Why President Trump Decided To Appoint Scott Pruitt As The Lead Of The Environmental Protection Agency?

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

Many controversial topics have surfaced recently, but one that tends to fly under the radar is lobbying. Lobbying is defined as a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to a group’s special interests (“Lobby”). Although average citizens are not fully aware of the issue, it is quite contentious in politics. For those who are against it, they believe that restrictions should be placed on lobbying because it distorts democracy. Lobbyists use money and cost-effective strategies to sway the opinions of lawmakers. Others see lobbyists as effective, political tour guides who help pass legislation. An analysis of the lobbying process reveals the outcomes are often

The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make

Lobbying is an issue that has recently found itself at the forefront of the American politics. Many feel that lobbying is essentially a legalized form of bribery and has lead to the government catering to the needs of special interests instead of the interests of America at large. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 74% of Americans believe that elected officials place their own interests ahead of the country's. So it seems many Americans wonder who their representatives are actually representing. Lee Drutman, a political scientist, compares the current situation of

It seems plausible that Presidents do not want to have to use their veto powers. Instead, they would prefer to influence policy even before it reaches their desk to be signed. Edwards (2012) argues that a hands-off approach is best in this situation, allowing party leadership in Congress to bargain, with presidential influence occurring quietly and behind closed doors. In Edwards’ argument, presidential persuasion is a rare occurrence. Beckmann (2010) echoes this argument, though adds a slight caveat to it. Drawing on pivotal voter models, he argues that vote centered lobbying can sway the key voters that can lead to success or failure on a key bill. However, this form of persuasion is costly, and has only marginal returns. Beckmann

Lobbyists have been around for many years and can be very convincing characters whenever they want to make a change that will favor them. They are undeniably the powers that are behind a great deal

Caress first argues that term limits do not “weaken the grip that special interest lobbyists ha[ve] on lawmaking.” Lobbyists’ jobs are to advocate the ideas of the American people; however lobbyists do not always act as the perfect voice for the people. Instead, lobbyists use money to the influence of

Now, we have President Trump, who wants to put a known coal lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, into an executive position at the EPA. Even though, he signed an executive order to limit lobbying influence in government and “drain the swamp”, but puts people in power who favor energy industries and want to sacrifice environmental regulations (Chow, 2017). Wheeler has worked in government before, as an EPA staffer and a Republican staff member, and worked on every major piece of environmental and energy-related legislation over the last decade. If Wheeler and others like him are put into these executive positions, they will use their power to regulate policies, so it will look more favorably at reducing environmental regulations, and supporting energy

Collaborative, breakthrough politics involved white house advocacy and cooperation of interest group allies. Strong alliances were possible if the president was eager to receive support from his ideological base. He created these alliances by following the policy initiatives recommended by affiliated interest groups. Collaborated, politics-as-usual was likely to be unfavorable to affiliated groups seeking major policy innovations, but more fortunate for groups satisfied with additional policy changes. Weak alliances resulted when the president offended affiliated groups by moving toward the political center to secure policy efforts and an independent public image. Adversarial politics placed interest group opponents in the difficult position

Scott Pruitt is a former Attorney General for Oklahoma in 2010. He has been nominated for the position of Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of this department is to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations. I do not believe Scott Pruitt should be confirmed by the Senate because of his disbelief in climate change. Pruitt has sued the EPA a total of 14 times, and lost to all 14 cases. He also denies climate change being real, despite running for the EPA. Pruitt is also a supporter of the fossil fuel industry, which contradicts the purpose of the EPA, because fossil fuel is very harmful to the environment. It wouldn’t make sense to confirm someone who contradicts what he is supposed to be doing,

Although many interest groups influence mainly Congress because of the amount of power Congress has in policy-making, interest groups can also influence other branches of government which extends the voices heard to other places in the government. In the Executive branch, the strategies that help groups form connections in Congress are less effective here. However, interest groups can still be significant in influencing the Executive branch. Although the President is not subjected to the “narrow, particularistic lobbying” in Congress, the President does seek support from interest groups to get reelected. Because of the group’s ability to mobilize the people, it can help get a President reelected and enact their policies (Source 6). Through that influence, the President can be influenced by these groups that support the President and therefore can influence the policies the President proposes like Lyndon B. Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also, interest groups can influence the Judiciary branch, but they must take a different approach. Lobbyists aren’t allowed to communicate directly with Supreme Court justices, so they instead resort to test cases and amicus curiae briefs in order to influence the Court’s opinion (Source 6). For example, the ACLU, or the American Civil Liberties Union. This interest group uses the courts to protect a citizen’s civil liberties and ensure the promise of the Bill of Rights. The

Lobbyists often deal with legislators and members of regulatory agencies. Although legislators are brought together in Congress to develop policy and serve the national interests, each legislator is first and foremost responsible to their own constituency. This superseding responsibility gives lobbyists their ammunition. Attempting to influence Congress as a whole is not only impossible, but would be too easily seen by the public and thus might attract attention to an already questionable facet of our political process. Metaphorically speaking, Congress’s armor is strong and impenetrable when they are united as one. Lobbyists stand no chance against this fortified body of legislators. Instead they go after individual legislators, utilizing a strategy that if successful, creates

Lust for power is most commonly seen in businessmen or politicians and in today's world money is power. Recently, politician’s desire for power can be seen in the global climate change issue. Many U.S. officials, including our current President, do not believe in global climate change, or are ignoring this large issue because of the immense amount of money they receive from one of the main causes of climate change: fossil fuels. In 2014 oil, gas, and coal companies spent a total of $151,437,335 on Congress’ campaigns (“Funding Fossil Fuels”). The people involved in our government system are letting their lust for money and power cloud their judgement on the future of our planet.

It is important to note that a change, however little it may be, will have an impact in an organization or a process, in this case policy making. As a matured democratic country, the U.S is likely to continue embracing those policies that promote fairness with regard to the policy making process. As such, the following implications are bound to be prevalent. Firstly, more and more people will continue being engaged in the policy making process. In other words, the public opinions and views and inputs are likely to be given much weight and hence will largely count in the policy making process. Secondly, the number of expert and professionally based interest groups is likely to increase and will largely be involved in the policy making process. Such interest groups have been consulted in the past by the policy makers with the aim of getting their qualified and expert opinions with regard to any underlying issue that may be affecting the population, for instance, on matters of security and health (Gray, Lowery, & Benz, 2013). Thirdly, the policy process is turning out to be a heated political issue attracting a lot of public outcry and awareness. Eventually, it means that the public will not be voting blindly but more and more will undertake the process from a well-informed perspective. Fourthly, it is apparent that the current U.S political system allows the citizens to access information regarding their elected members’ approval rating as well as their voting trends with regard to any bills brought to the congress. This creates a good platform whereby the electorates will be able to influence the policy making process, though indirectly. Finally, there will be an increased bonding between the policy makers and the public, interest groups as well as other

The struggle between providing for California’s burgeoning population and the corresponding increase pressure on California’s ever shrinking pristine natural wonders and natural resources has been a constant clash between the forces of big business and conservation activism. However, the outcomes of these many battles have increasingly favored the side of economics over nature. The trend that becomes clear is that the will of the businessmen have been prevailing over the concerns of the conservationists more and more. What are the forces that are pushing the pendulum closer and closer towards the desires of industry? By examining the history of this conflict between these two factions, it will become clear how one has had progressively more of an advantage over the other. Today, the main reason that industry’s goals almost always prevails over conservation’s efforts is economics and what an advantage in economics can buys one politically. Economic interests will predominately have ever-increasing priority over environmental interest as long as money is considered speech and corporations are people; therefore, the most pragmatic solution that would allot conservation groups with an equal voice in the political process with business is to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention to pass an amendment to permanently get money out of politics nationwide.