

The ethical questions just keep piling up. Never mind that Pruitt is unfit to lead the agency charged with protecting the environment. He has zero interest in environmental protection. He appears more intent on environmental destruction. But these damn ethics issues keep eclipsing the policy debates.

He accepts a sweetheart rental agreement with an energy company lobbyist; he flies aboard luxury aircraft to conduct official business; he seeks to install a sound-proof phone booth in his D.C. office; he lobbies a fast-food corporate owner to get his wife a franchise.

Now we have these latest reports about Pruitt trying to obtain a high-paying gig for his wife.

Didn’t Donald John Trump Sr. promise to “drain the swamp”? Didn’t he say he would clean the place up, creating a squeaky-clean ethical environment?

This guy has to go. Now! Hit the road.

So should Scott Pruitt!