Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 10/6/2015
-
(ACC Blog) MacArthur Foundation Declares Nanotechnologist a Genius
Oct 6, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Each year the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation selects between 20 and 40 individuals to receive one of the McArthur Foundation Fellowships, which are better known as “genius grants.” -
Industry, Labor and Environmental Groups Gear up to Oppose TPP Trade Deal
Oct 6, 2015 | Washington Post
By Catherine Ho
Powerful interest groups are already lining up to oppose various provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the sweeping trade agreement reached Monday by the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations ... -
Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress
Oct 5, 2015 | New York Times
By Jackie Calmes
The United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations on Monday reached final agreement on the largest regional trade accord in history, teeing up what could be the toughest fight President Obama will face in his final year in office: securing approval from Congress. -
DuPont Chief Steps Down
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
DuPont Chairman and CEO Ellen Kullman will step down, the company said yesterday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Unlikely Group Urges Senate to Act on 'Window' for TSCA Bill
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Hoping to clear what one lawmaker called a "stalemate" on bringing a bipartisan chemical safety bill to the Senate floor, supporters this morning rolled out a broad coalition of supporters in a bid to show the effort had gone too far to stall now. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pittsfield Committee Chilly to Ban on Foam Food Containers
Oct 6, 2015 | Berkshire Eagle
By Jim Therrien
Prospects for an ordinance to ban expanded polystyrene foam food containers appear dire after the City Council's Ordinance and Rules Committee voted 3-2 to recommend filing the measure. -
Senators Dismiss Tying Conservation Fund to Chemical Reform
Oct 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senators pushing an overhaul of federal chemical safety laws are dismissing a push to link the measure to one reviving a lapsed conservation fund. -
Responding to Joe Nocera’s Column
Oct 6, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthier Families
By Andy Igrejas
It looks as though the Senate is likely to vote on TSCA reform this week and the propaganda machine is in full swing. -
New Flame Retardant Created to Replace Commercial Additives That are Often Toxic
Oct 6, 2015 | News Medical
Inspired by a naturally occurring material found in marine mussels, researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have created a new flame retardant to replace commercial additives that are often toxic and can accumulate over time in the environment ... -
Vermont Delays Decision on Chemical Reporting Rule
Oct 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Vermont has extended the review period of a proposed rule to implement its chemical reporting programme for children's products, amid concerns from industry stakeholders (CW 22 September 2015). -
Texas Plant Restarts 1 week After Explosion
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A Pasadena, Texas, chemical plant where four workers were burned in an explosion last week will resume operating even though little has been disclosed about how the facility will ensure safety. -
Why Lifting Oil Export Ban Can Help U.S. Foreign Policy
Oct 6, 2015 | Reuters
By Emma Ashford
A House of Representatives bill is due to go to the floor this week, one step closer to lifting the 40-year-old ban on the export of U.S. crude oil. -
Moniz says U.S. Oil Production Not 'Hemmed in' by Export Ban
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elena Schor
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz today threw cold water on the congressional push for unrestricted crude exports, noting that "it's hard to argue there's been a lot of production being hemmed in by" the decades-old export ban. -
GOP Grills Energy Secretary on Oil Exports
Oct 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Republican senators repeatedly pushed the secretary of energy Tuesday to support lifting the ban on oil exports and explain why President Obama does not agree. -
GOP Lawmaker says TPP votes Should be Contingent on White House Support for Oil Exports
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Rep. Kevin Cramer, a House Energy and Commerce Committee member, today floated a new tactic to lift the decades-old ban on crude oil exports. -
Coal Emits Twice the Climate Pollution of LNG -- Industry Study
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Exporting U.S.-sourced natural gas to distant markets to produce electricity is environmentally preferable to burning coal in those same countries, according to an industry-backed study that considered a wide range of technology and resource scenarios... -
Senate Sets Energy Appropriations Vote for Thursday
| PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a vote for Thursday to start debate on a $35.4 billion spending bill for the Energy Department next year. -
McConnell Moves to Advance Energy, Water Spending Bill
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today moved to proceed with the $35.4 billion fiscal 2016 energy and water development spending bill. -
U.N. Unveils Draft of Paris Climate Deal
Oct 6, 2015 |
By E&E - Greenwire
The United Nations yesterday released a first draft of the negotiating text for the upcoming climate change conference in Paris, though large sections of the deal are yet to be completed.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Blog) MacArthur Foundation Declares Nanotechnologist a Genius
Oct 6, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Each year the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation selects between 20 and 40 individuals to receive one of the McArthur Foundation Fellowships, which are better known as “genius grants.” The honor is awarded to individuals working in any field, who “show exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work” and are citizens or residents of the United States.
Based on the 24 Fellows selected this year, geniuses can be choreographers, biologists, economists, set designers, chemists, educators, photographers, musical composers – and even puppeteers.
Geniuses also work in nanotechnology.
This year, the foundation honored an inorganic chemist at the University of California, Berkeley – Peidong Yang – noting that “his advances in the science of nanomaterials are opening new horizons for tackling the global challenge of clean, renewable energy sources.”
Yang created a synthetic leaf that uses the same ingredients as photosynthesis – water, sunlight and carbon dioxide – to produce liquid fuels like methane, butane and acetate with the help of semiconductor nanowires. And like nature’s photosynthesis, this process also releases oxygen into the air.
These nanowires, similar to normal electrical wires except for their size – 100 to 1,000 times thinner than a human hair – have a variety of fascinating properties, including that they are extremely capable at capturing solar energy.
While the technology is still several years from being commercially viable, it represents an important step on the road to creating a carbon-neutral and sustainable fuel system.
Jay West, manager of the American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel, says that the Panel’s main objective is to promote the safe and responsible development of nanotechnology – in projects like that of Yang and many others.
ACC’s Nanotechnology Panel works to advance good product stewardship practices among nanomaterial producers and users. The Panel regularly supports and participates in partnerships with universities, regulatory agencies and other organizations to identify and communicate best practices concerning the responsible development and use of nanotechnology.
-
Industry, Labor and Environmental Groups Gear up to Oppose TPP Trade Deal
Oct 6, 2015 | Washington Post
By Catherine Ho
Powerful interest groups are already lining up to oppose various provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the sweeping trade agreement reached Monday by the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations — in hopes they can sway the votes of enough wavering lawmakers to have the deal rejected by Congress.
Negotiators announced completion of the the deal Monday morning and Congress isn’t expected to vote on it until the spring, due to the lengthy congressional review period that is required. Under the fast-track trade rules enacted earlier this year, the deal will be subject to an up or down vote in Congress and lawmakers will not be able to amend or filibuster the pact.
The lengthy time-frame for considering the trade pact ensures its opponents will have plenty of time to lobby Congress. Here’s a look at the industries and interest groups that are pushing back against parts of the agreement:
Automakers
Their complaint: The deal does not address alleged currency manipulation by Japan, which the auto industry has long said hurts U.S. automakers by keeping the price of Japanese cars artificially low. A Ford spokeswoman said the company’s top priority was and is to include rules prohibiting currency manipulation in trade deals.
Earlier this year, the company supported a failed amendment sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) to the Trade Promotion Authority legislation, which gave the White House the ability to fast-track trade bills through Congress, that would have increased enforcement efforts against nations considered to be currency manipulators.
“To ensure the future competitiveness of American manufacturing, we recommend Congress not approve TPP in its current form, and ask the administration to renegotiate TPP and incorporate strong and enforceable currency rules,” Ford said in a statement.
Brand-name pharmaceutical companies
Their complaint: Pharmaceutical companies wanted the deal to include intellectual property protection for biologic medicines for 12 years, which is the length of time granted under U.S. law, but the pact only grants protection for up to eight years. PhRMA chief executive John Castellani said in a statement Monday that he is “disappointed,” but a spokesman for the leading pharmaceutical trade group said he could not elaborate on what steps the industry may take, if any, until they review the full text of the agreement.
Environmental groups
Their complaint: The pact includes what’s called an investor-state dispute settlement provision, or ISDS, which is common in trade agreements. It allows multinational corporations and investors to bring cases against foreign governments over environmental, public health and other regulations — if they find that those rules cut into their profits — before international arbitration panels instead of U.S. courts.
Critics of the system say it favors companies because arbitrators are often corporate lawyers that side with businesses. The Sierra Club said Monday that TPP would “empower big polluters to challenge climate and environmental safeguards in private trade courts.” Friends of the Earth expressed a similar sentiment, saying the deal would “stymie environmental regulation.”
The tobacco industry
Their complaint: The deal includes changes that would exclude tobacco companies from accessing the ISDS system, meaning tobacco companies could have a harder time challenging anti-smoking regulations abroad. This could be an issue for lawmakers representing states that produce tobacco, such as North Carolina and Kentucky.
A spokesman for the cigarette giant Altria said the company is “opposed to singling out one industry for differential treatment under the TPP. We think singling out one industry for differential treatment is bad policy and could become a precedent for similar actions directed at other industries.” He declined to comment on whether the company will be engaging lawmakers on the issue.
Labor unions
Their complaint: Labor unions have argued that the negotiation process was not transparent and that TPP would encourage the outsourcing of U.S. jobs. “Many problematic concessions were made in order to finalize the deal,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said in a statement Monday. “Rushing through a bad deal will not bring economic stability to working families, nor will it bring confidence that our priorities count as much as those of global corporations.”
-
Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress
Oct 5, 2015 | New York Times
By Jackie Calmes
The United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations on Monday reached final agreement on the largest regional trade accord in history, teeing up what could be the toughest fight President Obama will face in his final year in office: securing approval from Congress.
The conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after years of negotiations and a series of sleepless nights here, was merely “an important first step,” conceded Michael B. Froman, the United States trade representative, as he and other weary officials announced their accord.
Now the deal faces months of scrutiny in Congress, where some bipartisan opposition was immediate. That debate will unfurl against the backdrop of a presidential campaign in which populist anti-trade talk against the deal is already prominent.
Still, for Mr. Obama the accord could be a legacy-making achievement, drawing together countries representing two-fifths of the global economy, from Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia, into a web of common rules governing trans-Pacific commerce. It is the capstone both of his economic agenda to expand exports and of his foreign policy “rebalance” toward closer relations with fast-growing eastern Asia, after years of American preoccupation with the Middle East and North Africa.
“When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “We should write those rules, opening new markets to American products while setting high standards for protecting workers and preserving our environment.”
That argument — that the Pacific pact would be a bulwark against China’s power and a standard-setter for global commerce — will be central to the president’s hard sell ahead to Congress, administration officials said.
For Mr. Obama to win Congress’s approval, he will have to assemble a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, building out from the political center to marginalize resistance on the left and right. Earlier this year, the president relied heavily on Republicans to win approval of so-called fast-track trade authority, which will allow a vote on the Pacific accord without threat of amendments or filibuster.Continue reading the main storyTrans-Pacific Partnership Countries
Canada
$658
United States
Japan
$201
Mexico
Vietnam $36
$534
Brunei $0.6
Malaysia $44
Singapore
$47
Peru
$16
Australia
$37
Chile
$26
Total goods traded with the United States in 2014
New Zealand
$8
Imports plus exports, not including services, in billions of dollarsCensus Bureau
By The New York TimesContinue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEWhat Changes Lie Ahead From the Trans-Pacific Partnership PactOCT. 5, 2015Environmentalists Praise Wildlife Measures in Trans-Pacific Trade PactOCT. 5, 2015Q. and A.: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Accord ExplainedOCT. 5, 2015Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Potential Impact Weighed in Asia and U.S.JULY 8, 2015News Analysis: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and a President’s LegacyJUNE 14, 2015
This time, the president probably will need more Democrats’ votes. Final concessions his team made in Atlanta angered the tobacco and brand-name pharmaceutical industries, which in turn could cost the president support among Republicans who were allies on the fast-track issue. Also, many conservatives oppose giving Mr. Obama any big accomplishment. And anti-trade talk from presidential candidates — the Republican front-runner, Donald J. Trump, called it “a terrible deal” on Twitter on Monday — most likely will embolden the conservatives.
Among Democrats, too, opposition from the presidential arena is certain to bleed into debate over the Pacific pact.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is running for the Democrats’ 2016 nomination, began a fund-raising appeal within hours of the deal’s announcement. “Wall Street and big corporations just won a big victory to advance a disastrous trade deal,” he said in a statement. “Now it’s on us to stop it from becoming law.”
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
The pressure now builds on Hillary Rodham Clinton to take a stand. She promoted the trade talks as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, but as a presidential candidate she has expressed enough wariness before liberal audiences that her support for an agreement is widely in doubt. By REUTERS 00:45Australia Minister Reacts to Trade DealContinue reading the main storyVideoAustralia Minister Reacts to Trade DealBy REUTERS on Publish DateOctober 5, 2015. Photo by Erik S. Lesser/European Pressphoto Agency. Watch in Times Video »
The Pacific accord would phase out thousands of import tariffs as well as other barriers to international trade, like Japanese regulations that keep out some American-made autos and trucks. It also would establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property, and open the Internet even in communist Vietnam.Continue reading the main storyRELATED IN OPINIONOp-Ed Contributors: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership MattersAPRIL 3, 2015
The Office of the United States Trade Representative said it eventually would end more than 18,000 tariffs that the participating countries have placed on American exports, including autos, machinery, information technology and consumer goods, chemicals and agricultural products as varied as avocados in California and wheat, pork and beef from the Plains states.
The trade ministers who negotiated it predicted the overall economic and political heft of the 12-nation group would turn the accord into a model for future trade agreements. It would overhaul the system for settling disputes between nations and foreign companies, while barring tobacco companies from using that process to block countries’ antismoking initiatives. Negotiators said it also would enforce higher standards for labor conditions and environmental protection, including wildlife-trafficking.
By law, Congress will have months to deliberate, perhaps to next April. Mr. Froman said he did not know when Mr. Obama would officially notify Congress that he intends to sign the accord, but once he does, that notice will give Congress 90 days to first consider it. Additional time most likely will be needed, congressional and administration officials said.
-
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
DuPont Chairman and CEO Ellen Kullman will step down, the company said yesterday.
Kullman's resignation comes amid months of leadership turmoil for the chemical giant.
Kullman, 59, will retire and be replaced Oct. 16 by board member Edward Breen on an interim basis. Shares of the company jumped as much as 6.1 percent following the announcement. Kullman, a 27-year veteran of the company, served as CEO in 2009 and was the first woman to lead DuPont.
Kullman beat back an effort by activist investor Trian Fund Management earlier this year, which was seeking to acquire three seats on the company's board to require cost-cutting and a breakup of the 213-year-old chemical firm.
"They clearly needed a sacrificial lamb," said Jim Sheehan, an Atlanta-based analyst at Suntrust Robinson Humphrey Inc. "You wouldn't have a CEO step aside with only a couple weeks notice without a successor in place unless it was unplanned" (Kaskey/Hymowitz, Bloomberg, Oct. 5). -- SP
-
(ACC Mentioned) Unlikely Group Urges Senate to Act on 'Window' for TSCA Bill
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Hoping to clear what one lawmaker called a "stalemate" on bringing a bipartisan chemical safety bill to the Senate floor, supporters this morning rolled out a broad coalition of supporters in a bid to show the effort had gone too far to stall now.
Should the logjam clear, the Senate has a "window" to consider it as soon as Thursday, said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who introduced S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," earlier this year with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) staff have held "a number of meetings" to discuss how to bring the bill to the floor in the past few weeks, Udall said.
At a news conference outside the Capitol building this morning, Bonnie Lautenberg, the widow of the late New Jersey senator the bill is named for, warned that lawmakers who block the bill's progress are "holding up the health and safety of our children."
It was an unlikely group, including lawmakers who have been on opposing sides of a variety of other energy and environmental issues. But the senators said there were many reasons for politicians of all stripes to push for the plan.
"What you see before you really says it all," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
It wasn't easy to reach this point, said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and it involved considerable political risk by Udall to take a stand on an issue that is contentious among his colleagues. That led to criticism of Udall after the bill's introduction -- including from some of his traditional supporters -- that the legislation was too favorable to the chemical industry (E&E Daily, April 28).
"Prometheus was chained to a rock and had his liver eaten every day by an eagle," Whitehouse said, "and sometimes I think the suffering of Tom Udall as he brought this through those early stages was Promethean."
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) had talked to many skeptics who thought the idea of Toxic Substances Control Act reform would never find bipartisan support.
"That will happen when pigs fly," Carper said someone told him. "Let the record show, we were just walking over here from the Hart Building. ... I looked over toward the Capitol, and we saw a formation of pigs flying."
Listed as a participant in the news conference, Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council -- which has made TSCA reform one of its top lobbying priorities this year -- watched from the audience instead.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said he thought the prospect of TSCA reform was fueling job growth in the chemical industry, which would mean more investment in the United States. That would help his home state's natural gas industry, the main feedstock for petrochemical production, Inhofe said.
None of this will happen if two lawmakers -- Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- fail to back down from a vow to object to floor consideration of S. 697 without a promise of a vote on an amendment to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which expired earlier this month, advocates said.
Burr said yesterday he thought the TSCA bill was a good vehicle to secure reauthorization of LWCF, which he said should never have been allowed to lapse (E&E Daily, Oct. 6). But "as soon as you open it up to amendments, then you open it up to 100 amendments," Udall said.
Though his group is a strong supporter of LWCF, National Wildlife Federation President Collin O'Mara said Ayotte and Burr had picked the wrong strategy to protect the fund.
"The two deserve to pass, but they deserve to pass separately," O'Mara said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pittsfield Committee Chilly to Ban on Foam Food Containers
Oct 6, 2015 | Berkshire Eagle
By Jim Therrien
Prospects for an ordinance to ban expanded polystyrene foam food containers appear dire after the City Council's Ordinance and Rules Committee voted 3-2 to recommend filing the measure.
The split vote on Monday followed several statements in favor of the ban and counterclaims from industry representatives.
Rinaldo Del Gallo proposed a ban similar to those in effect in Great Barrington, Amherst and other communities in December 2012. But progress toward a council vote was slowed after the Ordinance and Rules Committee asked for a recommendation from the Green Commission and actively sought input from businesses likely to be affected by a ban.
Committee member and council President Melissa Mazzeo made the motion to recommend to the full council that the petition be filed, which would effectively kill it unless that or another proposal is resubmitted.
"I don't think Pittsfield is ready for this," Mazzeo said, adding that the state Legislature has been considering a statewide ban and she would rather postpone action here until that has a chance to be acted on.
The city should keep the conversation going, she said, but wait for the state to enact a law and then decide whether to add local provisions to that. At this point, Mazzeo said, she will vote against a ban.Advertisement
There are four proposed bills before the Legislature that propose regulation or study of polystyrene products. House bill H-2066(https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2066) would regulate both expanded polystyrene foam containers and harder surfaced polystyrene drink or other containers.
Del Gallo said his proposal focuses only on the disposable, light, crumbly foam products used for prepared or take-out foods but not typical market packaging used for meats, poultry or fish. It also would not cover building materials.
"I too would like to see what the state is doing," Ward 2 Councilor Kevin Morandi said. But he added that, in his view, "this is taking a choice away. I don't think any business should have the choice [of food containers] taken away from them."
Ward 5 Councilor Jonathan Lothrop, while not actively supporting the ban, said the alleged health risks from foam food containers and the effects foam waste on the environment are proper topics for the council to consider.
Lothrop said he would oppose the motion to file.
"Let's just get this to the council and have a vote on it," he said. "It has been here [before the committee] long enough."
In voting, Councilor at large Kathleen Amuso agreed with Lothrop, although she also said she'd like to get an update on what the Legislature might do in regard to a statewide ban.
Del Gallo, a local attorney, said the two main reasons communities enact a ban are that the material is a suspected carcinogen, based on studies, and that "it is beyond dispute that it doesn't break down in the environment."
Traces of the foam material can be found throughout the environment, he said, including in fish and wildlife, and in humans as well.
He added that communities that have enacted foam container bans have seen smooth transitions to the use of other containers, in large part because many restaurants and stores are already using other containers, such as paper or cardboard products.
Consumers are wary of foam containers and are dictating that trend, especially in upscale restaurants, Lothrop said.
Matt Fisher, representing Dart Container Corp., which manufactures the products, said polystyrene containers are a "legitimate, regulated product" and have been for many years. He added that it is regulated by the Federal Drug Administration.
"I have faith in our government and the science as it stands," Fisher said.
He also argued that a ban "is ultimately a tax" in the form of higher cost containers.
Representing the American Chemical Council, attorney Stephen Rosario said that while chemistry can sometimes sound disturbing the people, "there is chemistry in absolutely everything." Foam products, he said, "are very heavily regulated."
But Charles Lake, of Cairo, N.Y., said he suffered severe health issues that took eight years for doctors to diagnose, after he worked as a trucker hauling foam products and other materials. Grease in foods and citric acid, for example, break down the foam surface when foods are placed in a container and contaminate it, he said.
Tim Wright said he holds a doctorate in chemistry and once worked in the plastics industry before leaving to become a medical ultrasound technician. He said the foam containers are a poor material for recycling or reprocessing, unlike other plastics, and they are believed to emit hazardous chemicals when incinerated.
Anything that is not recyclable, said Jeff Turner, "is like stealing from future generations. There is no reason to do it."
The Green Commission in March unanimously recommended to the Ordinance and Rules Committee that the city enact a ban. Commissioner Nancy Nylen said Monday that the trend is toward communities enacting such bans, and she recommended that Pittsfield "be a leader on this."
She said there are alternatives to foam containers and the proposal would allow ample time for businesses to institute the change.
Committee Chairman Ward 4 Councilor Christopher Connell asked Del Gallo if the ban would cover school lunchrooms. The attorney said it is unclear as the ban is based on the one enacted in Amherst and he would have to research that point.
But he added that details of the ordinance could be changed by the council. He said "subjecting children" to the material "is not advisable," but he would rather see something enacted than for the proposal to be rejected entirely.
The ban as drafted would be enforced by the Board of Health as part of its regular inspections of food service establishments, and it would involve an escalating system of fines.
-
Senators Dismiss Tying Conservation Fund to Chemical Reform
Oct 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senators pushing an overhaul of federal chemical safety laws are dismissing a push to link the measure to one reviving a lapsed conservation fund.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said a pair of Republican senators will have to find a different way to bring a renewal of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the floor rather than blocking a chemical bill they hope to attach it to.
Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) are stopping the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill from hitting the Senate floor unless they get a vote on the LWCF as well. Burr told Politico Monday that “I’ll allow it to the floor if it’s open for amendment, even if it’s limited to one amendment.”
But Inhofe said TSCA isn’t the right vehicle for the measure.
“It’s not a germane amendment,” he said after a press conference plugging TSCA on Thursday. “They need to find something else for their amendment and I think they will.”
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a lead TSCA sponsor, agreed.
“I think he wants a vote [on LWCF], and he should get a vote, and we’re going to work with him on that,” Udall said. “We’re going to try to work through this so we can get the bill to the floor as it is.”
Backers of the TSCA bill secured their 60th co-sponsor last week, setting up an effort to push the legislation through the Senate soon, with Udall suggesting a window as soon as this Thursday.
A varied group of senators and interest groups — ranging from the Environmental Defense Fund to the Chamber of Commerce — rallied outside the Capitol to promote the bill on Tuesday.
But Burr and others, still stinging from seeing the LWCF’s authorization lapse last week, want to tie the two popular provisions together into one package.
Burr is a co-sponsor of the TSCA bill and Udall said he supports an extension of the conservation fund. But Udall said Tuesday that linking them together could end up sinking the chemical legislation.
“The thing that happens: as soon as you open up one amendment, then you’ve opened it up to 100 amendments,” he said.
“You’ve seen that happen many times around here, where as soon as you get to that point, you don’t get a bill. And I think all of us want to see a bill.”
-
Responding to Joe Nocera’s Column
Oct 6, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthier Families
By Andy Igrejas
It looks as though the Senate is likely to vote on TSCA reform this week and the propaganda machine is in full swing. Yesterday, I took a call from New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, thinking he was writing about the legislation and what the issues were. I didn’t realize he was actually writing a column about us, instigated, as he admits, by his “old friend” at the Environmental Defense Fund’s affiliate. The column is flat wrong, but it also provides an opportunity to talk about where we are and what’s at stake.
First, why now?
Last week, word leaked out in the trade press that Senators McConnell, Inhofe and Boxer had reached an agreement to bring TSCA reform to the floor. (We’ve been opposed to this bill, as most of you know, though we have lauded progress when its been made.) Under the agreement, Senator Boxer would drop her threat to filibuster, a right she planned to exercise, in exchange for changes to the bill (though she would not be voting for the bill). Senator Boxer’s improvements have not been made public, but they are expected to be in the area of preserving some state authority on chemicals.Separately, Senators Markey (D-MA) and Durbin (D-IL) announced on Friday that they had also negotiated a number of changes to the legislation in exchange for their support of the bill. Again, because a new version of the bill has not been made public, we can’t yet judge the details. The changes, as described by the Senators, all sound positive.
Assuming the reports are accurate, the Senate bill will likely have been improved in key ways, including more money for EPA and less preemption of states. That’s the good news.
But according to the reports, there will also be bad news. The legislation will likely continue to contain a number of problematic provisions, including preempting states in the absence of federal action, making it harder for EPA to regulate chemicals in imported products, and numerous other special interest doo-dads and distractions that take away from the purpose of reform.
Our message to the Senate, and to our supporters to bring to the Senate, is to keep these problems on the table as problems that must be solved in the next round, which would normally be a conference committee with the House. The House bill avoids the problems of the Udall-Vitter bill (though it has some of its own). Senators who have signed on to the Senate bill already, we hope, can support strengthening it in conference. Senators who do not support the bill can express their opposition, but also their hope that these issues will be addressed in conference, producing a final package that they would then be able to support.
This is hardly an unreasonable, wildly obstructionist stance, especially by Washington standards. We’re pointing out deficits in a piece of legislation and calling for them to be fixed as part of the official process, which isn’t over. Outrageous!
So back to that Nocera column, given the stance I outlined above, why the need for an attack piece on us and the rest of the health and environmental community, at this moment? The bill has the votes. The next steps in the process are pretty clear. The reason is that EDF sees the Senate bill as “theirs” and they are marketing themselves and trying to differentiate their brand. The House legislation, which in many ways is a more real compromise, disrupts that marketing. Nocera didn’t even know about the House bill until I pointed it out to him, and it gets a mere parenthetical, dutiful comment. But it is the version of TSCA reform that already passed the House in June by a vote of 398 to 1. If the article was actually about the value of compromise, you’d think Nocera would have noticed this bill, or made it the feature of the story. Why was that bill less controversial than the Senate bill has been?
The answer is that it represented the kind of rational process of compromise and legislation that Nocera says he supports. Chairman John Shimkus of Illinois, a conservative Republican, and Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, an environmental champion, learned from the stalemate that the Vitter-Udall legislation had produced in the previous year. They decided to write a new bill from scratch that focused on the essentials of reform for both sides. Most of the fundamentals of reform from a public health point of view were included. Most of the industry’s fundamentals, including expansion of preemption, were also included. Most of the over-reaching special interest provisions in the Senate bill were excluded, something which took real political will and even courage on the part of both legislators. (The bill does have shortcomings too, which we have said should be addressed.)
Each of the things we’re highlighting as problems in the Senate bill, which so angers Nocera, is not in this broad, bipartisan House bill. For example, it does not roll back EPA’s ability to intercept toxic chemicals in imported products. Most people would think chemical reform should make it easier for EPA to do that, right? The House bill provides for preemption, in fact, but only when EPA has actually acted on a chemical or declared it safe. The Senate bill, in contrast, preempts states before EPA has acted, potentially delaying needed policy interventions. The Senate bill has a potential loophole for “low priority” chemicals that get set aside without a full safety review. It’s not in the House bill. Finally, the Senate bill, as exhaustively detailedby our colleague Bob Sussman, who held senior positions at EPA, makes EPA do a ton of new work that would distract from the business of testing and regulating chemicals. It makes EPA rewrite policies and guidance through costly rule makings, for example, in areas where it already has plenty of policy and guidance. Some in the chemical industry want this extra bite at the apple. The House bill does not give it to them. The bill is also widely viewed to be more clearly drafted and less prone to litigation.
I pointed out this substantive contrast with the House bill to Nocera, but apparently he wasn’t interested in the substance. He had already decided on his one-sided approach and just needed a quote. But the substance is exactly the point. Will people be protected? In an age of limited government, shouldn’t we focus as much of EPA’s limited resources as possible on the core tasks of protecting people?But the substance is exactly the point. Will people be protected? In an age of limited government, shouldn’t we focus as much of EPA’s limited resources as possible on the core tasks of protecting people?
And this gets to my last point where Nocera is flatly wrong. EDF supposedly “rolled up their sleeves” on the bill, making it better, while the rest of us just opposed. In fact, EDF merely lost their shirt requiring a very broad coalition to roll up our sleeves. The bill EDF negotiated and endorsed did not containany of the fundamentals of reform. It did not establish a health-based standard. It did not protect vulnerable populations. It rolled back EPA’s authority over new chemicals. It blocked states not just from enacting their own rules, but even from co-enforcing federal chemical rules. The list goes on and on. It did not reflect any of the principles EDF itself had enunciated for years. And yet, EDF was very proud of the bill, even insisting that the initial criticism raised by others could jeopardize their carefully crafted compromise. Once the smoke cleared and the broader public interest community reviewed the bill, experts and organizations quickly rallied to put the substance of the debate front and center and we’ve been doing so every since.
The good news, therefore, is that this is, in most ways, no longer “EDF’s bill.” It has improved in spite of the cover that EDF provided for the bill, and precisely because of constructive, substantive opposition. The broader constellation of health and environmental experts can take some credit for getting the bill closer to a shape where it could really help people. But there is still critical work to do. The process isn’t over.
Finally, we have never criticized EDF publicly until now, and would not, but for Nocera’s column, because it is widely understood that EDF agreed to the original bill in error. That’s an open secret in Washington and it can happen to anyone.
There is no political imperative for Fred Krupp (EDF’s director) and Dominique Browning to launch this attack through Nocera, as they apparently did. That means they did it to grab credit, differentiate their “brand,” and rewrite history in the process, all at the expense of further improving the legislation to better protect public health and the environment. That lacks integrity.
Tomorrow or the next day, whenever the new version of the legislation is made public, we will go back to our usual program of focusing on what is actually in the legislation and how to make it better. I hope you’ll join us.
-
New Flame Retardant Created to Replace Commercial Additives That are Often Toxic
Oct 6, 2015 | News Medical
Inspired by a naturally occurring material found in marine mussels, researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have created a new flame retardant to replace commercial additives that are often toxic and can accumulate over time in the environment and living animals, including humans.
Flame retardants are added to foams found in mattresses, sofas, car upholstery and many other consumer products. Once incorporated into foam, these chemicals can migrate out of the products over time, releasing toxic substances into the air and environment. Throughout the United States, there is pressure on state legislatures to ban flame retardants, especially those containing brominated compounds (BRFs), a mix of human-made chemicals thought to pose a risk to public health.
A team led by Cockrell School of Engineering associate professor Christopher Ellison found that a synthetic coating of polydopamine -- derived from the natural compound dopamine -- can be used as a highly effective, water-applied flame retardant for polyurethane foam. Dopamine is a chemical compound found in humans and animals that helps in the transmission of signals in the brain and other vital areas. The researchers believe their dopamine-based nanocoating could be used in lieu of conventional flame retardants.
The researchers' findings were published in the journal Chemistry of Materials on Sept. 9.
"Since polydopamine is natural and already present in animals, this question of toxicity immediately goes away," Ellison said. "We believe polydopamine could cheaply and easily replace the flame retardants found in many of the products that we use every day, making these products safer for both children and adults."
Using far less polydopamine by weight than typical of conventional flame retardant additives, the UT Austin team found that the polydopamine coating on foams leads to a 67 percent reduction in peak heat release rate, a measure of fire intensity and imminent danger to building occupants or firefighters. The polydopamine flame retardant's ability to reduce the fire's intensity is about 20 percent better than existing flame retardants commonly used today.Related StoriesScientists pinpoint neurons responsible for alcohol consumptionStudy reveals why long-term use of L-DOPA leads to dyskinesiaDisrupting specific signaling pathway in the brain can cause overeating of high fat foods
Researchers have studied the use of synthetic polydopamaine for a number of health-related applications, including cancer drug delivery and implantable biomedical devices. However, the UT Austin team is thought to be one of the first to pursue the use of polydopamine as a flame retardant. To the research team's surprise, they did not have to change the structure of the polydopamine from its natural form to use it as a flame retardant. The polydopamine was coated onto the interior and exterior surfaces of the polyurethane foam by simply dipping it into a water solution of dopamine for several days.
Ellison said he and his team were drawn to polydopamine because of its ability to adhere to surfaces as demonstrated by marine mussels who use the compound to stick to virtually any surface, including Teflon, the material used in nonstick cookware. Polydopamine also contains a dihydroxy-ring structure linked with an amine group that can be used to scavenge or remove free radicals. Free radicals are produced during the fire cycle as a polymer degrades, and their removal is critical to stopping the fire from continuing to spread. Polydopamine also produces a protective coating called char, which blocks fire's access to its fuel source -- the polymer. The synergistic combination of both these processes makes polydopamine an attractive and powerful flame retardant.
Ellison and his team are now testing to see whether they can shorten the nanocoating treatment process or develop a more convenient application process.
"We believe this alternative to flame retardants can prove very useful to removing potential hazards from products that children and adults use every day," Ellison said. "We weren't expecting to find a flame retardant in nature, but it was a serendipitous discovery."
-
Vermont Delays Decision on Chemical Reporting Rule
Oct 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Vermont has extended the review period of a proposed rule to implement its chemical reporting programme for children's products, amid concerns from industry stakeholders (CW 22 September 2015).
The state's Legislative Council of Administrative Rules' (LCAR) 45-day review is set to expire on 9 October.
A spokesperson for the Vermont Department of Health – the agency that drafted the proposed rule – said that they have requested that the LCAR extend its review period “in order for the department to consider next steps”.
-
Texas Plant Restarts 1 week After Explosion
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A Pasadena, Texas, chemical plant where four workers were burned in an explosion last week will resume operating even though little has been disclosed about how the facility will ensure safety.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration "released the Pasadena facility to resume operation," SunEdison spokesman Gordon Handelsman said.
OSHA, though, has no authority to shut a plant down. And safety experts say it takes well longer than a week to determine the root cause of a chemical safety incident.
SunEdison said in a report to Harris County's pollution control agency it believed the explosion resulted from a release of silane gas, which it uses to produce silicon wafers for electronics and the solar industry. OSHA cited the company for several workplace safety violations in 2011.
"You can replace a valve and have the confidence to start up again," said Shakeel Kadri, executive director of the Center for Chemical Process Safety, "but if you've had multiple issues with leaking valves, it can be a false confidence" (Collette/Dempsey, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 5). -- SP
-
Why Lifting Oil Export Ban Can Help U.S. Foreign Policy
Oct 6, 2015 | Reuters
By Emma Ashford
A House of Representatives bill is due to go to the floor this week, one step closer to lifting the 40-year-old ban on the export of U.S. crude oil. The window of opportunity was opened by the continuing plunge in oil prices, now at a six-year low, as falling demand and booming production have created an overabundance of global supply.
Congress must seize this opportunity: Lifting the ban on crude oil export would not only be good for the economy, it could also benefit U.S. foreign policy.
U.S. firms have been unable to export crude oil since 1974 — a legacy of the energy security fears in the wake of the Arab oil embargo. The only exceptions are crude oil exports to Canada, and oil produced in Alaska. There are similar, if less draconian, export restrictions on natural gas, which requires a Department of Energy waiver.
These restrictions were an overreaction. But recent changes in the global oil market have made matters worse. Over the past decade, new technologies — particularly hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” — have enabled the extraction of oil and natural gas in previously inaccessible areas. The result has been a shift away from some traditional energy-producing countries — such as Russia or members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries – and toward newer producers.
The Phillips 66 oil refinery is viewed from the air in Carson, California, August 5, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Blake
The biggest beneficiary of these technological advances has been the United States, now the world’slargest producer of oil and natural gas. Even under current restrictions, U.S. crude exports to Canada have risen dramatically, from essentially zero in 2007 to more than 100,000 barrels a day by March 2013. U.S. producers could contribute far more globally, but are largely prevented from doing so under the current bans.
The new oil produced is also at odds with U.S. refining capacity, which complicates domestic consumption. Fracking usually produces light sweet crude oil. U.S. refineries, however, are primarily set up to process heavier crude oils from Mexico and Venezuela.
This has led to domestic market distortions. Refiners can buy oversupplied crude on the cheap, but then charge consumers world market prices for gasoline, pocketing the difference.
Various studies have shown, however, that ending the ban would help the U.S. economy. It would add an estimated 630,000 jobs, increase manufacturing and boost the gross domestic product in the long-term. Though some supporters of the ban argue that lifting it could raise pump prices, as more oil it made available for export, it is most likely to lower them in the long run.
A lack of domestic refining capacity now discourages production by lowering the prices that refineries pay for crude oil. If producers are instead able to export their excess crude oil, they would likely increase production, which would lower global oil prices.
Lifting the ban would also produce real benefits for U.S. foreign policy. Authoritarian regimes would no longer be able to cite Washington’s reluctance to open its energy markets to free trade as an excuse for their own unfair practices. It is harder, for example, for the United States to chide China on issues like currency manipulation while maintaining protectionist economic policies like the crude export ban.
More important, exporting U.S. oil and natural gas increases diversification within world energy production. Though energy security concerns can be overblown, increasing production in the United States would reduce global reliance on oil from volatile regions like the Middle East.
It’s certainly true that today’s low oil prices may make increased production less attractive to U.S. producers in the short-term. Yet states like those in Eastern Europe may well choose to switch to U.S. suppliers from Russia for non-economic reasons. Then, once oil prices rise again, the influx of U.S. oil and natural gas into the world market from new domestic production would certainly keep prices lower than they would have been otherwise. That would reduce the income and influence of various authoritarian states, which have long been among the world’s biggest producers of oil, such as Venezuela or Russia.
Valves and pipelines at the Gaz-System gas distribution station in Gustorzyn, central Poland, September 12, 2014. REUTERS/Wojciech Kardas/Agencja Gazeta
Lifting export bans on liquefied natural gas would be particularly helpful for U.S. allies in Central and Eastern Europe. These states rely on Russia for the majority of their energy, which limits their range of political and economic responses to Moscow’s recent aggression. By building liquefied natural gas terminals, these states would be able to import U.S. liquefied gas, and divest themselves of dependence on Russian gas over the long-term.
There has been other recent momentum in Congress on lifting the export ban. A bill passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this summer, and is awaiting full hearings. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in July had also signaled his support for ending the ban, comparing it to the sanctions on Iranian oil and gas producers.
Today’s depressed oil market is an ideal time to remove these outdated export restrictions. With oil prices so low, any protests about potential increases in gasoline prices would be muted. Lifting the ban on crude oil exports is long overdue. Increased U.S. production has also removed any solid justification for keeping it. Congress should seize the opportunity now to lift the ban, and reap the economic and foreign policy benefits so sure to follow.
-
Moniz says U.S. Oil Production Not 'Hemmed in' by Export Ban
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elena Schor
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz today threw cold water on the congressional push for unrestricted crude exports, noting that "it's hard to argue there's been a lot of production being hemmed in by" the decades-old export ban.
U.S. oil production would have to rise would have to rise past 12 million barrels per day before "there might be an impact" in terms of shut-in production tied to the export ban, Moniz told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today, citing research from the Energy Information Administration. Current production is around 9.3 million bpd.
"But right now, the evidence does not suggest a major impact," Moniz added, highlighting the Commerce Department's previous decisions to approve exports of ultralight crude and facilitate a swap of crude oil grades with Mexico.
-
GOP Grills Energy Secretary on Oil Exports
Oct 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Republican senators repeatedly pushed the secretary of energy Tuesday to support lifting the ban on oil exports and explain why President Obama does not agree.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told the lawmakers that oil exports are not within his purview, but nonetheless defended Obama’s opposition to the bills in both chambers to lift the ban.
The exchanges happened at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. The White House has recently said it opposes both the House and Senate bills to end export restrictions.
“Do you agree that U.S. crude oil exports would benefit the energy security of our allies and trading partners,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) asked.
“Does the Obama administration oppose all legislative efforts to repeal this crude oil ban,” he said.
Moniz said that oil exports are within the Commerce Department’s responsibility.
But lifting the ban would not make sense with the United States still importing a significant amount of oil, and exports are not likely to significantly decrease domestic fuel prices.
“We are a 7 million barrel a day importer of crude oil, a much greater exporter now of oil products,” he said.
“It is also true that recent studies, including the last summary study of the [Energy Information Administration] on the congressionally requested studies on exports show that the impacts for the next 10 years or so are likely to be pretty modest, to put it mildly, in terms of exports,” Moniz continued.
But the panel’s Republicans, who voted unanimously in August to pass a bill lifting the export ban, continued to drill Moniz.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said the export ban is an outdated policy from 1975. He brought up many cultural references from that time period.
“It was Abba, it was Captain and Tenille, it was the Eagles. I was in seventh grade,” he said. “But it was a response to an acute crisis that we had.”
Daines said that once western sanctions on Iran are lifted, the United States will have the strongest limits on oil exports in the world.
“Why should the United States be the only country in the world with a ban on most oil exports,” he asked.
Moniz brought up his previous statements again, outlining the oil imports the United States still relies upon and the limited price impacts.
-
GOP Lawmaker says TPP votes Should be Contingent on White House Support for Oil Exports
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Rep. Kevin Cramer, a House Energy and Commerce Committee member, today floated a new tactic to lift the decades-old ban on crude oil exports.
Republicans should make their support for President Barack Obama's landmark Trans Pacific Partnership deal contingent on the White House easing its resistance to legislation ending the ban, he said.
"We have to be prepared to use our TPP vote, or at least I am," to help secure the White House's support for a quick end to the export ban, Cramer told POLITICO today, adding that he is "not crazy about" backing Obama on the trade deal, "especially if he's unwilling to give us oil exports."
Cramer acknowledged that he has yet to consult fellow Republican conference members on the issue. But even a handful of GOP members embracing his approach could significantly alter the politics of a final vote on the trade pact that's already expected to be close, thanks to an aggressive campaign by liberal groups to peel off Democratic votes.
-
Coal Emits Twice the Climate Pollution of LNG -- Industry Study
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Exporting U.S.-sourced natural gas to distant markets to produce electricity is environmentally preferable to burning coal in those same countries, according to an industry-backed study that considered a wide range of technology and resource scenarios to reach its sweeping conclusion.
The study, carried out by Siemens subsidiary Pace Global Energy Services and sponsored by the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, conducted life-cycle assessments for coal and LNG that looked at resource extraction, transport and combustion for both fuels, and also considered emissions associated with liquefaction and regasification for natural gas.
The upshot? "Even under the most extreme scenario, power produced from coal in these markets gives off almost twice the emissions as U.S.-produced LNG," according to CLNG spokesman Casey O'Shea.
The study assumed that natural gas originated in a typical Texas gas play using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling before being piped to a U.S. Gulf Coast export facility for liquefaction. It considered potential exports to China, India, Germany, Japan and South Korea.
It represented uncertainty in greenhouse gas emissions during production and processing with scenarios for "high" and "low" emission cases, included several options to power the liquefaction process, and considered natural gas combustion choices ranging from typical existing equipment to advanced technologies that would be employed in new energy facilities.
For the coal analysis, the study considered combustion efficiencies ranging from existing coal-fired power plants in a given market to cutting-edge technologies. For the three markets that rely heavily on domestic coal, it reflected domestic coal use, while for the markets that typically import coal, it used relevant emissions data.
On the whole, the study found that the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from both power options come during the fuel combustion stage -- accounting for between 67 and 74 percent of LNG's greenhouse gas emissions, and between 77 and 79 percent of coal's greenhouse gas emissions.
For the most extreme example of an efficient coal-fired power plant compared with a high-emissions LNG export scenario, the study found that coal would emit 92 percent more greenhouse gases than LNG use on a life-cycle basis. An existing, lower-tech coal combustion process accounts for more than 139 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the high-emissions LNG scenario, it found, while the most extreme coal scenario could account for 194 percent more greenhouse gases than the cleanest LNG.
During a presentation at the North American Gas Forum yesterday hosted by Energy Dialogues LLC, study author Jay Balasubramanian said the research is similar to studies carried out by the National Energy Technology Laboratory and Carnegie Mellon University, but provides more granularity into the results of particular resource and technology decisions.
For its estimates of "fugitive emissions," or gas leaks in the upstream production and natural gas gathering systems, it takes data from U.S. EPA. Balasubramanian said his team sought to use the most conservative available data for its estimates, using the higher end of fugitive emissions rates and adopting other worst-case assumptions.
The NETL study, carried out for the Department of Energy, was criticized by some environmentalists when it came out last year for using low-end leakage rates and otherwise adopting rosy assumptions that painted natural gas exports in the best possible light. Some environmentalists argue that potential LNG buyers would be better off, from a climate perspective, sticking with coal-fired power until non-fossil alternatives are available (Greenwire, June 10, 2014).
To LNG boosters, the new study knocks down those criticisms.
"Over the last two decades, natural gas has played an increasingly important role in helping the United States to cut our greenhouse gas emissions," CLNG's O'Shea said. "What this new report demonstrates is that U.S. natural gas exports can similarly reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally."
But Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said the study underestimates the technology gains on the way with coal.
"What seems to be missing is a recognition that the big developing countries will still be using mostly coal and that with low-emission, high-efficiency technologies that are widely available in Asia today, new coal plants can reduce CO2 by 25 percent -- making them also far more ready for [carbon capture and sequestration] -- as well as remove virtually all of the conventional pollutants," Popovich said.
"Put another way, the coal train has left the station from the global perspective," he added. "So the urgent need is to step up R&D [research and development] for advanced coal technology deployment since coal will be used irrespective of gas, LNG exports [and environmental] objections."
-
Senate Sets Energy Appropriations Vote for Thursday
| PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a vote for Thursday to start debate on a $35.4 billion spending bill for the Energy Department next year.
But the measure is almost certain to fall victim to the partisan budget impasse that is holding up Senate consideration of individual fiscal year 2016 spending bills.
McConnell moved to file cloture today on taking up the FY16 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, setting up the Thursday vote. But it's likely to fall short of the needed 60 votes as Democrats press for a new budget deal that would remove the caps for all spending bills.
"It's a waste of the Senate's time and energy," Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin told reporters today. "If Senator McConnell would dedicate that same energy to ... reach agreement with the leaders of both parties and the president then we would get something positive done instead of just show votes that are repetitious."
Late last month, Democrats blocked McConnell's move to bring up a defense spending bill that had wide support in committee. Democratic appropriators have promised to block all individual FY16 spending bills from being debated on the floor until a new budget deal is agreed.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the energy and water spending measure on a 26-4 vote in May.
-
McConnell Moves to Advance Energy, Water Spending Bill
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today moved to proceed with the $35.4 billion fiscal 2016 energy and water development spending bill.
The Senate could vote as early as Thursday on a procedural motion deciding whether to take upH.R. 2028.
The measure passed the Senate Appropriations Committee in May on a 26-4 vote, with Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Jon Tester of Montana and Chris Murphy of Connecticut opposed (Greenwire, May 21).
The spending measure, which funds the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers, steers clear of the battle over the Obama administration's controversial water rule, leaving that for another venue. It includes an additional $50 million to offset drought gripping broad swaths of the West.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, said she wasn't expecting McConnell's move.
"This is a real surprise to me," Feinstein said, adding that Democrats will be preparing for Thursday's votes. "It gives us a little bit of time."
McConnell has vowed to continue to bring up appropriations bills to force Democrats to make good on their pledges to filibuster the measures, a strategy that the minority has followed for months to try to prompt broader budget negotiations.
Besides potentially bringing up spending measures as stand-alone bills, McConnell also has begun procedural steps to bring up packages of appropriations bills known as "minibuses."
The four minibuses would combine the agriculture, energy and water, and transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills; the Defense, energy and water, homeland security, military construction-Veterans Affairs, and state and foreign ops appropriations bills; the Commerce, Justice and science, and Homeland Security appropriations bills; and the Interior, Labor-Health and Human Services, and financial services bills.
-
U.N. Unveils Draft of Paris Climate Deal
Oct 6, 2015 |
By E&E - Greenwire
The United Nations yesterday released a first draft of the negotiating text for the upcoming climate change conference in Paris, though large sections of the deal are yet to be completed.
The document slimmed down more than 90 pages in an earlier version to just 20. Now, negotiators from 195 countries must gather for a new session of talks in Bonn, Germany, on Oct. 19-23 to further hash out the issue.
The document includes a long-term goal for a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but how this would happen and by what deadline are to be determined.
To keep worldwide temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times, many poor countries are expecting financial assistance from wealthier nations to help them avoid harming their developing economies by cutting emissions.
Financing could be more than the $100 billion per year already promised, the document said, and could come from a combination of public and private sources. Countries would also be required to report emissions goals every five years under the draft.
The document may "serve as a helpful launching pad for reaching common ground," said Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute (Sylvie Corbet, AP/ABC News, Oct. 5). -- SP
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested