Trump to nominate climate doubter as environmental adviser (Update)

October 13, 2017 by Michael Biesecker

President Donald Trump will nominate a climate change skeptic with ties to the fossil fuel industry to serve as a top environmental adviser.

The White House on Thursday announced the selection of Kathleen Hartnett White of Texas to serve as chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. White served under former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, now Trump's energy secretary, for six years on a commission overseeing the state environmental agency.

White was fiercely critical of what she called the Obama administration's "imperial EPA" and pushed back against stricter limits on air and water pollution. She is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that has received funding from fossil-fuel companies that include Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

In a 2014 policy paper titled "Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case," White praised the burning of coal and petroleum for "vastly improved living conditions across the world" and credited fossil fuels with ending slavery.

She also likened the work of mainstream climate scientists to "the dogmatic claims of ideologues and clerics." White is a member of the CO2 Coalition, a group that seeks to educate "thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy."

In an op-ed published in The Hill newspaper last year, White took aim at Obama-era policies that sought to slow global warming by limiting carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. Climate scientists point to the rising concentrations of carbon emitted into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels with a corresponding increase in global average temperatures.

"The truth is that our bodies, blood and bones are built of carbon!" White wrote. "Carbon dioxide is a necessary nutrient for plant life, acting as the catalyst for the most essential energy conversion process on planet earth: photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is an odorless, invisible, harmless and completely natural gas lacking any characteristic of a pollutant."

A native of Kansas, White holds degrees from Stanford University in East Asian studies and comparative literature.

White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said White is "eminently qualified."

"Her nomination was cleared by the Office of Government Ethics," Love said. "We look forward to Mrs. White being confirmed."

The Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal environmental efforts and works with agencies and White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. According to its congressional mandate, the council is to "encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment" and promote "efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere."

Environmental groups and Democrats quickly criticized White's pending nomination, which will require confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate.

Christy Goldfuss, who chaired the Council on Environmental Quality under President Barack Obama, said White's alliance with the fossil fuel industry "makes her unfit to hold the highest environmental post in the government to advise the president on the real moral threat to our county: climate change." Goldfuss is a vice president of energy and environmental policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune called White's selection "outrageous."

"The nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White is the nightmare scenario for anyone who wants clean air and clean water," he said. "Her record makes clear she is completely ready and willing to sell out the health of our kids to corporate polluters."

Explore further: Environmental groups denounce Trump override of climate plan

Related Stories

US scientists contradict Trump's climate claims

August 9, 2017

As President Donald Trump touts new oil pipelines and pledges to revive the nation's struggling coal mines, federal scientists are warning that burning fossil fuels is already driving a steep increase in the United States ...

White House climate change meeting postponed

May 9, 2017

The White House has postponed a Tuesday meeting to discuss whether the United States should withdraw from the landmark international climate deal struck in Paris under the Obama administration.

Recommended for you

Matter waves and quantum splinters

March 25, 2019

Physicists in the United States, Austria and Brazil have shown that shaking ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can cause them to either divide into uniform segments or shatter into unpredictable splinters, depending ...

How tree diversity regulates invading forest pests

March 25, 2019

A national-scale study of U.S. forests found strong relationships between the diversity of native tree species and the number of nonnative pests that pose economic and ecological threats to the nation's forests.

39 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2017
This article is not a study or based on any research. It is nothing but a geek's opinion and has no place on phys.org. Don't get me wrong I am a geek myself and while I value my opinions highly, I realize they are just opinions and not scientific studies. So why does the writer of this article think her opinions are so important they should be presented here alongside articles on fusion research and gene editing advancements etc.?.
xponen
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
Haha... apparently the White House and the oil company had a 'merger', and now they 'acquired' the rights of regular American citizen by buying it from White House. What a very business-like move...Now everyone had a new boss, some will unfortunately be laid off, that's what you could do after you bought yourself a seat in the government.
rderkis
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2017
Haha... apparently the White House and the oil company had a 'merger', and now they 'acquired' the rights of regular American citizen by buying it from White House. What a very business-like move...Now everyone had a new boss, some will unfortunately be laid off, that's what you could do after you bought yourself a seat in the government.


It's all a conspiracy right? And your the only one smart enough to figure it all out, right?
Because if everyone could figure it out they would not do it, because they would know they couldn't get away with it, right?
I think your absolute belief the world is flat holds up just as well. You should stick with that.
howhot3
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2017
If the story is true, Trump will be getting fed a lot of horse crap in his briefings on the environment. But that's assuming Trump is sane. That's assuming a lot! Everyone knows, this president was the ultimate "Manchurian Candidate" planted by Russian influence teams to be the most contrarian person possible to American values. Anyway, it's just par-for-the-course with this guy. Why expect anything else from this marie-antoinette act-alike?
rderkis
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2017
" Everyone knows, this president "

Fake news right off the bat from howhot3. Now my question is "Is he a intentional liar or just stupid?
I don't know that and I even disagree with what he said. So his use of "everyone " is a lie!

Plus he is a conspiracy theorist and that makes what he says a joke.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
I said this was Vladimir Putin for President months before it got elected. Anybody who voted for Rump was a traitor. Move to Russia traitors. You can beat up all the black people you like. Good luck with that.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
not rated yet Oct 14, 2017
Nice that she talked disrespectfully about clerics and their dogmas. This is at least one domain in which she is qualified to talk about, due to her doctoral work in "Comparative Religion". I wish her to have deep conversations with God-bless-us Trump and his team, shining with her true expertise.
aksdad
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2017
The Texas Public Policy Foundation also received similar amounts of funding from notorious right-wing groups like Coca-Cola, Boeing, Farmers Insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Annheuser-Busch and others. Oh wait, they're not right wing. Nor are they big oil or the despicable Koch Foundation. I wonder if Michael Biesecker considers PBS suspect because the Koch Foundation funds many of their programs like Nature and Nova.

Frankly it should be considered a great compliment to be criticized by the Sierra Club and other looney enviro-activist organizations who left science behind long ago. Another in a string of excellent appointments by President Trump. We're still not sick and tired of winning yet. Keep up the good work, Mister President.
aksdad
1 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2017
I'm still waiting for fossil-fuel haters to demonstrate the superiority of their moral position by rejecting fossil fuel use. No more petrol-powered transportation, petrol-powered electricity, or products that have been tainted by being products of fossil fuels (plastics, etc.) or manufactured with fossil-fuel energy (everything), or transported by fossil-fuel-powered vehicles (food and pretty much everything else). Because fossil fuels are immoral.

The modern economy and food production which sustains billions of people in remarkable comfort and ease could have come about if we had used windmills instead. Or, maybe not. Think about what sustainability really means: cheap energy that sustains billions of people so they have time for entertainment and other pursuits or the pastoralist economic ideal that only worked when there were just a few million people on the planet, spending almost their entire effort just to feed themselves.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2017
I'm still waiting for fossil-fuel haters to demonstrate the superiority of their moral position by rejecting fossil fuel use. No more petrol-powered transportation, petrol-powered electricity, or products that have been tainted by being products of fossil fuels (plastics, etc.) or manufactured with fossil-fuel energy (everything), or transported by fossil-fuel-powered vehicles (food and pretty much everything else). Because fossil fuels are immoral.

The modern economy and food production which sustains billions of people in remarkable comfort and ease could have come about if we had used windmills instead. ere were just a few million people on the planet, spending almost their entire effort just to feed themselves.


You're just preaching to a lot of blind hypocrites. Who drive their gas guzzling cars to meetings to protest fossil fuels.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2017
"Trump to nominate climate doubter"

"5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do." James1

- And I thought all the religionists were republican.

De Scheide sprecht
I said this was Vladimir Putin for President months before it got elected. Anybody who voted for Rump was a traitor. Move to Russia traitors
I for 1 would be happy to do that if you would kiss my hairy ass. Non?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2017
If the story is true, Trump will be getting fed a lot of horse crap in his briefings on the environment.

He just gets fed whatever he wants to hear, anyways.

Currently I think the best idea is: Build that wall. Around the entire US. Let nothing and no one in or out. Until people there come to their senses. The world seems better off without the US.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2017
aa should reflect on the fact that without the US he would probably be speaking russian by now. Although maybe he would be ok with that.

But he has more pressing problems to reflect on, like the fact that he may soon be speaking Arabic and wearing a burka, and there is nothing the US can do about that.

Although maybe he would be ok with that as well.

There are limits to superpower superpowers you know?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2017
I really am a fossil fuel hater for several reasons, it pollutes during combustion, it contributes to a number of health and environmental problems in the whole of it's supply chain, and it is the cause of global warming (PERIOD!)

The pro fossil fuel folks should explain in detail why they think the above are to be dismissed and why the think their families are safe with that?

Folks, your either really stupid and can pretend to be pro fossil fuel combustion for energy. OR you can look to the future with clean energy, forever renewable energy, and a lower cost energy that requires a much less investment but is more robust in it's technology.

That is where we need to focus our energy efforts on. Trump isn't.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
This is corrupt incompetence. Look at who Rump just appointed to head the DEA: the Republican Senate head of the Drug Dealer Caucus.

Next up, Rump appoints the head of the Republican Insider Stock Trading Caucus to head the SEC.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
I really am a fossil fuel hater for several reasons,


And you of course realize putting your comment on here uses fossil fuel energy.
Are you walking everywhere? Or do you use a car? Do you let your kids freeze in the winter and overheat in the summer?

Or are you a hypocrite, which I think you are.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
Everyone knows, this president was the ultimate "Manchurian Candidate" planted by Russian influence teams to be the most contrarian person possible to American values


howhot3 knows even less about the Trump/Russian nonsense as he does about CO₂. It is the Clintons who were in bed with the Russians.
"Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal" At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

J Doug
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2017
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
https://www.nytim...any.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2017
This all occurred when Hillary R Clinton was the ineffective Sec. Of State.
"Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA
In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide ("yellowcake") mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the "New U" uranium claims."
https://www.blm.g...nium.php
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
I The pro fossil fuel folks should explain in detail why they think the above are to be dismissed and why the think their families are safe with that?


Here is another aspect of petroleum that needs to be considered when trying to figure out why the price of gas and diesel is what it is. I'm reasonably sure that none of you far left type anthropogenic global warming/ climate change people such as howhot3 knows just what all ExxonMobil does for your everyday life that you have no idea about, and never will because of your closed minded approach to this issue.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
"A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 
250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel."
http://www.ranken...leum.htm
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
howhot3 Tells us how wind and solar are going to power the world. It looks very doubtful anytime soon to any one who can think.

SOLAR POWER: Desert plant has pollution problem
The Ivanpah solar plant burns substantial amounts of natural gas, making it a greenhouse emitter under state law.
]…]The Ivanpah plant in the Mojave Desert uses natural gas as a supplementary fuel. Data from the California Energy Commission show that the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 – its first year of operation – to emit more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.[…]The plant, which was developed by Oakland-based BrightSource Energy, was approved in 2010 amid questions about its cost to taxpayers and the facility's effect on the desert environment.
http://www.pe.com...rgy.html
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
I really am a fossil fuel hater for several reasons,


And you of course realize putting your comment on here uses fossil fuel energy.
Are you walking everywhere? Or do you use a car? Do you let your kids freeze in the winter and overheat in the summer?

Or are you a hypocrite, which I think you are.

Pretty weak argument. We are currently a fossil fuel driven country *The USA* and we have yet to transition to a renewable energy foundation (Although on the electric grid, solar and wind are making strong in-roads. It's kind of hypocritical of you to not recognize how much is being to move from fossil fuels. I still have an old gas car that gets 22mpg in the city, I know what I want my next car to be; a Tesla Model 3. And I also plan to supplement my electricity with roof top solar. If you want to be a hypocrite, I bet you've bought a bunch of LED lamps for your house.
So there. Munch on that for a while.


howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
So JDougy, who paid you to come over here an troll global warming articles? You sure you don't have any links to the russian troll farms because they do exactly what you do. It sounds like you have a whole book of right-wing Rush Limbaugh talking points ready to go; for example you wrote
The plant, which was developed by Oakland-based BrightSource Energy, was approved in 2010 amid questions about its cost to taxpayers and the facility's effect on the desert environment.
. And you know this from where? It's not from your own personal research, I guarantee. Same with every other looney fake news factoid you posted.

It's just a fact! Regardless of all your weasling, fossil fuel combustion by man to run his machines and keep a comfortable environment has released giga-tons of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere that has damaged out climate and is throwing the planet's environment and weather systems into chaos! If it doesn't stop, it will only destroy the planet.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
. And you know this from where? It's not from your own personal research, I guarantee. Same with every other looney fake news factoid you posted.

Why do renewables need to be subsidizes to such an extent? Why can't they develop on their own if they are so great?
Table ES4. Fiscal year 2010 electricity production subsidies and support (million 2010 dollars) Share of Total Subsidies and Support Coal, 10%; Renewables, 55.3% http://www.eia.go...subsidy/
"Direct expenditures accounted for 39 percent of total electricity-related subsidies in FY 2010 (Table ES4). These expenditures were mostly the result of the ARRA Section 1603 grant program, 84-percent of which went to wind generation."  http://www.eia.go...subsidy/
Wind and solar in March accounted for 10% of U.S. electricity generation for first time
https://www.eia.g...id=31632

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
. And you know this from where? It's not from your own personal research, I guarantee.

"It's not from your own personal research, I guarantee." This clueless dunce needs to point out anything that he has EVER POSTED that has links for verification as to whether it is only some bull shit that the fool made up. He is just like the other idiot who gets on here, Captain Stumpy, that never has anything to add to the discussion.

This is why renewables are built at all: "The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company's tax payments. "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," he said. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." Warren Buffett http://www.wsj.co...64848174

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
You sure you don't have any links to the russian troll farms because they do exactly what you do.

It is interesting that there is a special prosecutor investigating Trump's alleged collusion with the Russians.
Why no investigation about this, howhot3?
"Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
https://www.nytim...any.html
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
If Hillary Rodham Clinton had the state department sign off on some deal it was certainly a deal in the American interest. That is for certain. The Nytime story is real, but the facts of the story are fake. It just shows how gullible you and the rest of the trump coal trolls are. Your just russian puppets with a hand up your back manipulating you. I hope you get paid for it. I would hate to think you are that brain-washed.

I know, you want so badly to have benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi
benghazi benghazi. More fake crap from the crack smoking republicans.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
Why do renewables need to be subsidizes to such an extent? Why can't they develop on their own if they are so great?
The answer to JD (Dimb bulb) coal troll is so simple it's hard to not laugh at you in your face. Could it be that it's just easier to be complacent with current standards like the frog in a pot of water on a stove, slowly being cooked. You need to encourage people like you to make the move. But I bet you have lots of LED lamps already.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
Hay there JDoushy, just to show you I did do some homework, here is the fact check link to your New York Times piece. I'm posting this link to show other readers what a lying POS you are. How fake your crap is. It's not selling here dude.

https://www.snope...ia-deal/

Read it JD. If your an American, you really need to become unbrain-washed from the assault of the rightwing.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
I'm posting this link to show other readers what a lying POS you are. How fake your crap is. It's not selling here dude.
https://www.snope...ia-deal/


It is no surprise how someone such as howhot3, who is gullible enough to believe that a trace gas, CO₂, controls the earth's climate, is in turn taken in by what this irrelevant and corrupt Snopes.com has to say about basically anything. I find it equally strange that the far left AGW person, howhot3, now doesn't want to believe the far-left NY Times.
You are a fool if you trust what Snopes.com is telling you. I do my research and it is not the false bull shit that you throw at me that I believe.

"Snopes.com owners Barbara and David Mikkelson were detained by police today after an unrelated investigation of a Snopes.com editor lead police onto a paper trail of corruption, bribery, and fraud at the very heart of the fact-checking organization.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
Evidence obtained by police has revealed that Snopes.com, which markets itself as "the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation," has a history of accepting money and favors from left-leaning and pro-Islamic political groups and individuals for helping them to advance their cause by rigging public discourse with selective fact-finding and deliberate manipulation of public opinion.
The arresting officer caught Williston slipping some papers under a Persian rug, which prompted the police to remove the rug and examine the documents underneath it. One of them turned out to be a handwritten ledger, containing names of well-known individuals and organizations who have been paying Snopes.com to debunk stories that cast them in a bad light, while validating damaging half-truths and rumors about their political opponents."
http://www.wuc-ne...-on.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
Here is one for howhot3 to check put with Snopes.com & see what the lying bunch of charlatans must say about it. All of this was taking place when Hillary was the SEC. of State.

"Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA
In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide ("yellowcake") mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the "New U" uranium claims."
https://www.blm.g...nium.php


howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
It is no surprise how someone such as howhot3, who is gullible enough to believe that a trace gas, CO₂, controls the earth's climate, is in turn taken in by what this irrelevant and corrupt Snopes.com has to say about basically anything.
Well, there you go again JDushey. Three more paragraphs of utter BS. You sure your not one of the Trump supported russian truth trolls. You sure do act like one.

I wouldn't exactly call CO2 a trace gas and dismiss it like it has no consequences on global warming. It is commonly know to be a very potent green house gas and is currently contributing significantly to global temperature rise across the globe. Even the small trace amounts of CO2 are have already raised global average temperatures almost 2C since the industrial error, with another 4-6C (or more) by 2100 which will devastate the planet.

If your denial of CO2 and AGW are so easily dismissed, pretty much everything else you say is worthless to.

howhot3
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
Let me also say, Hillary is a very nice person. She's smart and clever. Chances are if she was doing something, she was motivated by the interest of America, and nothing more.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
If your denial of CO2 and AGW are so easily dismissed, pretty much everything else you say is worthless to.


Show me, with links, where it is proven by an empirical experiment that the amount CO₂ in the earth's present atmosphere can cause climate change. I don't need you empty and meaningless & unsubstantiated bull shit that is all conjecture but FACTS.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
Let me also say, Hillary is a very nice person. She's smart and clever. Chances are if she was doing something, she was motivated by the interest of America, and nothing more.


If the lying dud, Hillary, is so "smart and clever" explain why she is not staying in the White House now? Could it be that Trump understood that one had to win the electoral vote to win the presidency & that is where his campaign team focused their efforts while Hillary stumbled and fell on her fat worthless ass, and there she remains, while trump can show people the Lincoln bed room in the White House.
howhot3
not rated yet Nov 22, 2017
With in the tradition of the United States election system, Hillary conceded the election to Trump regardless of the her overwhelming majority vote win. The traditional electoral vote only took the Russian a small number of districts in a small number of states to focus on. Post election analysis indicates the election was very much manipulated. So there is that.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.