News & Politics

'A Wave of Eco-Terrorism Against the Trump Administration'

President Donald Trump listens as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks about the U.S. role in the Paris climate change accord. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Since the Trump administration took office, there have been more than 70 credible threats against Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff, mostly against Administrator Scott Pruitt and his family. Democrats, who push the narrative of Pruitt endangering the environment, have also attacked his beefed-up security to defend against these threats.

“It is very concerning that scientific disagreement, uncertainty and a complex policy debate surrounding climate change are apparently seeding what seems to be a wave of eco-terrorism against members of the Trump administration,” climate scientist Judith Curry, who runs the blog Climate Etc., told PJ Media on Thursday.

Curry resigned from her post as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology this past January, noting that approaching climate change with a skeptical scientific mind has become “a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.”

Curry suggested that, like her resignation, the forces behind the “eco-terrorism” against Pruitt “are likely to be motivated by overly-alarmist climate dogma and a particular political agenda.” She further added, “In light of the threats that have been made against Scott Pruitt, it is very difficult to justify criticism of any protective measures that he is taking.”

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board reported that Pruitt has received more than five times as many threats as his predecessor, Gina McCarthy. These include explicit death threats, many of which mentioned Pruitt’s home address. EPA security has already caught suspects prowling around his neighborhood.

Tragically, many leftists have suggested that Pruitt himself is instigating violence. “When you send death threats to the world and all who live on her, the world will, quite naturally, send them right back,” SFGate’s Mark Morford quipped.

Morford went even further. He suggested the death threats were coming from scientists. “They are, perhaps, coming from environmental advocates, or teachers, or peace activists, or lovers of life and humanity and nature, or distraught mothers, worried that Pruitt’s actions will, quite correctly, endanger the lives of their children.”

Actor Mark Ruffalo tweeted that Americans should blame Pruitt “for the woe heading your way. Fires, floods and storms.”

Forbes editor Halah Touryalai even said a Pruitt Bible quote was “scarier than Allahu Akbar.”

Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) called for the inspector general to launch an investigation into Pruitt’s security measures, asking whether expenditures “constitute potential waste or abuse of taxpayer dollars.” DeFazio and Napolitano also claimed that “there is no apparent security threat against the Administrator to justify such a security detail or expenditures.”

The EPA inspector general’s office recommended 24/7 security for Pruitt based on unprecedented threats. The team of agents will cost taxpayers roughly $2 million per year.

Most Democrats may not be suggesting Pruitt’s protection is a waste of money, but they do stand lock-step in attempting to silence debate on climate science. Last summer, Senate Democrats launched an investigation into what they termed a “web of denial,” people contributing to scientific efforts skeptical of climate change.

Contrary to leftist talking-points, Pruitt is not against science or the environment. He merely intends to safeguard the environment without jeopardizing economic growth.

“The past administration told everyone in this room at some point, told the American citizens across the country, that we have to choose between jobs and growth and environmental stewardship,” Pruitt told the Daily Signal last month. “We’ve never done that as a country.”

“We, as a country, have always used innovative technology to advance environmental stewardship, reduction of those pollutants, but also grown our economy at the same time,” the EPA head declared. He argued that the Obama administration’s push to choose between the environment and the economy was “a false choice.”

Pruitt defined true environmentalism as “using natural resources that God has blessed us with to feed the world, to power the world with the sensitivity that future generations cultivate, to harvest, to be respectful good stewards, good managers of our natural resources, to bequeath those natural resources for the next generation.”

Does that constitute “sending death threats to the world”? It seems Curry was on to something when she suggested that the radical insistence of politicized environmentalism is the true culprit in this scenario.

Threats of eco-terrorism against cabinet members need to be taken seriously, and DeFazio and Napolitano should be ashamed of themselves.