Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision to host a public debate (possibly on TV) about climate change science is facing criticism from former heads of the agency and also industry officials who generally back what Pruitt is doing as administrator.

Why it matters: The criticism indicates that many experts outside the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress don't think debating climate change science is a worthy expense of the government's time and money.

Quoted:

  • "You don't debate on TV what are, essentially, solutions to an existential challenge for us, and that's why this proposal is ludicrous," Gina McCarthy, the most recent EPA administrator under Barack Obama, told me Wednesday. "It's not going to compete with Game of Thrones, I'll tell you that."
  • Christine Todd Whitman, an EPA administrator under George W. Bush, said the exercise is "just mind-boggling." She also discouraged scientists, most of whom agree human activity is a driving factor of climate change, from taking part. "It's more dangerous to give credibility to people that really don't deserve it," Whitman told me Wednesday.

Another side: Some fossil-fuel industry officials who are generally backing what Pruitt is doing at the agency--unraveling nearly all of Obama's regulations--said the debate doesn't seem to have a point.

  • "Personally between you and me, I think it's a load of crap," said one longtime energy expert, speaking anonymously given the critical nature of the words. "I don't know why we need to do that."
  • Another industry official said the only reason to do it is to unravel a scientific finding on climate change that Obama's EPA issued in 2009, and that, the official said, "is going to take a heck of a lot of effort and take away from other things they should be doing." (Check out a Harder Line column of mine from a few weeks ago for more on how some in industry don't want EPA to review the scientific finding).

The supporting side:

Myron Ebell, an expert at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, says he supports Pruitt's plans but doesn't think it should be on TV, given the inherent granularity that is climate change science.

For the record: "Climate science like other fields of science is constantly changing," an EPA spokesperson said in an email. "A new, fresh, and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing."

Go deeper

Updated 23 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 10 p.m. ET: 12,009,301 — Total deaths: 548,799 — Total recoveries — 6,561,969Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 10 p.m. ET: 3,053,328 — Total deaths: 132,256 — Total recoveries: 953,420 — Total tested: 37,532,612Map.
  3. Public health: Houston mayor cancels Republican convention over coronavirus concerns Deaths are rising in hotspots — Déjà vu sets in as testing issues rise and PPE dwindles.
  4. Travel: United warns employees it may furlough 45% of U.S. workforce How the pandemic changed mobility habits, by state.
  5. Education: New York City schools will not fully reopen in fallHarvard and MIT sue Trump administration over rule barring foreign students from online classes.
  6. 🎧 Podcast: A misinformation "infodemic" is here.

Transcripts show George Floyd told police "I can't breathe" over 20 times

Photo: Gary Coronado/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Newly released transcripts of bodycam footage from the Minneapolis Police Department show that George Floyd told officers he could not breathe more than 20 times in the moments leading up to his death.

Why it matters: Floyd's killing sparked a national wave of Black Lives Matter protests and an ongoing reckoning over systemic racism in the United States. The transcripts "offer one the most thorough and dramatic accounts" before Floyd's death, The New York Times writes.

5 hours ago - Health

Fighting the coronavirus infodemic

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

An "infodemic" of misinformation and disinformation has helped cripple the response to the novel coronavirus.

Why it matters: High-powered social media accelerates the spread of lies and political polarization that motivates people to believe them. Unless the public health sphere can effectively counter misinformation, not even an effective vaccine may be enough to end the pandemic.