Who’s Worse for the Environment: Lee Zeldin or Scott Pruitt?

Comparing the Records of Two Controversial Figures in Environmental Policy—and What It Means for the Future of the EPA.

Nov 15, 2024

Thanks for reading Weathering Climate Change! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Lee Zeldin, a Republican who represented New York’s 1st Congressional District (Long Island) from 2015 to 2023, holds a lifetime score of 14% from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). The LCV scorecard evaluates members of Congress on their votes as related to environmental protection, energy policy, public health, and climate change. Zeldin’s low score places him among those who consistently oppose pro-environment legislation.

2022 Environmental Score: 5%

Zeldin’s most recent annual score of 5% is indicative of his voting pattern during the last year of his term. This drop underscores his strong alignment with policies favoring deregulation and energy industry interests, often at the expense of environmental protections.

Key Legislative Actions

Opposition to Methane Pollution Safeguards

Vote: In 2021, Zeldin voted against S.J. Res. 14, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act aimed at reinstating Obama-era methane regulations. Methane, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide, contributes heavily to climate change.
Implications: By opposing this resolution, Zeldin aligned himself with the fossil fuel industry's preference for reduced regulatory oversight, potentially enabling increased emissions from oil and gas operations.

Opposition to PFAS Regulation

Vote: Zeldin voted against a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the EPA to regulate and clean up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
What are PFAS? Known as "forever chemicals," PFAS are linked to cancer, immune system suppression, and other severe health effects.
Implications: His vote highlighted a prioritization of industry concerns over public health, particularly for communities affected by water contamination.

Support for the Great American Outdoors Act

Vote: In 2020, Zeldin broke from his typical voting record by supporting the Great American Outdoors Act, which allocated billions of dollars to national park maintenance and conservation efforts.
Context: This was a rare pro-environment vote in his record, likely reflecting bipartisan support for public lands and economic benefits from tourism.

Opposition to Clean Energy Tax Credits

Vote: Zeldin consistently opposed extending or expanding tax credits for renewable energy projects, such as wind and solar power.
Implications: His votes aligned with fossil fuel interests and hindered efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources.

Policy Positions

Energy Policy and Fracking

Zeldin has advocated for expanding natural gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing (fracking), despite evidence linking the practice to water contamination, seismic activity, and methane emissions.
As a gubernatorial candidate in New York, he pushed for overturning the state’s fracking ban, citing economic benefits over environmental risks.

Offshore Drilling

Zeldin has voiced opposition to offshore drilling in areas that could directly impact New York’s coastline, such as the Long Island Sound. However, he has not opposed broader offshore drilling initiatives in other regions.

Deregulation Agenda

Zeldin has been a strong proponent of reducing federal regulations on industries, including energy and manufacturing. His rhetoric often emphasizes economic growth and energy independence over environmental safeguards.

Climate Change

While Zeldin has acknowledged the existence of climate change, he has largely avoided supporting substantive legislative action to address its root causes. His voting record reflects skepticism toward policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Potential Impact as EPA Administrator

If Zeldin were to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, his leadership could signal a significant pivot toward deregulation and fossil fuel expansion. Based on his congressional record, we can anticipate the following priorities:

Rolling Back Environmental Protections:
- Zeldin could move to weaken regulations on methane emissions, air and water pollution, and hazardous chemicals like PFAS.
- This approach would likely align with industry groups lobbying for reduced compliance costs.
Support for Fossil Fuels:
- Expansion of oil, gas, and coal production may take precedence over renewable energy initiatives.
- Policies like fracking expansion and easing restrictions on offshore drilling could gain momentum under his leadership.
Reduced Climate Action:
- Zeldin’s track record suggests minimal focus on addressing climate change through federal regulations or investment in clean energy technologies.
Public Health Risks:
- Weakening standards for air and water quality could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including low-income and minority communities already burdened by environmental hazards.

Criticism and Concerns

Environmental advocates have expressed deep concerns about Zeldin’s nomination to lead the EPA. Key criticisms include:

Prioritization of Industry Interests: Zeldin’s voting record demonstrates a consistent alignment with the fossil fuel industry and business interests over environmental and public health protections.
Weak Stance on Climate Change: At a time when urgent climate action is needed, his potential leadership could slow or reverse progress on emissions reductions and renewable energy adoption.
Public Health Implications: Decisions to roll back clean air and water standards would likely exacerbate health disparities in communities near industrial sites and other polluted areas.

I asked Artificial Intelligence who would be worse for the environment between Scott Pruitt and Lee Zeldin, here is the analysis:

When comparing Lee Zeldin and Scott Pruitt in terms of their environmental policies and potential impact as EPA Director, both have significant records of actions and positions that are considered harmful to environmental protection efforts. However, there are some distinctions in their approaches, records, and potential influence.

Scott Pruitt: A Profile

Role: EPA Administrator (2017–2018)
Background: Before his tenure at the EPA, Pruitt was the Attorney General of Oklahoma, where he repeatedly sued the EPA to block environmental regulations.
Philosophy: Pruitt was a staunch advocate for deregulation and believed the EPA’s mission should prioritize state rights and economic growth over federal environmental oversight.

Actions as EPA Director:

Aggressive Deregulation:
- Rolled back or attempted to weaken over 100 environmental rules, including Clean Power Plan regulations for carbon emissions and the Waters of the United States rule.
- Suspended methane emission standards for oil and gas production.
Climate Science Denial:
- Repeatedly questioned the validity of climate science, undermining the EPA’s mission to address climate change.
- Removed climate change information from EPA websites and defunded climate research initiatives.
Close Ties to Industry:
- Maintained close relationships with fossil fuel executives, often prioritizing their interests in policymaking.
- Allowed lobbyists and industry representatives significant influence over regulatory decisions.
Ethical Controversies:
- Faced numerous scandals over misuse of taxpayer funds, conflicts of interest, and unethical behavior, ultimately leading to his resignation.

Lee Zeldin: A Profile

Role: Potential EPA Administrator (or public official with significant influence over environmental policy)
Background: Former Congressman (2015–2023) with a lifetime LCV score of 14%, reflecting consistent opposition to pro-environment legislation.

Environmental Record:

Legislative Actions:
- Opposed regulations on methane emissions, PFAS chemicals, and renewable energy incentives.
- Supported the Great American Outdoors Act, showcasing rare bipartisan support for public lands.
Climate Change Stance:
- Acknowledges climate change but has shown minimal support for substantive action to address its causes.
- Advocates for fossil fuel development, including fracking and offshore drilling.
Policy Focus:
- Likely to emphasize deregulation and fossil fuel expansion.
- Could stall or roll back renewable energy investments and emissions reduction policies.
Deregulatory Philosophy:
- Similar to Pruitt, Zeldin prioritizes economic growth and energy independence over environmental protections.

Who Is Worse for the Environment?

Policy Execution and Impact:

Scott Pruitt: As EPA Administrator, Pruitt had direct control over the agency’s regulatory agenda. His tenure was marked by aggressive, systemic dismantling of environmental protections, much of which was irreversible. His actions had immediate and far-reaching effects on climate policies, pollution standards, and public health protections.
Lee Zeldin: While Zeldin’s congressional record is largely anti-environment, his actual impact would depend on his approach if confirmed as EPA Administrator. His record suggests a focus on deregulation, but he may not act as aggressively as Pruitt did due to heightened public awareness and pushback against environmental rollbacks.

Philosophy and Approach:

Scott Pruitt was more ideologically committed to dismantling environmental protections, actively working to weaken the EPA’s authority and legitimacy.
Lee Zeldin seems to balance some nuanced positions (e.g., support for public lands) with an overall deregulatory philosophy, making him potentially less extreme than Pruitt.

Public Trust and Accountability:

Pruitt’s tenure was marred by scandals, weakening trust in the EPA and distracting from its mission.
Zeldin has a cleaner personal record, but his effectiveness in executing a deregulatory agenda could depend on his ability to avoid similar controversies.

Conclusion

While both figures have troubling records on environmental issues, Scott Pruitt has a clear edge in terms of harm to the environment due to his direct actions as EPA Administrator. His aggressive deregulation, climate science denial, and ethical scandals severely damaged the EPA’s credibility and the country’s ability to address pressing environmental issues.

Lee Zeldin, while aligned with many of the same policy priorities, has not yet demonstrated the same level of intent or ability to dismantle environmental protections systematically. However, his potential leadership of the EPA could continue the legacy of prioritizing industry over the environment, making him a concerning candidate in his own right.