Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Dec 28]
-
(ACC Blog) Give The Gift That Keeps On Giving: 9 Tips To Help You Recycle More Plastics
Dec 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Recycling really can be the gift that keeps on giving. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), recycling can help conserve natural resources, reduce waste, prevent pollution, save energy, create jobs—and sustain the environment for future generations. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Europe's Energy and Electricity Policies are a Bad Model
Dec 28, 2015 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
It’s quite telling that COP21 took place in Paris. Western leaders, environmental groups, and international institutions are convinced that Europe is the model for the rest of the world to install more renewable energy and efficiency. Entered into force in 2005, Europe has been a mainstay of the failed Kyoto Protocol, the first agreement ... -
Obama’s Year In Regulations
Dec 26, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Tim Devaney
With time running out on his presidency, President Obama looked to muscle through his regulatory agenda in 2015. From the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations on power plants and water protections to the Labor Department’s push for stronger overtime standards, the Obama administration was in a rush... -
Go Live Elsewhere, We’re Cutting Carbon Here
Dec 27, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Allysia Finley
Earlier this month California Gov. Jerry Brown promised to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal will be nearly impossible to achieve with California’s current population, projected to grow by 30% over the next 35 years to 50 million. So ecovangelists are trying to block any economic development that could... -
Republicans Split On Attacking Climate Science
Dec 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Republican Party is divided over whether to attack the science of climate change when opposing liberal policies. Many of the most vocal Republicans say they have significant problems with the scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is the main cause. -
Why Addressing Climate Change Is Not Enough
Dec 25, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Science Blog
By Mariajosé Aguilera
The celebratory mood accompanying the recent Paris Accord, in which the entire UN membership agreed to hold global temperature increases to no more than 2°C, is quickly dissipating. As the Accord itself acknowledges, there is a "significant gap" between countries' climate change mitigation pledges and the 2°C goal ...
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Blog) Give The Gift That Keeps On Giving: 9 Tips To Help You Recycle More Plastics
Dec 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Recycling really can be the gift that keeps on giving.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), recycling can help conserve natural resources, reduce waste, prevent pollution, save energy, create jobs—and sustain the environment for future generations.
As people around the world prepare to make good on their plans to eat, drink and be merry this holiday season, it’s important to remember which plastic products can and should be recycled (hint: it’s more than you might think).
With these tips in mind, don’t forget to put your holiday green or blue recycling bins in plain view in the coming weeks where all your guests can see them! The Ultimate 9 Quick Tips to Help You Recycle More Plastics 1. ALL plastic bottles
Tip: That’s right: every single plastic bottle—meaning a container with a neck smaller than its body—goes in the recycling bin.
Did you know? You once again broke the record—Americans recycled more pounds of plastic bottles in 2014 than ever and reached a recycling rate of nearly 32%. Keep it up!
2. And MOST plastic containersTip: More and more communities collect plastic containers for products such as yogurt, sour cream, and condiments, plus “clamshell” packaging. (See below for a tip on learning which containers to recycle.)
Did you know? You’re also doing a great job recycling plastic containers—Americans recycled more than a billion pounds in 2013, triple the amount since 2007. 3. Twist on the caps
Tip: Recyclers want your plastic bottle caps and container lids. Twist on the bottle caps before tossing them in the bin to make it easier for recyclers.
Did you know? Bottle caps typically are made from polypropylene plastic—it can be recycled into auto parts, bike racks, storage bins, shipping pallets, and more. 4. To the store with bags and wraps
Tip: Did you know more than 18,000 grocery and retail stores collect plastic grocery bags for recycling? Plus bags for dry-cleaning, bread, produce, newspapers—and even zipper bags. And plastic wraps from products such as water bottles, diapers, napkins, and more. Just drop clean and dry bags/wraps in the storefront recycling bin.
Did you know? You’re recycling more plastic bags and wraps, too—Americans recycled more than a billion pounds in 2013, an increase of 75% since 2005. 5. Think beyond the kitchen
Tip: There probably are recyclable plastics in your bathroom (bottles and containers for shampoo, conditioner, liquid soap, body wash, mouthwash), laundry area (detergent and cleaning products), and garage (auto and gardening products). Placing small receptacles in various rooms can make it easier to recycle everything you can.
Did you know? There are LOTS of recyclables in your bathroom—check them out in the interactive Bathroom to Bin. 6. Recycle on the go
Tip: Seek out public recycling bins at sports stadiums, public parks, and beaches. Can’t find one? Stash your recyclables in a plastic bag and bring them back to your home bin. This will not only increase recycling, but it can help cut down on litter, too.
Did you know? Public recycling bins are proliferating—Keep America Beautiful is even creating a map of public bins! 7. Party!
Tip: Having a get-together? Instead of having guests guess what to recycle, set up a separate bin with a sign of all the recyclables you can collect, and ask them to pitch in!
Did you know? Big get-togethers such as tailgate parties can create a lot of waste—the EPA says some large college stadiums can generate 100 tons of waste per game. Check out some tips to reduce waste. 8. Seek recycled
Tip: Look for products made with recycled plastics to help this valuable material from going to waste. For example, long lasting decking can be made with plastic bags … food storage containers and kitchen tools can be made with yogurt cups … and patio furniture can be made with milk jugs. Even soft durable fabrics for stylish clothing can be made with used beverage bottles.
Did you know? It’s now easier than ever to find products made with recycled plastics—check out what happens to plastics collected for recycling. 9. Arm yourself—with knowledge!
Tip: Most communities publish an online list of recyclables—check it out. Or visit KAB’s iwanttoberecycled.org and enter your zip code.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Europe's Energy and Electricity Policies are a Bad Model
Dec 28, 2015 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
It’s quite telling that COP21 took place in Paris. Western leaders, environmental groups, and international institutions are convinced that Europe is the model for the rest of the world to install more renewable energy and efficiency. Entered into force in 2005, Europe has been a mainstay of the failed Kyoto Protocol, the first agreement for country-by-country reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And the European Union Energy Roadmap 2050 wants the EU to cut its emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, setting milestones for reductions of the order of 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2040.
But, the truth is much different. Europe is a “green energy” basket case with surging prices, fleeing industry, falling economic and population growth, growing dependence on Russian energy, and rising “fuel poverty,” where even the Middle Class often can’t afford the most basic energy services. “Soaring energy costs make Europeans poor.”
To illustrate, Denmark and Germany are the proud wind capitals of Europe, but they also have the highest home electricity prices on Earth, 42 and 40 cents per kWh, respectively, against just 12.5 cents in the U.S. Germany has embarked on a $1.4 trillion energy transition (“Energiewende”) that has resulted in recent Der Spiegel headlines like: “Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.”
Naturally intermittent and more expensive, wind and solar power have surged under Germany’s very expensive energy plan, and the goal remains to get as much as 60% of power from renewables in 2035, versus 28% today. Undeniably non-sensically, Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).
Yet, the influential Bloomberg, one of the biggest renewable energy promoters and investors in the world, still declared in August: “On Clean Energy, the U.S. Should Be More German.” As a side note, I’ve noticed that Manhattanites can afford ridiculously high costs for pretty much….everything.
Endlessly ignored by those promoting renewables and/or those directly invested in the business itself, higher cost electricity (and energy) is horrible for our health. That’s because, since electricity is so indispensable, meaning that it “cannot not be used,” higher cost power drastically erodes our disposable income, which is the very basis of our health - while also disproportionately hurting the poor most. As a percentage of income, poor families pay 5-9 times more for electricity than rich families do.
Predictably silently, higher cost electricity in Europe is killing tens of thousands of people a year, ”Excess Winter Deaths,” where older residents on fixed budgets in particular are forced to turn their heat down to avoid overly expensive utility bills. For example, there were 44,000 Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in 2014-2015 (see here). Critically, although we keep hearing about the dangers of a warmer world, “cold kills 20 times more people than heat.”
Europe’s industry is being ravaged by exorbitant energy costs: “Brussels fears European ‘industrial massacre’ sparked by energy costs.” The once-vaunted UK steel industry, for instance, has been decimated by higher cost electricity (see here), and annual production is down 15% to 12 million tonnes since 2007, now just yielding 1.5% of what mighty China does.
In contrast, The American Chemistry Council finds that low cost shale natural gas has given the U.S. a “profound and sustained competitive advantage” in chemicals, plastics, and related industries. And The International Energy Agency concludes that higher cost energy will hamper Europe for “at least 20 years.”
Any of us that have taken even just one basic Economics class must stop those in the sacred-cow business of promoting renewable energy from constantly ignoring these higher costs that devastate. After 12 years in the energy/environment arena, I learned real quick that altruism is typically an illusion. “Climate change” is now a $1.5 trillion industry (see here).
The direct loss of industry because of higher cost electricity is particularly destructive. Manufacturing jobs are very high-paying and the manufacturing business greatly advances nations with a massive “multiplier effect,” where 1 new manufacturing job can create as many as 6 or 7 across the overall economy.
While the manufacturing sector in the EU now employs about 30 million persons directly, down from 37 million 10 years ago, the real devastation is far worse because manufacturing is a building block of a strong economy.
Moreover, energy dreams that are based on more renewable energy at all costs, exacerbated by a refusal to more realistically produce as much domestic coal, oil, and natural gas as possible, have upped Europe’s dependence on Vladimir Putin’s more reliable hydrocarbons. Russian gas, for instance, now supplies 65% of Europe’s natural gas imports, compared to 45% in 2010. More reliable coal and gas still supply 5 times more electricity than wind and solar do in the EU, even after tens of billions in subsidies for renewables.
And never forget that, given the importance of energy, higher cost energy trickles down to increase the costs of EVERYTHING that we do and/or enjoy. For example, the costs of water, an even more indispensable necessity than electricity, are dangerously much higher in Europe because power is way too expensive (see here): “Because the energy required for treatment and delivery of water accounts for as much as 80% of its cost, an insufficient supply of affordable energy will have a negative impact on the price and availability of water,” Sandia National Laboratories
And beyond forcing the acceptance of much higher costs, energy policies in Europe aren’t just undesirable but they’re also impractical due to basically non-existent population growth on the continent, explaining why I use the term “non-growth Europe.” In fact, one main reason why Europe has so suspiciously and gladly accepted refugees and/or economic migrants is because the continent needs more able-bodied workers (a must read on that here). In short, Europe’s importance is declining.
Indeed, contrary to what the mainstream media keeps depicting, the United Nations reports that 72% of those arriving in Europe are men (see here), and about 54% of the asylum seekers are men aged 18-34 (see here).
The U.S. is a Rapidly Growing Nation, those in Europe are NOT.
-
Dec 26, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Tim Devaney
With time running out on his presidency, President Obama looked to muscle through his regulatory agenda in 2015.
From the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations on power plants and water protections to the Labor Department’s push for stronger overtime standards, the Obama administration was in a rush to get its regulatory agenda completed before a new president takes office.
Here’s a look at some of the biggest regulatory fights of the year.Power plant rules
The EPA took major strides toward implementing President Obama’s climate agenda in 2015.
Perhaps no rule was more controversial than the EPA’s carbon emissions limits for existing power plants.
Power plants will be required to cut emissions by 32 percent by 2030, the EPA announced in August.
This is a significant part of Obama’s climate legacy, but GOP presidential candidates assailed the rule and say his efforts to save the planet will destroy the coal industry and lead to higher energy costs.
Obama used the pocket veto to reject a congressional measure to overturn the carbon rule.
Separately, dozens of states are challenging the rule in federal court.Ozone limits
The GOP is also up in arms over the EPA’s new ozone limits for air pollution.
The EPA announced in October it is tightening the ozone standard to 70 parts per billion (ppb), imposing tougher restrictions on communities than the previous standard of 75 ppb.
Business groups call it the most expensive regulation in history, with the National Association of Manufacturers suggesting the rule could cost $1.1 trillion to comply with.
But climate activists hoped the EPA would have gone further by lowering the standard to 65 ppb.
The Obama will be forced to defend the ozone rule in court. It is facing lawsuits from industry and a handful of states.Clean water rule
The EPA is also defending a new water pollution rule from Republican criticism.
The EPA is already responsible for regulating major bodies of water, but the new rules would give the agency more authority over smaller water sources like streams and ponds.
Farmers are concerned the EPA could misuse the rule to regulate small puddles on their lands.
Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the rule. While dozens of states are challenging the rule in court.Overtime protections
The Department of Labor (DOL) is pressing ahead with new overtime protections that would raise pay for nearly 5 million workers.
The overtime rules would ensure that blue-collar employees are paid time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours in a week.
Most workers do not qualify for overtime pay under the current standards. Anyone who makes more than $23,660 per year is not eligible.
The new overtime standard would raise the cutoff limit so workers who make less than $50,440 qualify for time-and-a-half pay.Fiduciary rule
The Labor Department’s proposed rules for retirement investment advisers have also generated much controversy in the financial industry.
The so-called fiduciary rule survived a challenge from business groups in the recent government spending bill.
Retirement advisers would be required to act solely in the best interest of their clients under the fiduciary rule.
The Obama administration argues the rule will protect investors from bad retirement advice. But Republicans say it could drive up the price for consumers and keep some from seeking out advice.
These rules play a big role in the Obama administration’s fight against income inequality.
Democrats say they will raise millions of hard-working Americans out of poverty. But Republicans say they are unfeasible.Union election rules
If the EPA was the most controversial regulatory agency in 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was a close second.
The GOP’s on-going grudge match with the labor board reached new heights this year.
Congressional Republicans voted to overturn the NLRB’s union election rule, which speeds up the process by which workers can organize.
They referred to it as the “ambush election” rule, because they say it wouldn’t give companies enough time to prepare for union elections.
But President Obama blocked their efforts, arguing that the rule would protect workers from workplace intimidation against organizing.
The union election rule survived multiple court challenges from business groups.
A few months later, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that companies can be held responsible for the labor violations of their business partners and contractors.
The labor board reasoned the move would protect employees, who often times have no one to blame for mistreatment in the workplace.
But critics assailed the joint employer ruling as fundamentally unfair to business.Housing rules
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) bid to diversify America’s wealthiest neighborhoods triggered a fight over racism.
The housing rules released in July aim to root out segregation across the country.
The Obama administration reasons the rules will provide more opportunities for minorities and low-income individuals to live in nicer neighborhoods. But Republicans call it “social engineering.”
The HUD also proposed a smoking ban at government-assisted housing facilities in November.
The smoking ban is intended to protect hundreds of thousands of public housing residents from secondhand smoke. It would apply to lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes. E-cigarette rules
—The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) electronic cigarette rules have set off an intense regulatory battle on Capitol Hill.
The FDA faces pressure from Republicans and Democrats, as well as health and industry lobbying groups, over the e-cigarette rules it sent to the White House for final approval this fall.
The Obama administration fears e-cigarettes could attract a new generation of youth smokers. But Republicans and industry groups say they could also help ween smokers off more harmful traditional cigarettes.
The e-cigarette rules could help contribute to President Obama’s legacy on tobacco.Drone regs
—The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released new drone registration requirements this month that have been a magnate for criticism.
Drone users will be charged $5 to register their unmanned aircraft with the federal government.
But critics say the long-awaited rules amount to a “drone tax.”Bullet rules
—The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) enraged Republicans and gun rights supporters when it floated the idea of a ban on armor-piercing ammunition.
Republicans said the bullet ban infringed on the Second Amendment, but Democrats argued it only applied to bullets that are used in assault weapons.
In a rare defeat for the Obama administration, the bullet ban was so unpopular the ATF withdrew the proposal a short time later.
That angered gun control advocates in Congress.
A flood of legislation from both sides of the aisle followed.Guns
President Obama is preparing to hand down a number of controversial executive actions on guns.
The White House announced the executive actions in October, but is still working on the final details. The president has limited authority to unilaterally expand background checks, experts say.
But Republicans are looking to block the moves.Pay gap
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a controversial rule this summer that will require public companies to disclosure the pay gap between their top executives and other employees.
The CEO pay disclosure rule set off an intense lobbying battle between business and labor groups.
-
Go Live Elsewhere, We’re Cutting Carbon Here
Dec 27, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Allysia Finley
Earlier this month California Gov. Jerry Brown promised to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal will be nearly impossible to achieve with California’s current population, projected to grow by 30% over the next 35 years to 50 million. So ecovangelists are trying to block any economic development that could help support more people.
The Newhall Ranch project in north Los Angeles County, which aims to provide housing for nearly 60,000 people as well as tens of thousands of jobs at stores, schools and recreational centers, is the most recent target. With energy-efficient lighting, comprehensive recycling, bike trails and drought-tolerant landscaping, the 12,000-acre planned community would be a green Levittown. But the proposed development—one of the biggest in state history—has been under siege from its inception in 1994 by environmental activists.
The California Supreme Court recently rejected Newhall’s final environmental-impact report. The court’s legally nebulous decision could delay construction for years—and cast a pall over future development.
Newhall’s report, which the Department of Fish and Wildlife approved in 2010, was more than 5,000 pages, with hundreds of pages dedicated to analyzing its greenhouse-gas emissions as required by recent regulatory amendments to the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The state wildlife agency projected that Newhall would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 31% by 2020 relative to the California Air Resources Board’s 2008 “baseline” model. This was a larger reduction than the 29% cut that the board has mandated statewide.
The report also included measures for the developer to restore habitat for species potentially affected by the development, such as the coast horned lizard and Townsend’s big-eared bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials would move any unarmored threespine stickleback—a tiny fish protected under state and federal law—out of harm’s way.
No matter. The Center for Biological Diversity, along with other local green groups, sued to block the development, arguing that the state wildlife agency’s methodology for analyzing its greenhouse-gas emissions was flawed. They also contended that the stickleback conservation plan violated California’s prohibition against “taking” and “live transplanting” legally protected species—although state law allows “regulated taking” of threatened species.
California’s Second District Court of Appeal rejected all of the lawsuit’s dubious claims, but a 5-2 majority of the state Supreme Court sided with the obstructionists. The majority nitpicked the report’s methodology, conjecturing that perhaps a greater than 31% reduction in greenhouse emissions from new projects might be needed to meet the 29% statewide mandate because it could be harder to achieve efficiencies from older, already-constructed developments. There was no scientific evidence in the court record to support this hypothesis, which was floated by the state attorney general’s office.
The court suggested ways to revise the report but emphasized that it cannot “guarantee that any of these approaches will be found to satisfy CEQA’s demands as to any particular project.” In dissent, Justice Ming Chin said that the majority “is permitting the project opponents to relitigate some already decided issues.” He noted that “delay the project long enough and it has to meet new targets, and then perhaps new targets after that. All this is a recipe for paralysis.”
Green activists have long sought to block new development—and California housing costs are the highest in the country due to the mismatch between supply and demand. The median house price in the Los Angeles metro area is $507,000 compared with $210,000 in Dallas, $290,000 in Miami, $388,000 in Washington, D.C., and $412,000 in New York.
Housing costs have helped to drive middle- and low-income residents out of the state. Newhall Ranch appears to be one more human sacrifice on the altar of the greater environmental good.
-
Republicans Split On Attacking Climate Science
Dec 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Republican Party is divided over whether to attack the science of climate change when opposing liberal policies.
Many of the most vocal Republicans say they have significant problems with the scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is the main cause. The skeptics include presidential hopefuls Ben Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Capitol Hill chairmen Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas). But others in the GOP aren’t interested in litigating the science. They say it’s more important — and far easier — to show that Democratic climate proposals would be disastrous to the economy and kill jobs.
The split comes as more and more voters, particularly young people and minorities, say in opinion polls that they believe climate change is real and want action to fight it.
Democrats have lined up firmly behind that view, with President Obama set to implement carbon dioxide limits for power plants that amount to the most significant action yet by the federal government to fight climate change.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that since science underpins climate change policies, it’s important to examine it in detail.
“We know that there’s an ideological obsession to advance on this global warming agenda,” said Sessions.
“Good policy should reflect the best science that we have. But a lot of the predictions that were confidently made have not occurred,” he said, pointing to predictions of temperature increases and storm activity that he said did not pan out.
Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, brought national attention to his crusade against climate science when he threw a snowball on the Senate floor during on a cold February day to mock alarmist climate conclusions.
“Do you know what this is?” he asked Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who was presiding over the Senate’s debate, as he removed the snowball from a plastic bag.
“It’s a snowball. And it’s just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”
Comedians, Obama, greens, Democrats and others still bring up Inhofe’s “snowball moment” to mock the Republican Party’s “denial” of climate change.
Many of the party’s presidential hopefuls have aligned with climate skeptics, including Cruz, Carson and real estate mogul Donald Trump.
“I am not a believer,” Trump said in a radio interview. “I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again.”
At a hearing Cruz chaired in December on climate science, he repeatedly railed against climate change “alarmists” and said the Earth has not warmed in 18 years.
But Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), the only other Republican to speak, only asked questions about the cost of Obama’s climate policies.
Daines declined to directly attack Cruz, but said after the hearing that his constituents’ top problem with Obama’s policies are their impact on the economy.
“Montanans are most concerned about these regulations from the EPA and what effect it’s going to have on their pocketbooks and their everyday lives,” the freshman senator said. “That’s where the conversation’s going back home.”
It’s a line that has been taken repeatedly by other Republicans, and not just those who lean toward the center.
“What we in Congress ought to focus on is the economic impact of the president’s plan,” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). “We know that his regulations on energy sources have cost the American consumer hard-earned dollars, and it’s costs the country jobs.”
Freshman Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who leads a loose coalition of 11 House Republicans who say they believe that humans are changing the climate, went even further.
He said efforts like Cruz’s climate denial hearing and Smith’s investigation into climate research at a federal agency are a waste of time.
“I think it’s a likely a poor investment,” he said. “We should instead invest resources and time into coming up with conservative, market-driven solutions for the challenges posed by climate change.”
Mike McKenna, a Republican energy industry consultant, said most Republicans don’t want to concede the science on climate change, because they fear it will inevitably lead to policies that make fossil fuels more expensive.
“If you concede that the other side is right on the characterization of the problem, then you’re done,” McKenna said. “If you concede the frame, you’re toast.”
McKenna said climate change is extremely low on voters’ lists of priorities, so it can do little to hurt Republicans if they fight the science.
Ford O’Connell, a GOP strategist, said rejecting climate science can be a dangerous game for Republicans, depending on their goals.
“In Congress, because you know your district, if you want to stay all-out skeptical, that’s fine,” he said. “But if you’re in a swing district, or if you’re running for president, you’re far better off talking about it in terms of its relationship to jobs and the economy.”
O’Connell said Democrats are nearly certain to make climate an issue in the presidential race, something the GOP nominee will have to be prepared for.
“The only person who’s going to really have to in any way plausibly be concerned about solutions is whoever the Republican nominee is, because that’s something that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats want to make an issue,” he said.
Democrats and environmentalists, for their part, say they are hopeful the GOP will eventually come around on the issue.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said he’d welcome debate about conservative ways to fight global warming.
“It’s not mandatory that everyone takes the Democratic position on climate, but it’s becoming a test of whether or not you’re a serious politician if you’re going to simply ignore that the problem exists,” he said.
Schatz said he sees the GOP moving away from skepticism.
“There are many members who realize that it’s a loser for them in terms of being on the right side of history and on the right side of the voters,” he said. “Members are moving from outright denial to merely being critical of the solution set that’s being put forward by this president. And that gives us space to negotiate.”
-
Why Addressing Climate Change Is Not Enough
Dec 25, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Science Blog
By Mariajosé Aguilera
The celebratory mood accompanying the recent Paris Accord, in which the entire UN membership agreed to hold global temperature increases to no more than 2°C, is quickly dissipating. As the Accord itself acknowledges, there is a "significant gap" between countries' climate change mitigation pledges and the 2°C goal (not to mention the more aspirational 1.5° C limit). This means that promised reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, even if realized, will be insufficient to stave off major consequences of climate change.
Yet bolder pledges alone will not prevent impending failure because the Paris Accord reproduces the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol. Although reporting is binding, countries face no penalties for missing their targets. Most of all, market-based schemes for emissions reductions enable wealthy countries and corporations to continue "business as usual" by paying low emitters for their pollution rights, ultimately stalling real and equitable progress. As we write, environmental groups across the world are gearing up to challenge these shortcomings.
But before this struggle -- and the planet -- gets even more heated, it is worth examining the larger context of environmental stewardship. The central issue, which goes beyond climate change, is degradation -- that is, the depletion and contamination of the earth's resources.
Climate change both exacerbates environmental degradation, and results from a growth-at-all-costs economic system that makes certain groups -- especially indigenous peoples and marginalized and low-income populations -- particularly vulnerable to both climate change and resource scarcity and contamination. Recognizing this fact can help climate-related activism and policymaking do a better job of protecting the planet and all who depend on it.
Focusing on single temperature-change targets (and the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions levels required to achieve them) is a handy, unifying strategy for social movements and governments, but it sidesteps other important environmental problems and their underlying, economic, social, and political determinants.
The most pressing environmental degradation problems, leading to a colossal 10 million deaths and untold illness each year, include:
• Depletion, contamination, and unfair distribution of water
Two-and-a-half-billion people lack access to safe water and adequate sanitation, resulting in up to 3 million annual deaths. Meanwhile, the agricultural sector, dominated by large agribusiness, is responsible for 70% of world water consumption.• Threats to air quality
The important focus on industrial and vehicular emissions overlooks the problem of indoor air pollution. According to the World Health Organization, three billion people use open stoves burning biomass (wood, dung, and crop waste) to cook and heat their homes. Smoke and soot inhalation causes a staggering 4.3 million annual deaths from cardiovascular and lung diseases, including half of all childhood pneumonia mortality.• Ongoing deforestation and contamination of ecosystems
Forests are essential to livelihoods, ecosystems, and mitigating climate change and other environmental damage (such as soil erosion), but they are severely threatened by corporate interests such as agribusiness (e.g. massive palm oil plantations in Indonesia and West Africa), mining, and oil and gas development. Worldwide, net forest coverage declines by about 5.2 million hectares per year, concentrated in loss of tropical forests.• Chemical contamination
Since World War II, over 85,000 new chemicals have been manufactured and released into the environment. When the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted in 1976, the powerful chemical industry ensured that 62,000 existing chemicals were "grandfathered" into the program without health or environmental impact assessments. To this day, only a fraction of chemicals have been assessed. In the farming sector, about 2 million tons of pesticides are used annually, causing 7 million non-fatal poisonings and 70,000 fatalities each year among farmworkers across the globe.• Toxic waste disposal
Hundreds of millions of people, especially in low-income countries, are exposed to toxic waste, leading to outcomes such as cancer and acute poisonings. High-income countries are perpetrators of this injustice (and consumers, accomplices) by illegally exporting millions of tons of chemical hazards. For example, each year, 50 million metric tons of e-waste (e.g. cell phones, computers) end up in landfills in Ghana, Nigeria, China, and other low-income settings, where surrounding environments and local populations are contaminated with toxins.
Underpinning all of these problems is an unfair economic system that privileges profits over people's lives, exploiting the environment and humans alike.Those concerned about the long-term sustainability and health of humans and the planet need to look beyond reducing greenhouse gas concentrations and adapting to climate change impacts, and recognize the role of the extraction, production, and consumption processes that drive all aspects of environmental degradation and cause tremendous social injustice.
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested