onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The definition of a denier is someone that will hear the truth and refuse to believe it.If he said the truth and operated within the confines of the truth, sure, yeah, absolutely. The issue here is that as a coal rep he will be acting in the interests of the coal industry. The coal industry does not want to be made irrelevant. There is existing evidence that companies actively fund research and legislation that can be spun to their advantage or glosses over the impact of their product. Tobacco companies were notorious for this in the past.
The Waters rule is a rule. It does not go to the legislature. The Presidential order is for a new rule to be proposed and opened for public comment. This is the usual path to take.Assuming you're right that the scope of the Waters rule should be scaled back or repealed, I'm still not in support of such an act until a replacement is envisioned and put into legislature. That is my main gripe with Trump and those he has appointed. They are eager to repeal but rarely have an equivalent replacement or a replacement at all. The claim that the EPA is refocusing is a claim that won't be believed until it is true. What new regulation or bill has the EPA been responsible for placing forward since the regime change that would definitively reduce air or water pollution?
Though he has never said it in so many words, it is clear that Administrator Pruitt is of the opinion that climate change is not a crisis. That said, his actions on the Clean Power Plan seem to be motivated more toward removing restrictions from the coal industry. President Obama stated that he wanted to shut the coal industry down. The CPP has all the earmarks of a level in that process. It raises an ethical question.
Do we want the government to ever attempt to shut down a legal industry? If so, do we want it done by regulatory strangulation? Since you mention tobacco, it also raises the question.
J