Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/10/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) WSJ Survey: Economists Are Convinced Fed Will Raise Rates in December
Dec 10, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Ben Leubsdorf
There now is little doubt among private economic forecasters that the Federal Reserve will raise short-term interest rates next week. -
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Seek Hazardous Label for Many Flame Retardants
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The nation's top consumer product regulator could strike a blow for public health by banning a broad class of flame retardant chemicals from many products, environment and public health groups said yesterday. -
Toxic Flame Retardants are Known Health Hazard and Should be Banned
Dec 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lisa Garcia
There may be no more primal instinct in humans than the fear of fire. It is hard-coded in our DNA. But what if an industry used that fear to sell something that not only doesn’t do much to protect people from fire, but is linked to a variety of serious health issues? -
How Target and Walmart Led a Push to Make Over Makeup
Dec 10, 2015 | Green Biz
By Heather Clancy
More consumers than ever are inquiring about the makeup of cosmetics and other personal care products. -
Echa Round-Up
Dec 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa has launched public consultations on the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) proposals for two industrial chemicals. -
DG GROW, Echa Defend Their Record on Authorisation
Dec 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The European Commission's industry directorate, DG GROW, and Echa have rejected criticisms from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), concerning their roles in the REACH authorisation process. -
STOP PRESS: Echa Releases Enforcement Report
Dec 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published the final report of its Enforcement Forum's third project (REACH-EN-FORCE 3). -
Glimmers of a Climate Deal Emerge, Backed by Nontraditional Coalition
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Diplomats crafting a new global climate change accord pulled their first real all-nighter yesterday, working through dawn to stitch together a deal riddled with political bullet holes. -
U.S. Finds Its Global Ambition Clipped by Politics at Home
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The United States wants the international climate accord being crafted here to be as ambitious as it can be. -
Lifting Oil Export Ban Bad for the Environment
Dec 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Catherine Thomasson
“Any harm done to the environment…is harm done to humanity,” Pope Francis told world leaders at a United Nations meeting this fall during his first visit to the United States. -
Renewables Giant Weighs in on Pa. Compliance Strategy
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
The world's largest renewable energy generator has a few thoughts on how Pennsylvania can cut its power plant sector emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Backsliding on Clean Air
Dec 10, 2015 | LA Times
By The Times Editorial Board
Last week, while Gov. Jerry Brown, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and a host of California leaders held court at a United Nations climate summit in Paris, touting the state's progress toward cutting greenhouse gases, a group of Southern California officials decided to make it easier for oil refineries, power plants and other big industrial operations to keep spewing smoggy emissions. -
Fight Over Fracking Bans Hits Colo. High Court
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The long-running fight over local control of hydraulic fracturing in Colorado finally entered the center ring yesterday with formal debate before the state Supreme Court. -
Scientist Fact-Checkers Join New Push to Call Out Climate Errors in News Media
Dec 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko
You might never fall for one of those “mom discovers teeth whitening trick” scams, but some misinformation out there is a lot less apparent to anyone who is not an expert.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) WSJ Survey: Economists Are Convinced Fed Will Raise Rates in December
Dec 10, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Ben Leubsdorf
There now is little doubt among private economic forecasters that the Federal Reserve will raise short-term interest rates next week.
About 97% of business and academic economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal in recent days predicted Fed officials will raise the benchmark federal-funds rate Wednesday. Just 3% said they expected officials would wait until next year to move rates up. Last month, 92% of forecasters predicted a December rate increase.
Economists have become more confident, too, in predicting the Fed will move this month. The forecasters on average estimated the probability of liftoff at the Dec. 15-16 meeting at 87%, up from 71% last month and 48% in October. They are in agreement with financial markets—fed-funds futures on Wednesday suggested an 85% probability of a December rate increase, according to CME Group.
“The table is set, all the Fed needs to do is show up to serve the meal,” said Diane Swonk,chief economist at Mesirow Financial.
Since their policy meeting in late October, Fed officials have sent strong signals they might begin to raise the fed-funds rate in December after holding it near zero for seven years. Chairwoman Janet Yellen last week told lawmakers the U.S. economy “is doing well and that is the reason that it is a live option for us in our December meeting to discuss…whether or not it’s appropriate to raise rates.” A solid jobs report for November appeared to clear the way for such a move.
Indeed, 82% of economists surveyed said they thought the Fed’s credibility would be damaged if it didn’t raise rates next week, up from 65% who said so last month.ENLARGE
“Based on recent comments by Janet Yellen and [Fed Vice Chairman] Stanley Fischer on how much the economy has improved, as well as stronger job and income numbers, not to raise in December would be tantamount to deception,” said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at Economic Outlook Group LLC.
After the long-anticipated first rate increase, attention will shift to the timing of the Fed’s next move as the central bank aims to raise rates at what Ms. Yellen and several other top officials have described as a gradual and cautious pace. Most economists think that means the Fed will raise rates this month, stay on hold at its Jan. 26-27 meeting and then raise rates a second time at the March 15-16 policy meeting.
About 65% said they expected the Fed’s second rate increase would come in March, while 14% predicted April and 16% predicted June. In November, 49% predicted the second move would happen in March.
“This Fed is still very cautious,” said Thomas K. Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
The Journal surveyed 65 economists Friday through Tuesday, though not every forecaster answered every question.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Seek Hazardous Label for Many Flame Retardants
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The nation's top consumer product regulator could strike a blow for public health by banning a broad class of flame retardant chemicals from many products, environment and public health groups said yesterday.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission heard hours of testimony on a petition by public interest groups against the use of "any non-polymeric, additive organohalogen flame retardant" in children's products, furniture, mattresses and electronic casing -- a restriction that would be far broader than existing regulations. A decision by CPSC is not expected until at least mid-2016, and the agency is accepting public comments on the petition until Jan. 19.
Health and safety groups have argued CPSC's authority to address the chemicals' use in consumer products under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act is more effective than U.S. EPA's regulatory powers under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. By declaring a broad scope of flame retardant chemicals as hazardous substances, CPSC would prevent companies from simply substituting a banned flame retardant with a similar one.
"If this ban were to move forward, people's exposures would be reduced to these toxic chemicals," said Veena Singla, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
CPSC has waded into issues of chemical regulation only a few times in its history, more often addressing products with defective or dangerous parts, choking hazards and other risks that may require warning labels or recalls, but its leader said recently the agency didn't necessarily have to limit its ambitions.
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune earlier this year, CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye said he was sensitive of the need to protect families from harmful chemicals.
"Parents want and need the government to step in much more robustly," Kaye said. "I happen to be in a unique role where I can try to do something about it."
Industry groups pushed back yesterday by arguing the proposal was overly broad and lacked scientific justification.
Michael Walls, the director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council said CPSC should defer to EPA's judgment on the safety of flame retardant chemicals.
EPA is already studying the safety of flame retardants under its "work plan chemicals" program -- the agency's initiative to use its authority under TSCA to regulate existing chemicals, Walls noted.
He added that the petition under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act was "overbroad" and "troubling."
"The mere presence of a chemical substance seems to be the focus of this petition, rather than the actual risk," Walls said. "This is not a scientifically accurate approach to regulating these substances."
Supporters, though, argued that it is appropriate for CPSC to operate independently of EPA because they enforce different statutes.
Industry opposition and procedural hurdles are likely to create challenges for CPSC. For example, the agency has faced persistent opposition from the chemical industry over scientific and data issues on a related proposal to limit certain phthalates in children's products and child care articles that have delayed the rulemaking (Greenwire, April 16).
"The big issue is not going to be the legal issue," CPSC Commissioner Robert Adler said. "It's going to be the scientific issue."
-
Toxic Flame Retardants are Known Health Hazard and Should be Banned
Dec 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lisa Garcia
There may be no more primal instinct in humans than the fear of fire. It is hard-coded in our DNA. But what if an industry used that fear to sell something that not only doesn’t do much to protect people from fire, but is linked to a variety of serious health issues?
For decades, the chemical industry has done just that. Toxic flame retardants found in furniture, children’s products and other common household goods have been linked to cancer, neurological disorders, impaired fertility and developmental problems. But, the chemicals that infuse our furniture and household goods actually turn out to be ineffective at preventing the most common types of fires — those started by smoldering cigarettes.
How did we get to this point, where furniture and other household goods are laden with chemicals that don’t protect us from fire but are associated with serious long-term illness and injury?
A 2012 Chicago Tribune investigation concluded this situation results from “a decades-long campaign of deception” by two powerful industries trying to protect profits, even at the expense of public health: Big Tobacco and the chemical industry. Tobacco wanted to shift the focus from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths and the chemical industry wanted to preserve a lucrative market.
In 1975, California passed a flammability standard that required the use of flame retardants in furniture. It was the only such regulation in the nation, but because furniture makers didn’t want to change the manufacturing process just for one state, it became a de facto national standard.
Even after the health impacts of the class of chemicals used in flame retardants became clear, along with their ineffectiveness in stopping real-world fires, the chemical industry lobbied to keep the standard in place.
The chemicals migrate out of furniture, released into the air every time someone sits on a couch or a baby is laid down on a crib’s mattress. These chemicals are now found in the blood of 97 percent of Americans. That’s unacceptable.
When I look at this issue, I think of my son, my nieces and nephews, the children in my community and communities across the nation who we must protect. Studies have shown communities of color bear a higher burden of these chemicals than any other population; with black and Latino children most exposed.
Not only that, but when household products containing these chemicals do catch on fire, they produce more smoke, soot, toxic gases and other carcinogens than untreated items. This puts firefighters and other first responders at greater risk.
In response to public outcry from the Tribune investigation, California revised its flammability standard in 2013 so that compliance no longer required the use of toxic chemicals. The following year, the Sacramento Superior Court upheld that new standard, after it was challenged by a major flame retardant corporation.
Earthjustice, a non-for-profit environmental law firm, defended the standard, representing the California Professional Firefighters, Center for Environmental Health, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
But the new California standard isn’t enough to protect the public. While chemical flame retardants are no longer needed to meet a flammability standard, nothing currently prohibits use of these toxic chemicals in consumer products, despite the links to serious health problems.
The chemical industry response to requests for safer products has been shameful. Each time evidence has suggested a particular flame retardant chemical causes health issues, the industry has phased out that particular chemical, but replaced with it with a structurally similar chemical that eventually also turns out to be harmful.
The best solution would be to ban the entire class of toxic chemicals, known as organohalogens.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the authority to ban dangerous products under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. A broad coalition of health, firefighter, consumer and science groups filed a petition for rulemaking in March with the commission to ban the sale of four categories of consumer products — children’s products, furniture, mattresses and electronics casings — if they contain this dangerous class of chemicals.
The commission held a public hearing on Dec. 9 and your voice can still be heard during the public comment period ending January 19, 2016. Take action to ban household products containing toxic flame retardants, now.
Garcia, as the vice president of Litigation for Healthy Communities, charts Earthjustice’s course in groundbreaking and high-impact litigation to protect communities and families from the wide range of pollution issues that confront them on a daily basis. She was formerly senior adviser to the administrator for Environmental Justice at the U.S Environmental Protection Agency in the Obama administration.
-
How Target and Walmart Led a Push to Make Over Makeup
Dec 10, 2015 | Green Biz
By Heather Clancy
More consumers than ever are inquiring about the makeup of cosmetics and other personal care products. The best anecdotal evidence? The pressure giant retailers Target and Walmart have put on their suppliers — especially over the past year — not just to disclose their use of "ingredients of concern" but to phase them out entirely.
For the most part, the retailers’ past efforts have been very company-specific. Both companies have published lists of chemicals they’d like to see go, such as triclosan, diethyl phthalate and preservative compounds that release formaldehyde.
Now, however, Walmart and Target are taking this cause industry-wide in collaboration with non-profit Forum for the Future. All three are encouraging other retailers, consumer products companies and other interested parties to participate in the forum’s Beauty and Personal Care Products Sustainability Project.
The goal: clarify priorities for products such as makeup, hair products and other personal care goods and share best practices that accelerate the availability of greener chemical alternatives.
"You wouldn’t have the retailers pushing as hard if the consumer pressure wasn’t there," said Helen Clarkson, director of Forum for the Future U.S. "Retailers are seeing more rapid growth in product categories with natural or safe on the label. … We want more products like this, and we want to be more sure about what the labels mean, because more manufacturers are making these claims."
Many details, including specific membership requirements, have yet to be finalized. What’s clear, however, is that the new leadership group will focus on coordinating the work of existing initiatives, such as the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council. One of the first things it plans to tackle is the development of sustainable preservatives. "We want them to be ambitious," Clarkson said.
Walmart began asking for disclosures about chemicals from its suppliers way back in 2006. Its initiative, the Sustainable Chemistry Policy, prioritizes action around 10 chemicals of concern.
Target updated its own chemicals list earlier this year as part of broader update to its Product Sustainability Index. Its "Made to Matter" brand, which features natural, organic and sustainable brands selected by Target, should generate $1 billion in sales this year, according to the company. In fact, human wellness is officially part of its corporate social responsibility platform.
"It is a critical time for collaboration; we need the supply chain to come together to truly move the need and make the greatest impact," Target spokeswoman Angie Thompson told GreenBiz.
Early Recommendations
Forum for the Future has collaborated closely with Walmart and Target over the past year to document what’s working and what’s not. In preparation for the leadership group’s first meeting this month, in October it published a "think piece" (PDF) identifying potential barriers as well as frameworks that could inform a systemic approach.
Aside from the retailers, other companies involved in the research were BASF, CVS, Dow Chemical Company, Eastman Chemical, the Environmental Defense Fund, Henkel, Johnson & Johnson,Method, Procter & Gamble and Unilever.
Among the report's recommendations are a push for more cross-initiative communications among the groups already working on solutions. The authors note:
To ensure a systems approach and lay the groundwork for greater alignment, we recommend creating a short-term, overarching organizational structure that provides an umbrella for the various sustainability initiatives in the beauty and persona care industry and combines their influence. This body should support holistic thinking over the coming months, until alignment and collaboration among the various existing initiatives has build up enough momentum to continue independently.
Forum for the Future also advocates a collaborative research and development initiative centered on sustainable preservatives. Among the issues that the industry needs to address are the sharing of intellectual property and safety information, as well as the framework for forward-thinking procurement policies that help bring these new products to market.
Our recommendations focus on taking action close to the market, improving or hastening the return on investment, and incentivizing companies or innovators that are already working to bring innovations to scale — not on incentivizing the early research and development of new ingredients.
The latter is already a focus for GC3, according to the Forum’s analysis. Other groups, such as the Sustainability Consortium, have made progress in prioritizing ingredients.
"We see more and more retailers developing sustainable product indices, as well as evolving their policies beyond just chemicals, to now include ingredients, animal testing, safety and packaging," Sarah Lewis, a TSC managing director, told GreenBiz. "We are also seeing convergence around key certifications and standards in this space."
There’s also a policy-related twist that could inform the sustainable chemicals movement, in the form of proposed reforms to the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act. Two bills are circulating in Congress, both of which would require more testing and more disclosure.
"Americans are exposed to a toxic soup of more than 80,000 different chemicals, but we have no idea what the impact of those chemicals is on our bodies — or those of our children," said New Mexico senator Tom Udall when in March he proposed the Senate’s version of the bill (named for the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg).
Right now, however, it doesn’t look like the legislation will be addressed this year.
-
Dec 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
CLH consultations
Echa has launched public consultations on the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) proposals for two industrial chemicals. Each is currently classified in Annex VI to the CLP Regulation:
succinic anhydride. This is used as a monomer in the production of resins and thermoplastics. It is also registered as an intermediate in the synthesis of other substances and as a laboratory reagent. No consumer use has been registered. The proposal makes use of read-across from maleic anhydride. The agency invites comments on hazard classes: acute toxicity, respiratory and skin sensitisation, eye damage and skin corrosion;
maleic anhydride, which is used as a monomer and an intermediate in the synthesis of other substances. These include unsaturated polyester resins, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, lubricating-oil and foodstuff additives. Consumer and professional uses as adhesives and sealants have been registered. The agency is looking for comments on hazard classes: acute toxicity, eye damage, skin sensitisation and specific target organ toxicity – repeated exposure (respiratory system and kidneys); and
The closing date for comments is 25 January 2016.
Reminder of substance in article notification deadline
Echa has issued a reminder that the deadline for submitting substance in article notifications, on two SVHCs, is 15 December.
The substances are
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C6-10-alkyl esters; 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, mixed decyl and hexyl and octyl diesters with ≥ 0.3% of dihexyl phthalate (EC No. 201-559-5); (EC numbers 271-094-0 and 272-013-1; CAS numbers 68515-51-5 and 68648-93-1); and
5-sec-butyl-2-(2,4-dimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)-5-methyl-1,3-dioxane [1], 5-sec-butyl-2-(4,6-dimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)-5-methyl-1,3-dioxane [2] [covering any of the individual stereoisomers of [1] and [2] or any combination thereof].
The agency says importers and EU producers should check whether their articles meet the conditions for the notification obligation, under Article 7 of REACH.
The substances were added to the candidate list in June.
Update to IR&CSA guidance
Echa has published an update of Chapter R.12 of its Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (IR&CSA) on use description.
The update is to help registrants improve the description of the uses of their chemicals, mainly in the context of the registration dossier.
ePIC user manual
Echa's ePIC user manual for industry is now available in 23 languages. It shows companies how to use the IT application to meet their obligations under the Pic Regulation.
-
DG GROW, Echa Defend Their Record on Authorisation
Dec 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The European Commission's industry directorate, DG GROW, and Echa have rejected criticisms from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), concerning their roles in the REACH authorisation process.
A report from EEB, earlier this week, noted that, so far, no authorisation application has been rejected and claimed that the Commission and Echa’s Committees on Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) are, thus, favouring “obsolete chemicals” (CW 8 December 2015).
Hitting back, DG GROW told Chemical Watch that the EEB “seems to consider that authorisation under REACH is the only tool to protect people [or the environment] from dangerous chemicals”, when “all other processes under REACH … also contribute to this goal.” And, in some cases, it said, one of these other processes “could be more effective”.
Nor have changes introduced by the Commission made, as the EEB claims, the authorisation process more burdensome, “but, on the contrary, aim to make it more predictable and transparent, as well as more manageable for applicants”.
DG GROW also says that contrary to the claims, it has lifted its moratorium on the addition of substances to Annex XIV - the authorisation list (CW 9 July 2015).
“As good progress has been made in finding solutions” to streamline the process, it “will now resume adding substances to Annex XIV. A first discussion, based on Echa’s fifth and sixth Recommendation, has already taken place at the meeting of the REACH Committee in October.”
It would be inappropriate, said the directorate, for it to give “a clear mandate to Echa to give favourable opinions only for specific, well documented and well justified” applications at the conformity check stage, as sought by the bureau, because Rac and Seac are independent bodies and the Commission cannot instruct them.
Nor, it said, should the Commission reject granting authorisations for uses, for which “safer alternatives” are already available, and applications for broad uses, because “the test imposed by REACH is not to check in isolation whether an alternative exists at EU level or not, but whether this alternative is technically and economically viable for the applicant.”
Agency defends itself, Rac and Seac
Echa also rejected the EEB’s recommendations, while "generally welcoming" its assessment of the authorisation process.
There is no need for the agency to start applying the burden of proof on authorisation applicants, it said, because this is already what happens. “Should there not be enough information,” it told Chemical Watch, “either of Echa’s scientific committees can issue an opinion that [it] is insufficient for carrying out an evaluation.” This would, “in effect, be a 'rejection'”, it said, while confirming that this has not yet happened for any of the 28 applications it has received to date.
Nor does the agency agree that a review of the conformity check procedure is needed, because “Echa considers it only a completeness check.”
Echa also responded to the EEB’s recommendations that Seac should “improve” socio-economic assessments, by including “all costs for society” and the profits for competitors, producing alternatives.
It said its guidance on socio-economic analysis for applications for authorisation does comprise the costs for society and these “are based, in particular, on the risks to human health and the environment if the authorisation is granted”.
But it said it is “somewhat complicated” for applicants to take into account what would happen to the market, including any competitors, should it not get an authorisation, because the applicant “is unlikely to know” the competitors’ profits.
-
STOP PRESS: Echa Releases Enforcement Report
Dec 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published the final report of its Enforcement Forum's third project (REACH-EN-FORCE 3).
The project looked at the inspection and enforcement of compliance with registration obligations by manufacturers, importers and only representatives, in close cooperation with customs (CW 27 June 2014).
Echa said only representatives, who register substances on behalf of importing downstream users, are more likely to be in breach of their REACH-related obligations than other registrants.
A more detailed article on the report will follow soon.
-
Glimmers of a Climate Deal Emerge, Backed by Nontraditional Coalition
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Diplomats crafting a new global climate change accord pulled their first real all-nighter yesterday, working through dawn to stitch together a deal riddled with political bullet holes.
Yet by the time negotiators stumbled out of this U.N. tent city erected on the outskirts of Paris, the deal remained still largely unfinished -- despite the emergence of a potentially powerful new coalition of some of the world's poorest countries, vulnerable islands, the United States, Europe and progressive Latin American nations calling for ambition.
"They haven't made a ton of progress," said Samantha Smith, who leads the World Wildlife Fund's climate and energy program. But, she said, "we still think we're going to get an agreement here. The question is what's going to be in this agreement."
As delegates filed back into the negotiating halls this morning, many agreed that despite vast differences on top-tier issues like how to divide up responsibility for cutting emissions among countries of different levels of wealth and helping poor nations to do the same, a deal is still possible.
"We've got to have more consultations with colleagues ... and really work on paper on the words," said Gao Feng, China's special representative for climate change. "Friday or Saturday we will get it. I think we will get it."
Some of the specific big issues on the table include: whether countries will identify keeping the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels as their goal, if the deal will demand that countries come back to the table every five years to increase their emissions targets, and the amount of money that countries will put forward and from where it will come.'High-ambition coalition'
Alix Mazounie of French environmental group Réseau Action Climat, or RAC, said countries have been putting forward "Christmas lists," trying to add new language late in the game. She and others also downplayed a new group that includes the United States and has dubbed itself the "high-ambition coalition."
Who's in the 'high-ambition coalition'?
Marshall Islands
European Union (28 members)
AILAC negotiating group (seven countries)
Least Developed Countries negotiating group (48 countries)
Mexico
Norway
United States
United Kingdom
Some island nations: Tuvalu, Grenada, St. Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago"What we're missing in that high-ambition coalition and what we hope to see is finance," she said. "It hasn't really spoken up on the finance issue, which doesn't make any sense."
"Coalitions are very normal," added Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid. "We're telling the rich members in that coalition that you can't just be talking about mitigation; you also have to deliver on finance."
The new coalition includes more than 100 countries. While the ringleaders have been the Marshall Islands and the European Union, it also includes the more than 30 countries representing the world's poorest, several (but not all) island nations, and progressive Latin American nations like Mexico and Chile.
Together, they have called for five key inclusions in the deal. At the top is a way to regularly ratchet up countries' targets every five years, which Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum called "the beating heart of the Paris agreement." That's opposed by several wealthier developing nations, most prominently India.
They also want "firm recognition" of the 1.5-degree target, a long-term goal that defines how the world will decarbonize, and "a strong package of support for developing countries" including delivery from wealthy nations of the $100 billion annual mobilization they pledged by 2020.Breaking down old divisions
"This is not a negotiating group. It is rather about joining the voices of all those who are committed to an ambitious agreement and a safe climate future," said de Brum. Countries "big and small, rich and poor," are members, he noted, and together "we will not accept a minimal or bare-bones package."
On a political level, the coalition is serving to break down the traditional divisions that have persisted over decades here between rich and poor nations.
Monica Araya, a former Costa Rica negotiator and founder of the nonprofit group Nivela, said after watching the group's announcement, "This is the future that I want.
"No more North-South blame games. No more divisions over who caused the problems, because what we need are solutions," she said, adding, "Many of the people who polarize don't take responsibility for the costs and delays they cause in this process."
By this morning, it was unclear what progress the group had made, but those that are not included in the coalition were openly irked by its existence and annoyed that the countries involved had declared themselves to be the ambitious ones.
"Everybody wants to be ambitious," Chinese negotiator Su Wei told ClimateWire. In a separate interview, Venezuelan lead negotiator Claudia Salerno echoed that. "I think everybody is part of the high-ambition coalition," she said. "We have different visions of ambition."
Alf Wills, a South African negotiator, said his country wasn't invited. "I hear in the press that this is an open-ended coalition, but they forgot to tell us what the contact details are. Who do we contact?" he asked.
E.U. head of delegation Elina Bardram, sitting next to Wills, raised her hand.
A number of key wealthy countries also are notably absent from the coalition, including Canada, Australia and Japan. Asked by ClimateWire if his country planned to join, a Japanese negotiator who declined to give his name said he wasn't sure.
-
U.S. Finds Its Global Ambition Clipped by Politics at Home
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The United States wants the international climate accord being crafted here to be as ambitious as it can be.
The Obama administration's wish list for the U.N. summit that's now in the home stretch includes ambitious new transparency measures modeled on U.S. EPA's greenhouse gas inventory that might ensure that countries make emission reductions they promised.
U.S. negotiators also want language requiring parties to return to the table in the next few years to improve on those pledges. And just yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry announced the United States would join an ambitious new coalition that aims to undercut a more conservative stance taken by certain high-emitting emerging economies that some see weakening the deal's environmental impact (Greenwire, Dec. 9).
But domestic politics have followed American diplomats to France, requiring State Department negotiators to insist that the deal not make emissions cuts subject to international law so that President Obama doesn't have to ask for Senate approval.
Kerry reminded negotiators yesterday that mandatory emissions cuts made it impossible for the United States to join a previous climate deal negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, 18 years ago.
"Having been at Kyoto, and trying to pass it on the floor of the United States Senate, and not being able to, we have learned the lessons of the past," Kerry said.
Kerry also announced the United States would join the Marshall Islands, the European Union and a group of other highly vulnerable and progressive developing countries -- more than 100 in total -- that would call themselves the "high ambition coalition." The group would seek to influence the talks in their waning days, pressing for a deal that would set a goal of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, demand a five-year review with increased national targets, and include new details about adaptation and mitigation finance (E&ENews PM, Dec. 9).
"Addressing climate change will require a fundamental change in the way that we decide to power our planet," Kerry said. "And our aim can be nothing less than a steady transformation of a global economy."
But the leaders of the coalition say the United States had no hand in creating the new negotiating group and had to audition to get in.
The European Union has been talking to a group of progressive developing nations about creating the group since before the 2012 round of talks in Durban, South Africa. At a meeting in Papua, New Guinea, this September and in subsequent meetings in Ecuador and Morocco, the European Union and developing nations formulated the group and came up with a platform, a diplomat said. The United States asked to join in November but was initially denied membership before it made the case that it would show greater flexibility in these talks.
The Obama administration declined to comment.
But European negotiators say the United States has shown ample ambition in its domestic policy and is therefore a welcome member of the new pressure group.
"The United States has a very high level of ambition," said Miguel Arias Cañete, the E.U. climate commissioner. He noted U.S. support for keeping warming below a threshold scientists say will avoid the worst effects of climate change, a review process for commitments and greater transparency measures.
"The only difference between us is that they have a political situation in which they cannot have binding mitigation commitments, and we are looking for a solution to that," he said.
The European Union still supports making pledges binding under international law.
Elina Bardram, who heads the E.U. delegation, said she credited Obama with "raising U.S. ambition" domestically.
"The Obama administration has taken unprecedented steps to also help forge a global agreement. And we consider the U.S. a major partner," she said. "So I don't see any paradox in them joining the ambition coalition."
Major developing countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa were not asked to join the new coalition -- which seems aimed in part at drawing attention to some of their own long-held positions on issues like how an agreement should obligate countries that are not historically wealthy.
Alf Wills, a South African negotiator, said he wasn't offended that his country was not asked to participate, though he agreed the name seemed to hint that other countries are not seeking a tough deal.
And Chinese top negotiator Gao Feng reminded reporters that China joined the Kyoto Protocol, unlike the United States.
"I hope the U.S. will be with us this time," he said. "They have been away for so long. This time we have to get the U.S. on board."Mixed reviews from greens
Meanwhile, environmental groups ran the gamut from commending the United States for participating in the new coalition to warning that it still isn't doing enough.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said after Kerry's speech yesterday that a new grant of aid for poor countries and other U.S. positions would help inject ambition into the deal.
"We know the agreement won't do enough to protect climate, so what's critical is that we have a framework that has the mechanisms to ladder up ambition," he said. The "essential elements" are U.S. priorities of monitoring, review and verification and the five-year stock-taking provision.
"I think that the president wants to leave a legacy of doing all he can for climate," he said.
But Ben Schreiber of Friends of the Earth said the United States has weakened the deal rather than strengthened it.
"The entire architecture that has developed in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has been developed around the intransigence of the U.S.," he said. "Let's be clear, though, this isn't because the U.S. is exerting leadership. This is because the U.S. is the world's largest historical emitter, and they are holding the rest of the world hostage."
Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, reminded an audience here that Republican lawmakers remain hostile toward the process. China's commitment to peak its emissions by 2030, in particular, has been a lightning rod. GOP lawmakers view that commitment as weak compared to the U.S. commitment to cut emissions up to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Both commitments were submitted to the United Nations in the run-up to Paris, setting the stage for 180 other countries to submit their own plans for cutting emissions in papers called intended nationally determined contributions, or INDCs.
"Congress asked me, 'Isn't it true that China's [commitment] is in China's best interest?'" Steer said. "I said, 'Yes. Actually, America's INDC is also in their own best interest.' The United States should be planning to do this even if climate change didn't exist."
Steer pointed to the shrinking list of major issues still on the table here.
"There's still a lot at play for the next 48 hours," he said. "We need an agreement on a five-year ramping up of ambitions starting in 2020."
Getting language in the deal about a long-term goal for decarbonizing the world economy by midcentury is being hammered home by both environmental and business groups here.
"What business is looking for is confidence that ambition won't end with Paris but that we would in fact progressively raise ambition over time," said Edward Cameron, managing director of We Mean Business, a coalition of corporations.
-
Lifting Oil Export Ban Bad for the Environment
Dec 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Catherine Thomasson
“Any harm done to the environment…is harm done to humanity,” Pope Francis told world leaders at a United Nations meeting this fall during his first visit to the United States.
It’s this fundamental connection between environmental degradation and human health that has us concerned about the prospect of Congress lifting the U.S. oil export ban as part of any tax package or spending bill deal. Doing so would worsen climate change and threaten our communities with toxic spills.
The list of threats climate change poses to our health – and especially children’s health -- is long. Too many children already struggle to breathe on bad air days, and increased temperatures will make those days more frequent and severe. The tick that carries Lyme disease—fear of which already has us constantly checking our kids for bugs—is already breeding faster due to warmer weather, and other insect born diseases are likely to spread more easily.
Detailing these impacts and more, The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected medical journals, labeled climate change ‘the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.’
To avoid global warming’s most devastating health impacts and reduce pollution, we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to 100 percent pollution-free, renewable energy. But lifting our decades-old ban on the export of U.S. oil takes us in the opposite direction.
If the oil companies have a larger distribution market for oil produced in the U.S., they’ll drill more—upwards of another 3.3 million barrels per day for the next 20 years, according to some estimates. Even if only a fraction of all this extra oil is burned, global warming pollution could still increase 22 million metric tons per year—the equivalent of five average-sized coal power plants.
In addition to worsening climate change, there’s the clear public health threat from drilling and fracking for more oil and then transporting it across the country.
While the majority of crude oil is now shipped around the U.S. by pipeline, shipments by rail have been increasing. To keep up with increased demand, oil trains have grown larger and now tow more tanker cars than ever before.
Not coincidentally, oil train accidents – where toxic crude oil is spilled into our communities – have also been on the rise, with more oil accidentally dumped into our environment in 2013 alone than during the previous three decades combined.
This year alone we’ve already seen three major oil train accidents. In Mount Carbon, W.V., a rail oil spill led to evacuations and a governor-declared state of emergency. In Galena, Ill., a spill threatened to pollute the Mississippi river. A spill in Heimdal, N.D., forced the evacuation of a town.
There’s just no way around the fact that lifting the oil export ban means more drilling, more fracking, more global warming pollution, and more threats to public health.
We don’t need to lift the oil export ban, and we shouldn’t. We’re counting on the president and our senators to keep the oil export ban in place for the sake of the environment and our health. For as the pope pointed out earlier this year, and as the public health community has long held, the two go hand in hand.
Thomasson is the executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Alt is the executive director of Environment America.
-
Renewables Giant Weighs in on Pa. Compliance Strategy
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
The world's largest renewable energy generator has a few thoughts on how Pennsylvania can cut its power plant sector emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
That includes, of course, adding more renewable energy.
Pennsylvania needs to lower its emissions rate from power plants by 33 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 to meet EPA targets. The state should start by displacing older fossil fuel plants and investing in renewable energy, said NextEra Energy Resources LLC in comments filed with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection.
NextEra Energy Resources is the robust wholesale generation unit of Florida's NextEra Energy Inc. The subsidiary owns nuclear and natural gas plants but is best known for its wind and solar generation projects across the United States and Canada.
In Pennsylvania, NextEra Energy Resources has a 750-megawatt natural gas combined-cycle power plant and five wind projects.
Pennsylvania is one of a few states planning to file their compliance plans with EPA by September 2016. States that want to file a plan of their own must give EPA an initial one by that deadline but also can ask for a two-year extension after that.
The state already held a series of listening sessions and opened up a public comment period, as well, but it's still a ways from making major decisions on how it will meet goals set by EPA.
"DEP is looking at all of the comments submitted -- whether they're from energy companies like NextEra or from everyday citizens -- as we draft our plan, and we'll weigh their concerns and recommendations as we would any other group or individual," DEP spokesman Neil Shader said in an email to EnergyWire.
Pennsylvania has a significant presence of coal and natural gas. It also is the nation's No. 1 exporter of electricity, and the governor wants to keep it that way even while meeting targets (ClimateWire, Dec. 4).
In its comments, NextEra Energy Resources suggests Pennsylvania pick a mass-based approach, which would mean the state would cap emissions and allow generators to purchase allowances to run power plants. Taking this route would be less costly and would set up the state to trade allowances with others.
One utility regulator has hinted that the state is preparing to do that and likely would trade with states outside of the already established Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (ClimateWire, Oct. 21).
Within that path, NextEra Energy Resources suggests that the state allocate those allowances using an auction.
"From a policy standpoint, auctioning allowances is a fair, equitable and economically efficient method of distributing alliances to affected sources," wrote David Applebaum, a regional director with NextEra Energy Resources.
NextEra Energy Resources did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.
Rob Altenburg, director of environmental group PennFuture Energy Center, said NextEra Energy Resources' statements broadly are in line with the majority of comments that have been filed with the state's DEP.
"We think it's a much better plan if you auction the allowances," Altenburg told EnergyWire. "You put the pricing where it belongs."
Altenburg said he's not surprised that NextEra Energy Resources filed comments with the state. It and other predominantly clean energy companies that operate in more than one state can capitalize on the Clean Power Plan to expand their business.
"There's definitely money to be made in generating clean energy," Altenburg said. "It's not surprising that they are backing the plan and filing early."
That revenue opportunity only increases by Pennsylvania's being one of the first states to file a plan with EPA, Altenburg said. If Pennsylvania is a success, that will put pressure on other states to follow suit.
"Companies that don't even have a huge presence in the state want to make sure the plan here works," he said.
-
Dec 10, 2015 | LA Times
By The Times Editorial Board
Last week, while Gov. Jerry Brown, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and a host of California leaders held court at a United Nations climate summit in Paris, touting the state's progress toward cutting greenhouse gases, a group of Southern California officials decided to make it easier for oil refineries, power plants and other big industrial operations to keep spewing smoggy emissions.
The governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District on Friday rejected a staff recommendation that would have forced major polluters to cut more emissions of smog-generating chemicals sooner. Instead, the increasingly polluter-accommodating board voted for a weaker industry-backed plan. Board members sided with oil industry lobbyists, even as the staff made clear that the region could be sued for failing to protect public health. This kind of backsliding on clean air goals is unacceptable.
Last week's vote was aimed at reforming the region's 22-year-old RECLAIM program, one of the nation's first cap-and-trade efforts. It was designed to be a market-based solution that would give businesses flexibility in meeting emission-reduction targets. RECLAIM set a limit on smog-forming nitrogen oxides at each site, then allowed facilities that cut more than required to sell emissions credits to those that didn't meet their limits.
But critics complained that there were too many cheap credits on the market that companies could buy instead of cutting pollution from their facilities. Indeed, AQMD staff said some oil refineries have been able to increase their emissions by buying credits from a closed cement plant. Nitrogen oxide levels have not fallen in the last seven years, and the region has missed smog-cutting deadlines set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Staff had sought to lower the 56 plants' nitrogen-oxide emissions to 12.5 tons per day by 2023, or half the current limit. The board, however, voted to lower the limit more gradually, just to 14.5 tons per day.
Board members who voted for the weaker plan said it still delivered big pollution reductions but was easier and cheaper by at least $1 billion for the industry. L.A. Councilman Joe Buscaino, who is Garcetti's appointee to the AQMD and who seconded the industry-backed proposal, called it a "compromise." But the RECLAIM program is already a compromise; if the AQMD had relied on conventional, rigid mandates to reduce pollution, most refineries and other polluters probably would already have installed up-to-date equipment to cut emissions. And while two tons per day may not sound like much, the change will force the region to seek deeper cuts from other sources that will be harder to achieve.
The AQMD has long been considered a national leader in innovative and aggressive regulation. It had to be just to meet federal air quality standards. But while Southern California has significantly cut air pollution, this remains the smoggiest region in the nation. Residents here, particularly in the Inland Empire, still suffer from unhealthful air that can permanently damage children's lungs and puts adults at greater risk of heart attacks and strokes. Yet there is concern that a new Republican majority on the board, with members eager to lift regulatory burdens on business, will slow the region's clean air gains. The board must focus on protecting public health, not industry profits.
California officials also take pride in the state's aggressive leadership on global climate change. But environmental leadership begins at home. Garcetti, Brown, incoming Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon — who all can appoint AQMD board members — have a responsibility to ensure local air quality regulations are equally aggressive.
-
Fight Over Fracking Bans Hits Colo. High Court
Dec 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The long-running fight over local control of hydraulic fracturing in Colorado finally entered the center ring yesterday with formal debate before the state Supreme Court.
Environmentalists, industry representatives and local government advocates filled the Denver courtroom for two hours of oral arguments in related cases that consider whether the cities of Longmont and Fort Collins were within their rights in enacting local limits on fracking within their borders. The lawsuits, closely watched by stakeholders across the country, pit industry's and states' ability to produce oil and gas efficiently against local governments' ability to control what happens in their communities -- a dynamic that has fueled heated debates in other shale states.
"It's worth the time and resources to get it right," Longmont attorney Dan Kramer told the court.
The Colorado conflict began in 2012 when Longmont residents passed a fracking ban in response to growing shale development in the region. Similar restrictions followed from a handful of other municipalities, including Fort Collins, which passed a moratorium in 2013.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association sued over both cities' measures, and state regulators joined the challenge against Longmont. District courts ruled against the local governments last year, and the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the Longmont and Fort Collins cases on appeal in September.
In a statement yesterday, COGA President Dan Haley stressed the importance of the cases for broader questions of local authority.
"While oil and gas was the catalyst for the action, these cases are much more than just about oil and gas," he said. "These two cases truly get to the heart of where the state's authority ends and local government's begins. Depending on the outcome, the decisions could have tremendous impact across all businesses in Colorado and how and if they can operate in our communities if certain people just decide they don't like someone's business."
Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman agreed on the importance of a decision but argued that a decision in favor of COGA would present unintended consequences hamstringing local governments on future issues.
"It would be a really extreme result," he told EnergyWire. "It will be interesting to see what the court does."Courtroom debate
At issue in the cases is whether state law regulating oil and gas operations pre-empts local rules for fracking. If the state "expressly authorizes" fracking, Kramer argued, municipalities may be pre-empted from banning it. But, Freeman said, Colorado merely "allows" fracking. The distinction is slight but critical, he said, leaving room under state precedent for local control.
Further, he told the court during the Longmont arguments, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's statutory interest in efficient production of oil and gas can still be met through other forms of oil and gas development, including traditional vertical wells and other technologies.
"The question is whether fracking is necessary to achieving the state's interest," Freeman said. "If Option A is taken away but Option B is still there, then the state's interest is still met."
Kramer's arguments were met with a three-pronged attack from industry and the state. Mark Mathews, representing COGA in the case, countered that fracking is unquestionably the most economical way to produce oil and gas, and any restriction on fracking therefore amounts to a ban on economical production. He added that Longmont's contention that the state doesn't expressly regulate fracking ignores the practical application of the state's laws.
"When the state regulates every aspect of oil and gas production from cradle to grave, I don't know how there can be a finding that a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing doesn't materially impede the state's interests," he told the court.
COGCC attorney Jake Matter confirmed Mathews' position, noting that the agency has an interest in uniform rules across the state and has a duty to maximize efficient production and protect oil and gas rights.
"If a local government can step into this subset of regulation," he said, "the commission need not exist."
Rounding out Longmont's opposition, TOP Operating Co. attorney Thomas Kimmel tried to describe for the justices just how severe the impacts of Longmont's ban are, noting TOP Operating's extensive investments in oil and gas rights and local land-use negotiations in Longmont just months before the ban was passed.
"Unless this fracking ban is overturned, Longmont's prohibition has essentially rendered TOP's rights worthless," he said.
Oral arguments in the Fort Collins case followed a similar track, focusing on whether the city's moratorium conflicted with state regulations.
"We're saying that the two can be harmonized and the two can work together," Fort Collins attorney Barbara Green told the court.
The court zeroed in on the Fort Collins ordinance's status as a moratorium rather than an outright ban, asking COGA's lawyer to define at what point any city's delay in land-use permitting constitutes an overstep. Kramer acknowledged that a moratorium could be a valid land-use tool in some cases but argued that it could not be used beyond a city's home-rule authority.
"This is not a stopgap measure," he said of Fort Collins's moratorium. "There is not a practical or legal difference between a moratorium and a ban for pre-emption analysis."
-
Scientist Fact-Checkers Join New Push to Call Out Climate Errors in News Media
Dec 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko
You might never fall for one of those “mom discovers teeth whitening trick” scams, but some misinformation out there is a lot less apparent to anyone who is not an expert.
Climate change, for example, is a topic that some media and opinion makers expand on freely and sometimes unscientifically to further their political or economic agendas – and they do so at a critical moment in history when we must make important climate decisions about our long-term future on Earth.
So how do we give citizens the information they need?
That is what Climate Feedback is all about, a new initiative that gives qualified climate scientists an opportunity to bring accuracy back to reporting through the real-time evaluation of online articles.
100+ scientists can now fact-check articles
The brainchild of University of California climate scientist Emmanuel Vincent, Climate Feedback organizes scientists from all over the world and partners with web developers to provide cutting-edge evaluation tools.
Participating scientists, now counting more than 100 experts screened through an application process, insert detailed annotations in the right “margin” of online articles – much like a teacher does when commenting on a student essay.
We address the article’s scientific credibility by adding relevant information, supporting or refuting statements, and by providing sources line-by-line. We also give an overall evaluation of the article, assigning it a quantitative ranking and qualitative description.Science-based climate projectsCutting pollution while growing the economy? The solutions with impact.
The initiative, even in its infancy stage, has already generated interest among media whose readers are our key audience.
As it grows, we are hopeful that Climate Feedback will strengthen accuracy in science journalism and – ultimately – help change public perceptions of climate change so it’s increasingly based more on fact than on misunderstandings, emotions or right-out fiction.
Eventually, readers may know which outlets they can trust before they even read the article.
Pope Francis had most of his facts right
So far, we have evaluated articles in The New York Times,The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Forbes, Rolling Stone, CNN, The (London) Telegraph and even Pope Francis’ Encyclical.
The scientific credibility rankings have ranged from “very low” to “very high.” The pope’s Encyclical, for example, scored a “high,” while a recent commentary in The Telegraph ranked “very low.”
Of course, this is not only about exposing distortions and lies. The opportunity to publicly support journalists who get the science right is just as satisfying, and they seem open to the idea.
“I reckon all journalists should welcome this kind of feedback,” wrote Graham Readfearn, an environmental journalist who reports for The Guardian, adding with some reticence, “although I’m now a little edgy that they might come after one of my stories.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested