Actually, the mainstream media seems to be covering the non-climate work that Pruitt is doing at the EPA fairly well (e.g., this, this and this):
Pruitt argued that the media's focus on climate change has distracted from the work he is doing at the EPA on everything from air pollution to regulating dangerous chemicals.
"We’ve got a very positive environmental agenda. [There's] work to be done, opportunity to achieve good outcomes, a plan to do that, and there’s not very much margin, if any at all, with groups that are liberal, conservative, the rest, at getting those things done," he said.
via www.politico.com
From a FOX News interview transcript:
[CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR]: Let me ask you one -- let me ask you one's last question, and again I apologize, sir. Because it goes to the whole question of commitment to trying to improve the environment. Under the president's new budget, the EPA is cut 31 percent, that is more than any other agency.
And I want to put up some of the cuts that are included in the president's budget. Here are some of the 56 programs that would be scrapped: Great Lakes restoration, water runoff control for farmers, pesticide safety.
What does that say about the commitment of this administration and you to cleaning up the environment when you're making a 31 percent cut in your agency and cutting things like that, water runoffs for farmers?
PRUITT: Well, part of -- part of the issue, Chris, is that over the last several years, there has been a lack of commitment to state partnership. You know, we have state Departments of Environmental Quality across the country have the resources and the expertise to deal with clean water and clean air issues. And so, renewing that partnership --
In other words, Scott Pruitt's definition of "very positive environmental agenda" is different than what many environmental economics would consider a positive environmental agenda (i.e., pursue environmental regulations when the benefits exceed the costs ... this administration only considers the costs).
