Giving Pruitt the Boot

WHETHER HE KNOWS IT OR NOT, whether he happens to be in denial, Scott Pruitt is going to lose his job as director of the Environmental Protection Agency, and probably soon. The lesson is: if you do not like a particular government agency, and believe that it shouldn't exist, you probably shouldn't be offered its directorship, and if offered, probably shouldn't accept. It is well known that before taking over the EPA, Pruitt developed a tiresome habit of trying to immolate the agency by repeatedly filling lawsuits against it, trying to prevent it from doing its job. That's why Trump nominated him for the job; the president believes that environmental protection is all well and good, as long as it doesn't in any way interfere with corporate profit. Problem is, protecting the environment, either by cleaning it up or by reforming corporate behavior to prevent further environmental damage costs money And since most environmental destruction is the result of corporate enterprise, it is widely believed that the expense of protecting the environment should be born or at the very least shared by the corporate community. Instead, Pruitt's EPA seems intent on making it easier for big business to ignore the environmental consequences of its behavior, most notably by eliminating regulations installed by previous administrations. but none of that is the reason for Pruitt's impending departure. the reason is financial corruption, which has been much in the news recently. The American people, much to their credit, have a limited tolerance for soundproof rooms and first class travel at public expense. Consider Pruitt's lack of concern for the health of the ecosystem a n ancillary concern, and his forthcoming departure an unintended positive benefit for us all, and for the Earth.