Pollution Permits for the Privileged
Mainstream outlets dutifully reported that the Trump administration's EPA reversed the "endangerment finding," essentially declaring that carbon emissions posed no threat to public health or welfare. This move was presented as a mere policy shift, a difference in administrative priorities from the Obama era. Apparently, the agency charged with protecting the environment decided it would rather
protect the polluters. What a curious coincidence. This wasn't an ideological whim; it was a calculated exchange. Scott Pruitt, initially appointed to head the EPA, famously spent much of his tenure meeting with fossil fuel lobbyists and industry executives. Before him, Stephen Johnson, EPA administrator under George W. Bush, also faced scrutiny for policies perceived to favor industry. Pruitt’s
political action committee, Liberty 2.0, received over $350,000 from energy interests before his appointment, a tidy sum providing clarity on his 'mission.' Such reversals line the pockets of corporate donors who, in turn, fund the next election cycle, ensuring a self-perpetuating system where legislation often mirrors lobbying efforts. One might wonder why, despite overwhelming scientific
consensus and a 2007 Supreme Court ruling affirming the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, such a fundamental finding could be undone. The answer lies not in scientific debate, but in the thick envelopes exchanged between industry giants and their political champions. This move saved fossil fuel companies billions in compliance costs, directly subsidizing their profits at the expense of