Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/6
-
(ACC Mentioned) Challenges of Using Big Data in Chemicals Regulations to be Probed at Upcoming Forum
Apr 5, 2016 | Lab Product News
The use of big data holds great promise for regulators and industry alike in the world’s chemicals sector. -
(ACC Mentioned) Japanese Company Opening New Chemical Plant Near Houston
Apr 5, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Tokyo-based Kuraray chemical company will soon open its new plant near Houston that’ll produce materials for windshield safety glass and the rapidly growing segment of laundry and dishwasher detergent pods. -
(ACC Mentioned) Science, Marketing, or Hysteria? Campbell’s Replaces BPA In Cans
Apr 6, 2016 | American Council on Science and Health
By Josh Bloom
From all of the hysteria that has been generated in recent years—mostly by environmental groups—about trace amounts of the plastic component bisphenol-A (BPA) found in human urine, you might think that it was sarin gas rather than a harmless chemical (1) that has been used to line food cans without issue since the 1960s. -
California Agency Revises Prop 65 BPA Emergency Action
Apr 6, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has issued a new proposed emergency regulation on warning about exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages. -
Common Flame Retardant Chemical Disrupts a Hormone That is Essential to Life
Apr 5, 2016 | Chem.Info
By The Endocrine Society
Brominated fire retardants, used in many consumer products and known to cause hormonal irregularities, overstimulates an adrenal gland hormone in a way that may lead to the development of cardiovascular disease, new research in human cells finds. -
Washington Governor Signs Bill to Ban Flame Retardants
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) signed into law April 1 a bill banning five flame retardants and establishing an agency rulemaking process that could lead to more bans after legislative consultation. -
(ACC Blog) What “Hulk” Mark Ruffalo Doesn’t Understand About Trade Policy
Apr 5, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Greg Skelton
If you’ve listened to some of the discussions on trade policy during the Presidential primary season, you’d be forgiven for thinking that trade deals have had a negative impact on the U.S. economy. https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/04/what-hulk-mark-ruffalo-doesnt-understand-about-trade-policy/ -
McConnell Plans 3-Month Spending Push in Senate
Apr 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today the Senate will turn to the appropriations process in the coming weeks and stay on it for roughly the next three months. -
Obstacles Remain on Senate Energy Bill, Flint Aid
Apr 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Energy overhaul legislation and an aid package for Flint, Mich., remain stalled in the Senate with no prospects for quick action. -
Environmental Groups Call Refinery Extension Unlawful
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
An Environmental Protection Agency proposal to give refinery operators additional time to comply with aspects of updated emissions standards would be unlawful, a coalition of nine environmental and public health groups alleged. -
Civil Penalty Shield Removed From EPA Mercury Rule
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency revised its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants to remove language that shielded plant operators from civil penalties related to violations caused by unavoidable equipment malfunctions. -
States, Industries Warn Of Uncertainties In EPA's Background Ozone Data
Apr 5, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and groups representing the oil, mining, and other sectors are warning of significant uncertainties in EPA's science on “background” ozone that naturally occurs or originates from other countries, urging the agency to better assess the pollution and the potential that it could prevent states attaining EPA's ozone standard. -
EPA May Revisit Methane Rule on New Oil, Gas Wells
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House is reviewing a final Environmental Protection Agency rule that would set the first ever methane emissions limits for new oil and natural gas wells, but Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency could take a second look at regulating additional facets of the industry in the future. -
A Renewable Energy Boom
Apr 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
Some world leaders, especially in developing countries like India, have long said it’s hard to reduce the emissions that are warming the planet because they need to use relatively inexpensive — but highly carbon-intensive — fuels like coal to keep energy affordable. -
Senate Scrambles in Face of FAA Reauthorization Flux
Apr 5, 2016 | Politico (Morning Transportation)
By Martine Powers
...The Federal Railroad Administration is putting $25 million on the table to help aid positive train control implementation — and railroads and suppliers will have to compete with states and municipalities for the money, which comes from fiscal 2016 appropriations. -
Signs Are Promising That Economies Can Rise as Carbon Emissions Decline
Apr 5, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Throughout the 20th century, the global economy was fueled by burning coal to run factories and power plants, and burning oil to move planes, trains and automobiles.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Challenges of Using Big Data in Chemicals Regulations to be Probed at Upcoming Forum
Apr 5, 2016 | Lab Product News
The use of big data holds great promise for regulators and industry alike in the world’s chemicals sector. In the past decade or so, regulations on chemicals control have generated huge amounts of data for international authorities on the properties and effects of chemicals and chemical products. Some of these regulations include REACH in the European Union, a soon-to-be reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the US, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Environmental Registry, among others.
The global access to data on chemicals and data sharing offers many advantages such as facilitating the global trade in chemicals, improvements in general chemicals safety, harmonization of testing methods and templates, as well as reducing the workload for industry and regulators in assessing hazardous chemicals.
But challenging questions must be addressed as well, such as how to best understand and use the data, how to ensure that the rights of data providers are recognized, and how to promote synergies between regulators worldwide? Finally, from the point of view of industry, do the opportunities only benefit global chemical companies?
These questions and more will be probed in the upcoming Helsinki Chemicals Forum (HCF), a global think tank that takes place in Helsinki on May 26 and 27.
The event is a key gathering for chemicals safety professionals, and an independent forum that aims to promote chemicals safety and chemicals management globally. The two-day event is built around high-profile panels and keynote presentations as well as related debates.
Another topic that will be probed at HCF is a look at the impact of a circular economy on chemicals regulation. A circular economy aims to save resources and dramatically reduce the environmental load and waste volumes. Other panels will examine issues surrounding perfluorinated chemicals including the drafting of a global agreement to regulate this hazardous class of chemicals, and a look at current standards of plant safety in the chemical industry.
HCF’s program has been prepared by an international committee that represents the European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environment Canada, the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL, a major global NGO) and Chemical Watch (a leading news service in the field).
http://www.labcanada.com/news/challenges-of-using-big-data-in-chemicals-regulations-to-be-probed-at-upcoming-forum/1004108310/?&er=NA
-
(ACC Mentioned) Japanese Company Opening New Chemical Plant Near Houston
Apr 5, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Tokyo-based Kuraray chemical company will soon open its new plant near Houston that’ll produce materials for windshield safety glass and the rapidly growing segment of laundry and dishwasher detergent pods.
Kuraray will hold a samurai sword, ribbon-cutting ceremony later this month, but the new petrochemical plant already has begun producing sample polyvinyl alcohol — the polymer used to make the resin for safety glass for car windshields and more — to market to potential customers, said George Avdey, president and CEO of Kuraray America. The polyvinyl alcohol is marketed under the Kuraray Poval brand.
This is Kuraray’s third plant southeast of Houston, Avdey said, but the project represents the company’s largest geographic investment in the region on 81 acres along Bay Area Boulevard in Harris County’s Bayport development. The plant is only occupying half of the acreage.
“There’s always opportunities and, when the time is right, we’ll expand,” Avdey said Tuesday in a phone interview.
Kuraray is not revealing the project costs. The plant will employ 54 people, as well as about 40 contract personnel.
The project is a direct result of Texas’ natural gas shale boom, which results in cheap ethane and butane feedstocks to manufacture the chemicals, as well as cheap electricity to operate the plant, Avdey said. Other countries use a form of crude oil that’s plummeted in price to produce chemicals, but natural gas remains cheaper, he said.
“It’s certainly made them (Europe and Asia) more competitive, but not near as low as the U.S.,” Avdey said. “The U.S. has the lowest cost for many of the materials.”
In the U.S., the American Chemistry Council counts 266 projects planned from 2010 to 2023 that cost $164 billion to build. Texas would be home for 104 of the projects – worth $51.3 billion – and most of those are in southern Texas, including the Houston area. The council expects those projects to result in 15,800 “direct” new jobs — not counting construction jobs — in Texas and 67,000 nationwide.
Companies including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Phillips, Dow Chemical Co., BASF and LyondellBasell have multibillion-dollar expansion projects underway in areas such as Baytown, Channelview, Mont Belvieu, La Porte and Freeport. Many will be done in a year or so.
Avdey acknowledged the rapid growth of the laundry detergent pods might be the biggest reason why the new Kuraray plant was built. Kuraray in 2012 acquired MonoSol, which manufactures the the water-soluble film for the pods. He touts Kuraray as the world’s largest producer of polyvinyl alcohol.
The plant is in startup mode now, Avdey said, but it may not hit its operational capacity of 40,000 metric tons a year until late 2017 or so once more customers sign on.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/04/05/japanese-company-opening-new-chemical-plant-near-houston/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Science, Marketing, or Hysteria? Campbell’s Replaces BPA In Cans
Apr 6, 2016 | American Council on Science and Health
By Josh Bloom
From all of the hysteria that has been generated in recent years—mostly by environmental groups—about trace amounts of the plastic component bisphenol-A (BPA) found in human urine, you might think that it was sarin gas rather than a harmless chemical (1) that has been used to line food cans without issue since the 1960s. Liners are used to seal the can and keep out air. In the absence of liners, food poisoning is more common, so clearly a lot of people have been saved by this technology.
But, if not for chemical scares, how would the groups who raise money based on nonsense survive? It wouldn’t be easy and so BPA became just one compound in a long line of chemicals that has gotten a “kick me” sign pasted on its metaphorical back, and scared consumers have been only too happy to oblige.
BPA became the poster child of the chemical scares industry years ago but they have since discovered that when you live by bad science, you die by it too. As I wrote last year, when a number of businesses (including, big surprise, Whole Foods) decided to go “BPA-free,” their customers got a little surprise. The surprise is that polycarbonate plastics can be made from any number of “BPs,” all you have to do is choose a different one to trumpet not using BPA. One of those different plastics is made from a related chemical, bisphenol-S (BPS). The primary driver behind this switch was the free market catering to consumer preference, or perhaps more accurately, manufactured consumer preference that was driven by chemophobia, not actual harm.
Though BPA has never been shown to harm anyone, the free market can do what it wants to compete and create more market share. If that leads to higher costs and therefore lower revenue due to lower-priced competition, that is a risk of doing business. All well and good from an economic sense, except that they are replacing one product never found to be harmful with new things lacking anywhere near the same long-term safety data. That is good for environmental activists – they can raise money to protest BPA, declare victory about the replacement, and then raise more money to get rid of the replacement in a few years – but it’s not good for the public.
Because companies went ahead and started moving away from BPA despite any scientific issue, activists began touting their victory while not mentioning that when tested for the ability to mimic estrogen (the vaguely-defined “endocrine disruption”), BPS was shown to be no different than BPA, and was causing arrhythmias in female rats. The relevance of any of this to human health is dubious at best but that is what makes the activist war on BPA so silly. In 2014, organic chemist Dr. Steve Hentges of the American Chemistry Council published a very nice discussion of this fiasco on Science 2.0.
In actuality, BPA is a very poor estrogen mimic; it binds about 20,000-times less tightly to estrogen receptors than does estradiol itself, which is one reason that it has never caused harm to humans. Contrast that to a favorite product of vegetarians and organic food shoppers, soy, whose primary plant estrogen is genistein. Genistein binds significantly much more tightly to estrogen receptors than does BPA, yet people think nothing about wolfing down large quantities of it. No, that does not make much sense to scientists, either.
So one BPx or another BPx is still pretty harmless but if they all go away, the obvious questions are: 1) what will replace them; 2) will it make any difference?
There is a good reason to wonder. Last year, the food giant ConAgra stopped using BPA-based plastics as liners for its cans, and began the switch to acrylic and polyester-based materials. And Campbell Soup just announced its cans will be BPA-free by mid-2017.
Campbell’s has been on a marketing tear. They put labels on their cans saying their food contains genetically modified foods (GMOs) in hopes that anti-science groups would applaud them, and like with ConAgra, the move away from BPA is a marketing response, not a health one. “We recognize consumer interest in removing BPA from our cans and are pleased to be able to respond to that desire and offer food that our consumers can feel confident in,” said Gail Tavill, Vice President, Packaging & Sustainable Productivity at ConAgra.
That “consumer interest” was driven by merchants of doubt but the public can’t be blamed for putting the precautionary principle ahead of science. The thing the public won’t know is if the new liners will be better, worse or the same. All they will eventually know is that this new technology cost money to develop and their families ended up spending more money to solve a problem that never existed in the first place. Consumers are always penalized for marketing costs.
In Part 2, I will go into more science details on the alternatives to BPA-based plastic liners, such as the science benefits and concerns. It’s not as simple as you might think.
NOTE:
(1) The FDA states that BPA is safe at the levels found in food.
http://acsh.org/news/2016/04/06/science-marketing-or-hysteria-campbells-replaces-bpa-in-cans/
-
California Agency Revises Prop 65 BPA Emergency Action
Apr 6, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has issued a new proposed emergency regulation on warning about exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages.
The proposal supersedes the emergency action that the agency released in March. It is intended to provide a "reasonable transition period to help avoid consumer confusion and at the same time provide consistent, informative, and meaningful warnings to consumers about significant exposures to BPA".
Warning for exposure to BPA is required from 11 May. This follows its 2015 listing as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65.
The emergency proposal provides a warning compliance option through the use of uniform point-of-sale signs. These should be posted where customers purchase goods. Julian Leichty, Oehha's special assistant of external and legislative affairs, told Chemical Watch that the changes to the regulation were made "to provide a more succinct warning".
The proposed warning sign language has been amended to: "WARNING: Many food and beverage cans have linings containing bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system. Jar lids and bottle caps may also contain BPA. You can be exposed to BPA when you consume foods or beverages packaged in these containers. For more information go to: www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/BPA."
WARNING: Many food and beverage cans have linings containing bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system. Jar lids and bottle caps may also contain BPA. You can be exposed to BPA when you consume foods or beverages packaged in these containers. For more information go to: www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/BPA
Mr Leichty said that the type of information on the linked site will include common exposure pathways, strategies for reducing exposures, and links, where appropriate, to "other authoritative entities" on human exposure.
He added that the regulation has also been amended to include an "'opportunity to cure' provision for businesses for what would otherwise be minor, unavoidable violations". An example would be a warning sign falling down.
There will be a five-day comment period on the proposed regulation from when it is filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The agency may file the proposal with the OAL "as early as [this] Friday, or possibly the following week", said Mr Leichty.Safe harbour
The proposal points out that warning is not required simply because BPA is present in a product, but only where customers will be exposed above a safe harbour level. However, the agency says that "determining this threshold level for the chemical and the exposure caused by the product can be complex".
To help companies determine if they must provide a warning, Oehha can develop maximum allowable dose levels (MADLs) for substances.
But it says that it "is waiting for research sponsored by the federal government that may resolve complicated scientific questions that would enable Oehha to establish a MADL for BPA oral exposures". This is the exposure pathway in question for exposure to food and beverage containers.
The research is not slated for completion until late 2017 to early 2018, according to the agency.
In a separate rulemaking, Oehha has proposed a dermal MADL of three micrograms per day.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46065/california-agency-revises-prop-65-bpa-emergency-action
-
Common Flame Retardant Chemical Disrupts a Hormone That is Essential to Life
Apr 5, 2016 | Chem.Info
By The Endocrine Society
Brominated fire retardants, used in many consumer products and known to cause hormonal irregularities, overstimulates an adrenal gland hormone in a way that may lead to the development of cardiovascular disease, new research in human cells finds. Researchers will present their study results Saturday at the Endocrine Society's 98th annual meeting in Boston.
Flame retardants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been widely used in furniture foam cushions, clothes, building materials and electronics to slow the rate of ignition and fire growth. The United States is phasing out use of these industrial chemicals because they are endocrine disruptors, substances that can impair hormone-controlled processes, and mounting scientific evidence shows they can affect neurologic development in infants and children as well as reproductive, thyroid, and metabolic functions.
"However, these chemicals leach into the environment and bioaccumulate, and have appeared in our environment, including house dust, the food supply and breast milk samples in the U.S.," said the study's principal investigator, Phillip Kopf, PhD, an assistant professor at Midwestern University in Downers Grove, IL.
Kopf and his co-workers wanted to know whether PBDEs affect aldosterone. This important hormone, made in the adrenal gland, regulates salt and water balance in the body's circulation and participates in blood pressure stability by acting on the kidneys.
The investigators studied application of various doses of a common PBDE flame retardant on human adrenal cells in culture dishes and compared the effects with those of only the vehicle, the inactive substance used to deliver the chemical. The PBDE doses were higher than those found in the blood of most humans tested, according to Kopf, but these chemicals accumulate in the adrenal gland, where their concentrations are higher. In addition, the exposure duration in this study was much shorter than in real life--only three days.
Cells exposed to the PBDE showed elevated secretion, or release, of aldosterone from the cell. Too much secretion of this hormone typically results in an elevated level of aldosterone in the blood. Past research, Kopf said, shows the elevating circulating aldosterone levels are associated with high blood pressure, blood clot formation, thickening of the heart muscle (called cardiac hypertrophy) and congestive heart failure.
Kopf said they plan to further examine the cardiovascular effects of brominated flame retardants in an animal model of high blood pressure.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/04/common-flame-retardant-chemical-disrupts-hormone-essential-life
-
Washington Governor Signs Bill to Ban Flame Retardants
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) signed into law April 1 a bill banning five flame retardants and establishing an agency rulemaking process that could lead to more bans after legislative consultation.
The bill, ESHB 2545 , bans in Washington the following chemicals for use in children's products or residential upholstered furniture at levels greater than one thousand parts per million beginning July 1, 2017:
• TDCPP;
• TCEP;
• decabromodophenyl ether;
• HBCD; and
• The additive TBBPA.
Washington is the first state to ban TBBPA, the bill's prime sponsor, House Majority Whip Kevin Van De Wege (D), told Bloomberg BNA March 8 during an interview for an earlier article on the chemicals (46 DEN A-10, 3/9/16) .
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86404123&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86404123&jd=86404123
-
(ACC Blog) What “Hulk” Mark Ruffalo Doesn’t Understand About Trade Policy
Apr 5, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Greg Skelton
If you’ve listened to some of the discussions on trade policy during the Presidential primary season, you’d be forgiven for thinking that trade deals have had a negative impact on the U.S. economy. That’s far from the case. Indeed, it’s been a frustrating few months for those in favor of rational, evidence-based debate on U.S. trade policy and its impact on the nation’s economy.
The latest example came from actor and activist Mark Ruffalo over the weekend. Ruffalo’s piece in the Huffington Post repeats a number of tropes and allegations about trade policy and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that are factually incorrect. Let’s take a deeper dive.
U.S. manufacturing decline?
It’s true that manufacturing employment as a proportion of the overall economy in the United States has been in a period of long-term decline. In fact, it has been declining for more than half a century.
This decline significantly pre-dates the trade agreements that Ruffalo cites, beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. The reasons for this decline are many and varied, including technological advances, a shift to less labor-intensive manufacturing, higher productivity, relative wage rates, etc.
The point here is that the decline in U.S. manufacturing is a long-term trend, and while trade policy (most notably the granting of permanent normal trade relations to China in 2000) may have had some impact, it’s only a small part of the picture.
Moreover, trade agreements entered into by the U.S. in recent decades have been unambiguously good for the overall U.S. economy. Living standards have risen, as has consumer choice, and huge new markets have been established for U.S. exporters. TPP has the promise to further this progress.
As this week’s Economist points out, America’s economy benefits hugely from trade, although we do need to ensure that those who lose out from trade get appropriate adjustment assistance for re-training and finding new positions.
U.S. manufacturing game-changer
One of the ironies about Ruffalo’s piece is that he has also opposed the single most significant development that has the potential to promote a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S., and create new American jobs.
Increased supplies of low-cost natural gas, mainly as a result of the technological innovation of hydraulic fracturing, have been a game changer for U.S. chemical manufacturing. To date, more than $164 billion innew investment in U.S. chemical production has been announced, 61 percent of which is foreign direct investment.
Access to shale gas means that American manufacturers have a comparative advantage, one that ACC projects will generate more than 700,000 new jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere in the economy. More than 96% of all manufactured goods rely on the business of chemistry, meaning hydraulic fracturing is a game changer for downstream manufacturers, too.
More gains to come
U.S. chemical exports are anticipated to increase significantly in future years as the new production generated from this increased investment comes on stream.
An ACC report released last year estimated that net exports of shale-gas advantaged chemical products will double by 2030. That only increases the importance of opening new markets for U.S. chemical manufacturers, and indeed for U.S. manufacturers as a whole.
ACC has strongly supported TPP and called for its early ratification. Success in today’s global economy requires continued and effective engagement with trading partners on a level playing field. We simply can’t afford to sit this one out.
One final irony from Ruffalo’s piece: the film industry has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of international trade. The very trade policies Ruffalo rails against have been critical to the success of the industry that made him famous.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/04/what-hulk-mark-ruffalo-doesnt-understand-about-trade-policy/
-
McConnell Plans 3-Month Spending Push in Senate
Apr 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today the Senate will turn to the appropriations process in the coming weeks and stay on it for roughly the next three months.
"The plan is to get onto appropriations here in mid-April, which will be a month earlier than we've done that in the past, and to stay on them almost entirely for the next 12 weeks and process as many of them as we can," he said after the weekly caucus luncheons. "I'm optimistic that the Democrats are going to be cooperative. They seem to want to get back to normal, as well."
While the House has been bogged down for weeks in trying to pass a budget resolution, McConnell reiterated today that the Senate will proceed with the $1.07 trillion discretionary spending figure agreed to in last year's budget deal (E&E Daily, March 22).
The House generally goes first on appropriations bills, but McConnell signaled that the Senate won't wait for the lower chamber, instead using House-passed fiscal 2016 appropriations bills as legislative shells.
"What I want to do is get started, and we have the vehicles that we need to get started in a couple of weeks," he said. "We may or may not get something from the House, but we're prepared to go forward."
Asked about McConnell's plans, Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) responded, "Amen, sister. It sounds good to me."
After enactment of last year's omnibus-tax extenders package, Reid indicated that he and Republican leaders had agreed to avoid the standoff that stalled the appropriations process in the Senate. Democrats last summer filibustered the motions to proceed in a successful bid to force budget talks to replace automatic sequestration cuts.
Democrats continue to insist that Republicans avoid controversial policy riders in the base bills in committee, and Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) today said that he's seeing "oblique signals" that GOP appropriators will do so.
"They understand their problem," he told E&ENews PM. "President Obama is going to veto an appropriation bill that is freighted with controversial riders. They're wasting their time. I think they learned that lesson during the budget negotiation. And what we're hearing is they're going to try to avoid the rider controversies. We'll see."
Senate appropriators have signaled they expect to receive their subcommittee allocations, known as a 302(b), this week, which will allow them to begin marking up the individual spending bills.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/04/05/stories/1060035129
-
Obstacles Remain on Senate Energy Bill, Flint Aid
Apr 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Energy overhaul legislation and an aid package for Flint, Mich., remain stalled in the Senate with no prospects for quick action.
"I keep hearing that they're closer and closer to resolution, but they haven't gotten there yet. I'm not giving up hope," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has been heavily involved in negotiations, said yesterday she had no new progress to report. She said Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) continues to have a hold on the Flint bill, despite efforts to address his concerns that the $220 million in aid for Flint and other communities with lead-tainted water should be offset (see related story).
A Lee spokesman also said this week no new progress has been made.
The Senate last month seemed on track for a deal to move a broad energy bill in tandem with the Flint aid.
Under a proposed agreement, the Senate would have agreed to call up the bills together and then separate them once they were on the floor. The accord would have also made about three dozen amendments in order on the energy bill.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has said he would hold up action on the energy bill if an amendment from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to expand federal revenue sharing for offshore drilling is part of the package.
Lee's opposition, though, is the immediate obstacle to even taking up the bills, and it left senators weighing other options.
"We're always talking about plan B, but we're still working on plan A," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.).
Other options include attaching it to the expected package to address Puerto Rico's financial and energy crises or tacking it on to the Water Resources Development Act, an upcoming bill that gives the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the go-ahead to build locks, dams and other major public works projects.
"Anything is possible," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said, referring to attaching the Flint package to WRDA.
Inhofe also vouched for a plan promoted by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) to reauthorize the Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds as part of WRDA. "That's one of the few good things that's out there," Inhofe said.
Congress last reauthorized the Clean Water SRF in 1992 and the Drinking Water SRF in 2003.
Cardin has introduced a bill that would allow up to $5.5 billion for drinking water projects in fiscal 2021 and $9 billion for wastewater upgrades in the same year. But on Monday, he supported adding the authorization to WRDA, saying that it would have a better chance of passing into law than a stand-alone bill (E&E Daily, April 5). Some of those dollars in the water project funds could go to Flint.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a senior Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee member, said he remained "optimistic" on the energy bill emerging. But, he said, one option to file cloture to overcome any holds would probably require too much time.
Floor time will soon be limited in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday that beginning in mid-May he would devote 12 weeks to the fiscal 2017 spending bills (see related story). Those too have been eyed as possible sources of Flint funds.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/06/stories/1060035146
-
Environmental Groups Call Refinery Extension Unlawful
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
An Environmental Protection Agency proposal to give refinery operators additional time to comply with aspects of updated emissions standards would be unlawful, a coalition of nine environmental and public health groups alleged.
The Sierra Club, the Environmental Integrity Project and other organizations, in comments filed on their behalf by Earthjustice, alleged that the EPA did not provide sufficient justification in its proposal to give refinery operators an additional 18 months to meet requirements for controlling emissions from fluidized catalytic cracking units and sulfur recovery units during periods of startup and shutdown.
The EPA in February proposed (RIN 2016-AS83) to give refineries additional time to meet those requirements for startup and shutdown, as well as extended time to comply with requirements for venting during maintenance. The agency said the proposal was issued to address industry concerns that the 2015 updated refinery standards didn't offer facilities enough time to meet federal Risk Management Program and Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements related to operational and procedural changes.
The proposal would not change other deadlines in the refinery standards, including new flaring and fenceline monitoring requirements (26 DEN A-5, 2/9/16).
The proposal was supported by the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, who said in joint comments that the proposed compliance extension is “critical” for ensuring safe implementation of the refinery rule. The 2015 refinery standards (RIN 2060-AQ75) are projected to cut 5,200 tons per year of hazardous air pollutant emissions from the 142 petroleum refineries covered under the regulation.
While the industry has said a compliance extension is necessary, the environmental and public health groups that commented on the proposal alleged that the EPA has not justified providing an exception to the Clean Air Act's general requirement that immediate compliance be required under national hazardous air pollutant standards. The groups said the Clean Air Act allows for such an exception as long as the new compliance date require facilities to come into compliance “as expeditiously as possible.”
Comments: Statutory Test Not Met
While the EPA said in its proposal that an 18 month compliance extension is “appropriate and sufficient,” that is not the statutory test that the EPA must meet in order to lawfully provide industry with an extended compliance period, the environmental groups said.
“EPA has made no finding in the record that 18 months is necessary, much less as expeditiously as possible,” the groups said. “Finding that immediate compliance is not sufficient does not justify any extension EPA may choose. Thus, the compliance date extension of 18 months is unlawful.”
The environmental and public health groups also alleged the proposal would extend unlawful exemptions that had previously been offered to refinery operators during startup and shutdown periods. The EPA has been periodically removing those startup and shutdown exemptions from its air toxics rules in response to a 2008 federal appeals court ruling that concluded such regulatory exemptions were not permitted under the Clean Air Act (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 2008 BL 282130, 68 ERC 1033 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 245 DEN A-5, 12/22/08).
Giving refineries an additional 18 months to comply with the startup and shutdown requirements for fluidized catalytic cracking units and sulfur recovery units would be a violation of the Clean Air Act and would contravene precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the environmental groups said.
The environmental and public health organizations' comments were authored by Earthjustice attorney Emma Cheuse.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86404127&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86404127&jd=86404127
-
Civil Penalty Shield Removed From EPA Mercury Rule
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency revised its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants to remove language that shielded plant operators from civil penalties related to violations caused by unavoidable equipment malfunctions.
The agency, in a final rule scheduled for publication in the Federal Register April 6, removed the affirmative defense language in response to a 2014 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The agency had included affirmative defense language in many of its hazardous air pollutant standards in recognition that some regulatory violations are due to factors entirely outside of the control of the pollution source.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that a civil penalty shield included in air toxics standards for cement kilns was outside the scope of the agency's Clean Air Act authority. Since that decision, the EPA has been periodically removing affirmative defense language from its air toxics rules (NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 2014 BL 108218, 78 ERC 1369 (D.C. Cir. 2014); 76 DEN A-1, 4/21/14).
The EPA indicated that in lieu of affirmative defense provisions, the agency will be able to use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to address violations resulting from malfunctions. That enforcement discretion offers “sufficient flexibility” under the power plant standards, the agency said.
In addition, the EPA said both courts and presiding officers in administrative enforcement actions have the discretion to consider any defense raised, including arguments that a violation was caused by an unavoidable technology failure.
The EPA's final technical corrections rule (RIN 2060-AS41) also made several revisions to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that the agency estimated to have no environmental or economic impact. Those changes include a clarification that major and area source combustion turbines, except for integrated gasification combined cycle units, are not subject to the MATS rule, which set emissions limits for mercury, filterable particulate matter and hydrogen chloride.
The final rule will go into effect on April 6 once the rule is formally published in the Federal Register.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86404107&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86404107&jd=86404107
-
States, Industries Warn Of Uncertainties In EPA's Background Ozone Data
Apr 5, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and groups representing the oil, mining, and other sectors are warning of significant uncertainties in EPA's science on “background” ozone that naturally occurs or originates from other countries, urging the agency to better assess the pollution and the potential that it could prevent states attaining EPA's ozone standard.
The criticisms -- outlined in comments recently filed with the agency -- could also hint at some of the arguments EPA's opponents might raise in pending litigation over the agency's Oct. 1 rule that tightened its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) down from the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. Litigants have said that background ozone, which regulators cannot control, will make it impossible to meet the NAAQS.
The 70 ppb limit is close to peak background ozone levels that are sometimes seen in the Intermountain West, where various factors including wildfires, intrusion of stratospheric ozone to the lower atmosphere and foreign-sourced ozone can lead to elevated ozone pollution. If states cannot cut ozone levels to the NAAQS they risk being designated in nonattainment, which can trigger requirements to impose costly pollution controls on industrial sources of ozone.
EPA has acknowledged the concerns over background ozone, and held a two-day workshop in Phoenix, AZ, in February to seek input on a white paper the agency prepared on the issue. The paper poses a series of questions aimed, among other objectives, at identifying gaps in current knowledge on background levels and causes.
Agency officials have suggested that high background ozone levels should generally not threaten states with nonattainment of the new ozone NAAQS. But if it does cause problems, the agency is touting its proposed revamp of the “exceptional events” policy and other regulatory exemptions to help states avoid a nonattainment designation. The exceptional events policy allows state air regulators to exclude from NAAQS attainment demonstrations air monitoring data gathered during events such as wildfires and dust storms that result in high air pollution.
Despite EPA's suggestion that background ozone levels will not pose major problems meeting the stricter ozone limit, comments on the white paper indicate significant ongoing concerns about the issue and urge EPA to pursue further research.
'Significant Percentage'
For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) in its March 31 comments says EPA should further “assess the frequency and magnitude of background ozone events. Background ozone can be a more significant percentage of ozone design values than the EPA’s synthesis of the available data represents.” Also, the agency should “improve model inputs and to provide more ambient measurement data for model evaluations. All aspects of background ozone contributions need to be accounted for, including transport of ozone from stratospheric intrusions, emissions from wildfires, [nitrogen oxides] from lightning, biogenic sources, and transport of international emissions.”
API also calls on EPA to clarify that international transport of ozone and ozone precursors may qualify for treatment as an exceptional event, and that multiple sources of background ozone may in combination result in a NAAQS exceedance, and such an exceedance should be considered an exceptional event.
The National Mining Association (NMA) in its March 31 comments takes issue with EPA's definition of U.S. background (USB) ozone, which excludes ozone that originates in one U.S. state and drifts downwind to another. EPA says it has specific Clean Air Act regulatory tools to control such interstate pollution, but NMA says exclusion of this pollution from the “background” definition “does not fairly account for the lack of control that a downwind state [possesses] over an upwind state whose emissions are contributing to the downwind state’s ozone problem.”
“We have severe doubts about EPA’s characterization of the role of USB in the Intermountain West and the rosy prospects for future attainment that EPA lays out. EPA’s analysis (1) tends to gloss the issue of background ozone at regional and national levels, failing to provide a more resolved analysis for locations within the Intermountain West, (2) overlooks the ability of models to provide accurate ozone background estimates on adaily basis, (3) overlooks the ability of models to account for discrete events such as stratospheric ozone intrusion, and (4) fails to utilize monitoring data to fully understand the role of background ozone,” NMA says. Daily readings are significant because they help determine violations of the standard, not average levels over a long period of time.
“Furthermore, EPA’s analysis tends to diminish the significance of background ozone by focusing on a less meaningful fractional analysis compared to the absolute contribution of background ozone. Finally, EPA does not address the data presented in the White Paper pertaining to specific locations within the Intermountain West which tend to contradict EPA’s assertion of widespread future attainment in this area,” NMA says.
States' Concerns
Some states are also raising concerns, with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality saying in itsMarch 31 comments that “the current modeled estimates of background are vastly incomplete.”
Wyoming says, “EPA's current quantified estimation of background ozone is incomplete, to the point of having questionable usefulness for implementation purposes. The current estimates poorly characterize, or do not take into consideration, winter-formed ozone, high elevation sites, stratospheric ozone intrusion events, high ozone days, and climatological irregularities.” EPA's estimates “are also drawn solely from modeling analyses with a high level of uncertainty, while there is a wealth of long-term, quality assured monitoring data that could be utilized to corroborate these estimates.”
In Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) March 31 called for a “suspension” of the stricter ozone NAAQS because of background ozone concerns, according to press reports.
Hickenlooper told an event hosted by API and the Colorado Petroleum Council that, “I think it would be a great idea if they suspended the standard. I mean, just with the background [ozone], if you’re not going to be able to conform to a standard like this, you are leaving the risk or the possibility that there will be penalties of one sort or another that come from your lack of compliance.”
Free-market advocacy group the Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) in Feb. 23 comments on EPA's background white paper also warned about the potential problems states face due to background ozone.
“The universe of scientific literature that EPA considered is incomplete and does not include relevant studies that suggest that background ozone is a much bigger problem for Western states,” the group says, calling the science of background ozone “not well understood.” The group agrees with NMA that EPA's definition of background is wrong to exclude interstate emissions that local air regulators cannot control.
CRS calls the background issue an “equity” issue. “Background ozone levels vary dramatically by region, disadvantaging Western states. Using EPA’s own data of counties with 2012-2014 nonattainment challenges, we estimate that the margin of attainment (i.e., difference between the 70 ppb ozone NAAQS and background ozone levels) is 25 ppb lower for regions in the inter-mountain west versus those in the east. Therefore, the blanket 70 ppb standard creates inequity issues as regions with higher background ozone have much lower margins within their control,” it says.
Regulatory Metric
Meanwhile, the National Park Service (NPS) in its March 31 comments takes issue with EPA's metrics for measuring background, which do not match up to the form of the NAAQS. “EPA analyses of the contribution of background ozone need to be at the same time scale as the relevant regulatory metric. Since nonattainment is defined by the fourth highest 8-hour ozone value averaged over three years, the most relevant metric for regulatory purposes is daily, rather than seasonal average, contributions of background ozone.”
Further, “While uncertainty in model performance may lead EPA to consider seasonal average background contributions, these contributions are not necessarily representative of contributions on the highest ozone days. With the current inventories and substantial technical complexity in atmospheric modeling, it is still uncertain how much background ozone really contributes to elevated ozone concentrations,” NPS says. The primary uncertainty appears to be in international emissions inventories, NPS says, urging EPA to improve knowledge in this area.
In separate March 31 comments, the NAAQS Implementation Coalition -- a broad coalition of industry groups -- emphasizes that EPA must expand use of the exceptional events policy to avoid problems with both nonattainment designations and permitting under the Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program, which applies to major stationary pollution sources in attainment areas.
“While the Exceptional Events Rule could provide some regulatory relief if applied to the calculation of background in PSD permitting analysis, EPA has declined to do so categorically. EPA says it will instead issue guidance addressing the use of excluded data in other regulatory applications, including in PSD background calculations, but it has yet to do so,” the coalition says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industries-warn-uncertainties-epas-background-ozone-data
-
EPA May Revisit Methane Rule on New Oil, Gas Wells
Apr 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House is reviewing a final Environmental Protection Agency rule that would set the first ever methane emissions limits for new oil and natural gas wells, but Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency could take a second look at regulating additional facets of the industry in the future.
“We think there's more information that indicates there are more sources that we may not have addressed,” McCarthy told reporters April 5 at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “But that does not mean that they're not on the table for us to look at and move forward on, but that will require a more extensive process.”
The EPA April 4 sent its final rule (RIN 2060-AS30) setting limits on methane emissions from new and modified oil and natural gas wells to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review.
The rule, expected this summer, would set the first ever new source performance standards for methane emissions from the sector under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. Finalizing that rule will trigger a requirement to similarly regulate existing wells under Section 111(d) of the act. The EPA announced March 10 that it would solicit better data on the existing wells through an information collection request, the first step toward issuing the rules long sought by environmental advocates (48 DEN A-11, 3/11/16).
EPA Examines Existing Wells
McCarthy called that information collection, expected shortly, “a very large signal of our commitment to move toward regulating existing sources in the oil and gas sector.”
“The information collection request is really a requirement for oil and gas companies to do specific testing that will allow us to understand emissions better and the kind of technologies available and the costs associated with those. These are all key elements of a successful rule,” she said.
While the information collection represents a significant step toward regulation, McCarthy was unsure whether the EPA would be able to propose those standards in the time the Obama administration has remaining.
“We're really carefully in our final phases for getting that info collection request done,” McCarthy said. “A lot will depend on what information we can get in and when and whether or not that provides us with a sufficient level of information, but we'll move forward as quickly as we can.”
U.S., Canada Cooperating
McCarthy will travel to Ottawa April 7 to meet with her counterparts in Canada where the two countries are expected to discuss regulating emissions from the oil and natural gas industry.
“It will look at opportunities to reduce [methane emissions] both in the upstream—the development—and also look at pipeline and transmission of gas and oil to see if there are opportunities to look at technologies that will reduce methane emissions effectively and not just technologies but operational practices,” McCarthy said. “One of the things we saw is there are large emitters in oil and gas and we're having trouble identifying why those are large emitters and others are not, and it may just be how they operate and we need to take a closer look at that and we'll share information where they have tremendous expertise on that.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86404121&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86404121&jd=86404121
-
Apr 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
Some world leaders, especially in developing countries like India, have long said it’s hard to reduce the emissions that are warming the planet because they need to use relatively inexpensive — but highly carbon-intensive — fuels like coal to keep energy affordable. That argument is losing its salience as the cost of renewable energy sources like wind and solar continues to fall.
Last year, for the first time, renewables accounted for a majority of new electricity-generating capacity added around the world, according to a recent United Nations report. More than half the $286 billion invested in wind, solar and other renewables occurred in emerging markets like China, India and Brazil — also for the first time. Excluding large hydroelectric plants, 10.3 percent of all electricity generated globally in 2015 came from renewables, roughly double the amount in 2007, according to the report.
The average global cost of generating electricity from solar panels fell 61 percent between 2009 and 2015 and 14 percent for land-based wind turbines. In sunny parts of the world like India and Dubai, developers of solar farms have recently offered to sell electricity for less than half the global average price. In November, the accounting firm KPMG predicted that by 2020 solar energy in India could be 10 percent cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.
These are all hopeful signs. They suggest that reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved more quickly and more cheaply than widely believed. And they provide hope that nations will be able to achieve the ambitious goals they set for themselves at last December’s climate summit meeting in Paris — to keep warming below the threshold beyond which the world will be locked into a future of devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and flooding, widespread food and water shortages and more destructive storms.
Replacing coal-fired plants or avoiding new ones will have major health benefits as well, especially in heavily polluted cities in China and Indiawhere ground-level pollutants like soot and smog make the simple act of breathing a major undertaking. Those benefits will be even greater as gasoline-powered cars are replaced with electric vehicles that draw power from wind and solar farms.
Formidable obstacles to the cleaner energy future envisioned in Paris remain. One is technological: Batteries capable of storing energy for use when the sun is not shining and the wind isn’t blowing are still quite expensive, though their costs are falling. Another is financial: Despite increased private investment in renewables, the United States and other industrialized countries have not lived upto their pledge at the Copenhagen conference in 2009 to provide $100 billion a year to underwrite climate projects in poorer countries. Negotiators in Paris gave themselves until 2025 to come up with a new financing goal.
A third obstacle is political. It’s clear that imposing a price on fossil fuels would encourage investment in cleaner fuels. A carbon tax has cut emissions in British Columbia; India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi hasproposed doubling a tax on coal; China has promised a national emissions trading system. But carbon taxes remain a nonstarter in the United States.
The falling cost of renewables is a clear plus. The prospect of keeping energy affordable while saving the planet should inspire leaders to bolder action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/opinion/a-renewable-energy-boom.html?_r=2
-
Senate Scrambles in Face of FAA Reauthorization Flux
Apr 5, 2016 | Politico (Morning Transportation)
By Martine Powers
...FRA ADDS TO PTC POT: The Federal Railroad Administration is putting $25 million on the table to help aid positive train control implementation — and railroads and suppliers will have to compete with states and municipalities for the money, which comes from fiscal 2016 appropriations. So far, the FRA has provided $650 million in grants and $1 billion in loans to hasten PTC technology; the agency has requested $1.25 billion from the president's fiscal year 2017 budget for the technology's implementation.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2016/04/senate-scrambles-in-face-of-faa-reauthorization-flux-schumer-moves-forward-with-airport-security-adds-construction-group-sues-osha-over-silica-rule-213585
-
Signs Are Promising That Economies Can Rise as Carbon Emissions Decline
Apr 5, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Throughout the 20th century, the global economy was fueled by burning coal to run factories and power plants, and burning oil to move planes, trains and automobiles. The more coal and oil countries burned — and the more planet-warming carbon dioxide they emitted — the higher the economic growth.
And so it seemed logical that any policy to reduce emissions would also push countries into economic decline.
Now there are signs that G.D.P. growth and carbon emissions need not rise in tandem, and that the era of decoupling could be starting. Last year, for the first time in the 40 years since both metrics have been recorded, global G.D.P. grew but global carbon emissions leveled off. Economists got excited, but they also acknowledged that it could have been an anomalous blip.
But a study released by the International Energy Agency last month found that the trend continued in 2015. In another study published on Tuesday, Nathaniel Aden, a research fellow at the World Resources Institute, a Washington think tank, found that since the start of the 21st century, 21 countries, including the United States, have already fully decoupled their economic growth from carbon emissions. In those countries, while G.D.P. went up over the past 15 years, carbon pollution went down.
“It’s really exciting, and it suggests that countries can sever the historic link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions,” Mr. Aden said.
Of course, even if 21 countries have achieved decoupling, more than 170 countries have not. They continue to follow the traditional economic path of growth directly tied to carbon pollution. Among those are some of the world’s biggest polluters: China, India, Brazil and Indonesia.
And decoupling by just 21 countries is not enough to save the planet as we know it. Over the 15 years that Mr. Aden studied, the decoupled countries lowered emissions about 1 billion tons — but overall global emissions grew about 10 billion tons.
The question is whether what happened in the 21 countries can be a model for the rest of the world. Almost all of them are European, but not all are advanced Group of 20 economies. Bulgaria, Romania and Uzbekistan are among them.
The Paris Agreement, the landmark climate change accord reached in December, commits nearly every country to actions to tackle climate change — and to continuously increase the intensity of those actions in the coming decades. But absent major breakthroughs in decoupling, governments are likely to be hesitant to take aggressive steps to curb emissions if they mean economic loss.
In the United States, the decoupling of emissions and economic growth was driven chiefly by the boom in domestic natural gas, which when burned produces about half the carbon pollution of coal. The glut of cheap natural gas drove electric utilities away from coal, while still lighting and powering ever more homes and factories. The decoupling was also driven by improvements in energy-efficiency technology.
The decoupling trend held even in the United States industrial sector. Between 2000 and 2014, Mr. Aden found that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions dropped 16 percent in the American industrial sector, while economic activity increased 9 percent.
But decoupling can hurt. Even as the industrial sector grew over all in those years, a push by American factories to use more energy-efficient technology contributed to a 21 percent loss of industrial jobs, Mr. Aden says.
In smaller economies, decoupling hurts less. Sweden experienced economic growth of 31 percent as its emissions fell 8 percent, continuing a longstanding trend driven by its tax on carbon emissions, instituted in 1991. Today Sweden gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power, which produces no emissions, and 35 percent from renewable sources, particularlyhydroelectric.
But in large, industrial economies that are trying to decouple, the change raises thorny questions. For example, will the pollution just move elsewhere? In Britain, emissions fell 20 percent between 2000 and 2014, while G.D.P. grew 27 percent. That was largely the result of a push to de-industrialize in the country that gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. As Britain’s financial and service sectors grew and its coal mines, mills and steel factories closed, some of those industries went to China, which became the world’s largest polluter.
According to Mr. Aden’s study, China’s G.D.P. has increased 270 percent since 2000 and its carbon emissions 178 percent. But there are very tentative signs that even China may be decoupling.
In a paper published last month by the journal Climate Policy, two British researchers made the case that China’s emissions may have peaked in 2014 and have now begun a modest decline. It’s hard to know for sure because China’s self-reported emissions data can be faulty. But if it is true, and China’s economy continues on even a modest growth path, it could have profound implications for the future of climate change. “The question with China is if they really have turned the corner and if it can stick,” Mr. Aden said.
Decoupling presents another problem. “The countries that have achieved decoupling have de-industrialized — and that has increased income inequality,” Bill Cassidy, a United States senator from Louisiana, said in an interview. “One of the things that has not been analyzed is the job prospects for those families. There’s going to be unintended consequences of their livelihoods being curtailed.”
Meanwhile, some left-wing economists still say that the dream of decoupling is just that — and that the only way to truly lower emissions will be to bite the bullet and accept a hit to the economy.
“I’m not saying it’s impossible to decouple, but we have to be skeptical,” said Giorgos Kallis, an editor of the book “Degrowth” and an economist at the University of Barcelona. “I don’t believe that an economy powered by solar and renewables can sustain the same level of economic growth. If we are serious about reducing emissions, we cannot do the wishful thinking that the economy will double every 35 years. We have to ask, can we manage without growth?”
But Mr. Aden remains optimistic, saying, “We may be on the verge of a transition where this relationship is finally unhinging.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/upshot/promising-signs-that-economies-can-rise-as-carbon-emissions-decline.html?_r=0
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested