Scott Pruitt Quotes

Without question, I'm not a fan of the EPA. The EPA has overstepped their boundaries each and every day. They get into areas they shouldn't be involved in... the states have the right to regulate themselves if they have the ability to do so - and we do because we have the Department of Environmental Quality.

The EPA has performed a very important role for us all.

I don't need a strong EPA. I don't need to fund a lot of money there.

To forget that the EPA was borne out of public demand is to invite a real backlash.

EPA's role is even broader than water infrastructure and cleaning up contaminated land - the agency also has a key role in allowing projects to move forward by reviewing environmental impact statements during the permitting process.

There are issues the EPA should be dealing with. When I talk about the EPA and its role with the states, it's not an abolitionist view, that we don't need that agency. It's that the agency should act within the outlines established by Congress.

Congress passes statutes, and those statutes are very clear on the job EPA has to do.

I hope the EPA will listen to the many votes over the years in Congress opposing cap-and-trade and rescind that proposed rule.

Climate change is not an excuse for the EPA to ignore the bounds of law and issue illegal regulations that will cost jobs, shutter industries, and have little to no positive impact on the environment.

Every day, the hard-working men and women of Alabama's Department of Environmental Management are on the ground, protecting Alabama's rivers and lakes in a way that is beneficial to all. EPA should support them in that work, not make it more difficult.

When it comes to the environment and global warming from emissions, it has to be dealt with in one of two ways - preemptive regulations, which I don't agree with, or with private property principles. Nobody has the right to pollute their neighbors' air or water or land.

If you're asking me do we want clean air and clean water? Yes. Do we want a safer climate for future generations of the world? Of course we want that. We're working super hard here in Trump Tower to make sure that happens.

We are committed to cleaning up the air and cleaning up the water. But we also are committed to a strong economy, and we are not going to allow the environmental issue to be used sometimes falsely and sometimes in a demagogic way basically to destroy the system-the industrial system that made this the great country it is.

Our environment is too important to neglect and it's time for the federal government to focus on real solutions and live up to their promises.

We need responsible regulations, not regulations that have gone wild. For example, the EPA has a rule that is going to be implemented Jan. 1, 2012, where they're going to begin to regulate dust. That's right, dust. It's called PM 2.5. That is focusing on the wrong thing.

Wall Street is littered with clever plans to use financial instruments to change behavior - carbon trading, for example. Some have changed the world, and others failed miserably.

I think that our cooperative conservation approaches get people to sit down and grapple with problem solving.

I think a moratorium probably is legal, and we should probably for a short period of time impose a moratorium so that we don't permit any additional landfill permits for the time being, so we don't exacerbate the problem.

Firms have traditionally ignored the carrot of environmental technology until they felt the stick of environmental enforcement.

What is true environmentalism? I think it's environmental stewardship - not prohibition.

We can be thankful President Barack Obama is taking aim at one of the prime causes of climate change and extreme weather: air pollution. The EPA's carbon pollution standards are the most significant step forward our country has ever taken to protect our health by addressing climate change.

The EPA has a history of overreaching its authority.

I think the rest of the world would like to tell us how to manage our own environment. And I think that anybody in America can tell you that we're best to decide what America should do.

In order to build anything from factories to schools to hospitals, one must jump through a series of regulatory hoops, giving EPA veto power over any major projects.

The whole basis of conserving is not about nature - it is about people. If we don't look after the people surrounding the place, and if they don't have the value of preserving it in their pockets, then they are not going to preserve it.