Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 7/11/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Think Beyond Precious Metals: 6 Basic Materials Stocks to Buy
Jul 11, 2016 | Zacks Equity Research
After a turbulent 2015, it has been a comeback year for the basic materials sector, with precious metals especially gold and silver grabbing the limelight thanks to their safe-haven appeal. However, there have been other drivers for the sector... -
(ACC Mentioned) Borealis to Acquire MTM Plastics
Jul 11, 2016 | Recycling Today
Borealis, a Vienna-based base chemicals and polyolefins company, has agreed to acquire the German plastics recycling firms MTM Plastics GmbH and MTM Compact GmbH. The transaction is subject to regulatory approval. -
House Democrats' Call for SDWA Hearings Could Inform New Legislation
Jul 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
House Democrats on the Energy & Commerce Committee are calling for hearings on numerous Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) issues, which may lay the foundation for introducing sweeping new drinking water legislation in the fall that would overhaul the 1996... -
What Toxins Have You Been Exposed To? Your Baby Teeth May Hold the Answer.
Jul 11, 2016 | Washington Post
By Rachel Cernansky
Baby teeth may soon be worth a lot more than the sentimental value they offer nostalgic parents. It turns out that these teeth store a unique type of health record, with the potential to reveal everything that an individual has been exposed to, including environmental toxins such as lead... -
Dems Strike Compromise on Energy Provisions in Platform
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
Democrats on Saturday struck a compromise over energy policy in the party's 2016 platform that calls for incentives that favor renewable energy development over natural gas power plants but does not include an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing promoted by... -
Future Shale Production Will Hinge on Technology, EIA Says
Jul 11, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
After the energy bust, the future of U.S. shale oil will depend greatly on how quickly drilling technology can evolve over the next 25 years, the Energy Information Administration says. -
Sustainable FERC's Clements Discusses State, Federal Regulatory Relationship as Industry Transforms
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E TV
As new sources of energy are integrated onto the grid, what is the relationship among distributed energy resources, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulatory agencies? During today's OnPoint, Allison Clements, director of the Sustainable FERC Project... -
California Should Lead the Way, Pairing Clean Energy and Protected Open Space
Jul 11, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jamie Williams and Nancy Pfund
Right now California awaits the release of a crucial land management plan that could serve as an example for the entire nation. Once implemented, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (commonly referred to as the DRECP) will stand as a cornerstone to California’s... -
New API Standard Aims to Reduce Poisoning Risks at Tank Sites
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
With the new standard, officials at the American Petroleum Institute say fewer workers will need to climb tank batteries and measure oil by hand. -
California Issues Draft Permanent Natural Gas Storage Regulations
Jul 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California's Department of Conservation (DOC) on Friday released preliminary draft permanent regulations covering natural gas storage facilities in the state, an outgrowth of the four-month storage well leak that was sealed in February and an emergency order... -
NTSB's Tank Car Agenda Eyes 'Aggressive Retrofit'
Jul 11, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety
The National Transportation Safety Board has released the final agenda its July 13 roundtable discussion on the next steps in rail tank car safety, which is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. EDT in the agency's Board Room and Conference Center in Washington, D.C... -
NTSB On Why They Didn't Respond to Mosier: Been There, Done That
Jul 11, 2016 | Patch
By Colin Miner
Been there. Done that.That's the basic summary of a nearly 50-page response from the National Transportation Safety Board to questions from Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkely who wanted to know why didn't the agency send an investigative team to probe the oil train... -
Clinton Campaign Rejects Dem Plan for Carbon Tax
Jul 11, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is stepping away from a plank in the Democratic platform endorsing a price for greenhouse gas emissions. -
The Democrats' Climate Change Conundrum
Jul 6, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor (In Real Clear Energy)
By Henry Gass
Climate change is a top liberal priority, but that very urgency is making the issue divisive as much as unifying for Democrats. -
A Reverse Course on Climate Lurking in the House Spending Bill
Jul 11, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Henry A. Waxman
American air and water are cleaner since the first serious environmental laws in the U.S. were passed in the 1970s. This is a great American success story that I hope is not undone by hidden and misunderstood legislation now being considered in Congress. -
Threatened Oil Industry Rethinks Climate Stance
Jul 11, 2016 | Politico
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
Facing the increasing likelihood of a Hillary Clinton presidency, growing attacks from liberals and its own divides over a potential carbon tax, the oil industry is rethinking its political strategy on climate change. -
Climate Activism Raises Stakes for Conference
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Senate Democrats will take the floor starting tonight to call out fossil fuel industry-funded groups that they say have "fashioned a web of denial to block action on climate change." -
Another Inconvenient Truth: It’s Hard to Agree How to Fight Climate Change
Jul 11, 2016 | New York Times
By John C. Schwartz
By just about any measure, the movement to battle climate changehas grown so large that the truths of Al Gore’s decade-old movie now seem more mainstream than inconvenient. -
Under Pressure, State to Propose Cap-and-Trade Changes
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California regulators tomorrow will issue proposed revisions to the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases intended to extend the market through 2030 and resolve oversupply issues.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Think Beyond Precious Metals: 6 Basic Materials Stocks to Buy
Jul 11, 2016 | Zacks Equity Research
After a turbulent 2015, it has been a comeback year for the basic materials sector, with precious metals especially gold and silver grabbing the limelight thanks to their safe-haven appeal. However, there have been other drivers for the sector, which encompasses a broad range of industries ranging from mining and metals to chemical products.
Chemical Industry Gaining MomentumIf we were to look beyond precious metals, the chemical industry – a favorable area for investment in the materials space – comes naturally to mind. The U.S. chemical industry, a nearly $800 billion enterprise, is heavily linked to the overall condition of the nation’s economy. It has been consistently leading the U.S. economy’s business cycle due to its early position in the supply chain.
The shale gas boom and abundant supply of natural gas liquids have been a huge driving force behind chemical investment in plants and equipment in the U.S. and have provided American petrochemical producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The American Chemistry Council expects this to drive export demand and new capital investment in the country.
The industry fared reasonably well last year riding on the back of continued strong momentum in the automotive market and a recovery in commercial construction despite a spate of headwinds including soft agriculture market fundamentals, slowdown in China, lumpiness in Europe, a stronger dollar and depressed demand in energy markets.
The momentum has continued through the first half of 2016. The U.S. auto industry is in high gear as new car and light truck sales are expected to reach 17.7 million units in 2016 on reduced gasoline prices and low interest rate on auto loans, as per the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) estimates.
Further, underlying demand trends in the housing space remain strong and homebuilding is expected to pick up pace, supported by an encouraging job picture, affordable interest/mortgage rates and an improving economy. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) expects healthy growth in non-residential construction spending this year based on strong demand for hotels, office space, manufacturing facilities and amusement and recreation spaces.
Steel Industry Showing ResilienceStrong fundamentals in automotive and construction will also favor the steel industry. U.S steel demand is projected to grow 3.2% this year. Even though the U.S. steel industry is continuously threatened by cheaper imports, imposition of anti-dumping duties will help homegrown steel makers to defend their turf against illegally dumped steel products. India will be a growth driver given its progressive construction and manufacturing sectors, rapid urbanization and structural reforms.
What do the Numbers Say?
A preview of second-quarter earnings for the Basic Material sector reveals a projected decline of 16.4%, following a 15.9% year-over-year plunge in the first quarter. However, there is a silver lining with the sector expected to enter the positive territory in the back half of the year with 4.4% and 15.6% growth in the third and fourth quarters, respectively. (For a detailed look at the earnings outlook for this sector and others, please read our Earnings Trends report.).
Thus, the basic materials sector has high chances of winning back investors’ favor. It would be a prudent move to zero in on some growth stocks in the materials space right now.
How to Pick the Right Stocks?With the help of our new style score system, we have zeroed in on six stocks that look promising based on their solid Zacks Rank and favorable Growth Style Score. Our Growth Style Score condenses all the essential metrics from a company’s financial statements to get a true sense of the quality and sustainability of its growth. Our research shows that stocks with a Growth Style Score of ‘A’ or ‘B’ when combined with a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space.
Strong Chemical Picks
Axiall Corporation (AXLL - Snapshot Report)
Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Axiall Corporation manufactures and markets chemicals and building products in the United States as well as globally.
This Zacks Rank #1 stock with a Growth score of A has gained 110.39% year to date. Moreover, over the past 30 days, its estimates have moved north an impressive 300% for the current fiscal and 13% for the next. Moreover, the company has estimated long-term earnings growth of 5%. The stock also has an impressive four-quarter trailing surprise of 174.8%.
Flexible Solutions International Inc. (FSI - Snapshot Report)
Headquartered in Victoria, Canada, Flexible Solutions International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and markets specialty chemicals that slow the evaporation of water.
This Zacks Rank #2 stock with a Growth score of A has gained 55.78% year to date. Its earnings estimate for the current year has moved north 8% over the last 60 days. For the next year, estimates have moved up 18%.
Koppers Holdings Inc. (KOP - Snapshot Report)
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, Koppers Holdings Inc. provides carbon compounds, wood treatment chemicals, and treated wood products and services in the United States and internationally.
This Zacks Rank #1 stock with a Growth score of A has gained 69.04% year to date. Its earnings estimate has gone up 4% for the current year and 4% for the next year over the last 90 days. The company has estimated long-term earnings growth of 10%. Koppers has delivered a positive earnings surprise of 59.17% over the last four quarters.
Potential Steel Winners
Ryerson Holding Corporation (RYI - Snapshot Report)
Chicago, IL-based Ryerson Holding, along with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the processing and distribution of metals like stainless steel, aluminum, carbon steel, and alloy steels.
Ryerson sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth score of A. The stock has surged 294% year to date. The company has been witnessing positive estimate revisions over the last 60 days, as the Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2016 and 2017 has climbed around 54% and 14%, respectively, over the same time frame. The company has delivered an impressive average positive surprise of 118.19% in the last four quarters.
AK Steel Holding Corporation (AKS - Analyst Report)
Headquartered in West Chester, OH, AK Steel is a leading producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless, electrical steel and tubular products.
AK Steel Holding has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of A. The stock price has gained 115.63% year to date. The bottom-line estimate for the current year has recovered dramatically over the last 30 days from a loss of 13 cents to earnings of 16 cents. For fiscal 2017, estimates have increased 23% over the said time period. The company has estimated long-term earnings growth of 5% and also has an impressive four-quarter trailing surprise of 127.34%.
Trinseo SA (TSE - Snapshot Report)
Headquartered in Berwyn, PA, Trinseo S.A. manufactures and markets synthetic rubber, latex, and plastic products.
The stock carries a Zacks Rank 2 and a Growth Score of A. It has appreciated 59.86% year to date. Its estimates have moved north 1% for 2016 over the past 30 days. The company has a four-quarter trailing surprise of 2.22%.https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/223038/think-beyond-precious-metals-6-basic-materials-stocks-to-buy
-
(ACC Mentioned) Borealis to Acquire MTM Plastics
Jul 11, 2016 | Recycling Today
Borealis, a Vienna-based base chemicals and polyolefins company, has agreed to acquire the German plastics recycling firms MTM Plastics GmbH and MTM Compact GmbH. The transaction is subject to regulatory approval.
MTM Plastics is heavily involved in the recycling of mixed postconsumer plastic scrap and is one of Europe’s largest producers of postconsumer polyolefin recyclables.
In announcing the proposed acquisition, Alfred Stern, Borealis executive vice president of polyolefins and innovation and technology, says, “Plastics are simply too valuable to be disposed of in landfills. Plastic recycling provides a circular business opportunity in a growing market within a broader sustainability agenda.”
Stern continues, “There are many areas in which mechanical recycling of postconsumer waste make business and ecological sense. The acquisition of MTM Plastics and MTM Compact reflects our pro-active and dedicated ‘keep discovering’ approach to provide specific and innovative solutions in tackling core global challenges.”
Michael Scriba, CEO of MTM, says, following the acquisition, “Together with our major partner Borealis on our side, we will continue the successful growth of the last years also in the future.”
Global plastics industry outlines plans to reduce marine litter
Leaders from the global plastics industry have announced that approximately 260 projects are planned, underway or completed as part of the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, the industry’s public commitment to tackle plastic in the marine environment. The announcement came with the release of the plastics industry’s annual progress report.
“As a united, global industry, we’ve come a long way from where we started in 2011,” says Callum Chen from the Asia Plastics Forum. “Today we have active marine litter prevention programs occurring in all regions of the globe, and we are continually pursuing opportunities to grow our work.”
Forty-seven plastics associations launched the declaration March 2011 at the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference. Saying they recognize their important role in fighting marine litter, these plastics associations have launched and are supporting projects in six key areas aimed at contributing to sustainable solutions. The six focus areas of the declaration are education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery and plastic pellet containment.
“We’re very pleased with the continued growth in the work we’re doing on marine litter,” says Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, Washington. “Since our last report, we’ve increased the number of industry associations participating as part of the Global Declaration and demonstrated that, united, we can help make a difference.”
“Marine litter is a complex environmental challenge that requires joint efforts at the local, regional and global level,” says Karl-H. Foerster, executive director of PlasticsEurope, based in Brussels. “We look forward to continue developing and executing programs that address marine litter and work with governments, nongovernmental organizations, researchers and other stakeholders. It is critical that we have these partnerships and continue to bring additional stakeholders to the table to tackle this very serious issue.”
http://www.recyclingtodayglobal.com/article/plastics-july-2016/
-
House Democrats' Call for SDWA Hearings Could Inform New Legislation
Jul 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
House Democrats on the Energy & Commerce Committee are calling for hearings on numerous Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) issues, which may lay the foundation for introducing sweeping new drinking water legislation in the fall that would overhaul the 1996 drinking water law.
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), the committee's ranking member, and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), the ranking member of the panel's Environment and Economy Subcommittee, asked for the hearings in a June 30 letter to committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL).
And Pallone and Tonko reiterated their request during a July 7 subcommittee hearing on spent nuclear fuel disposal.
A drinking water source says the request for hearings is a potential "preamble" to House Democrats' attempt to overhaul SDWA, explaining that congressional Democrats have long argued that the law's framework as outdated.
The letter calls on the leadership to convene new hearings on SDWA "to explore the need for amendments to this landmark public health law, which has not been updated in twenty years."
"The need to act has been clear for months and time is quickly running out," the congressmen write. "with little time left, the Subcommittee must take meaningful steps to provide the additional resources and tools that state and local governments need to ensure the public is provided with clean, safe drinking water . . .We cannot afford to ignore the problem any longer. We urge you to hold hearings and bring comprehensive legislation before the Subcommittee and then the full Committee to address this national crisis."
The hearings "should explore EPA's ability to set health protective drinking water standards under the 1996 amendments, measures to address lead exposure in communities and schools, drinking water facility security, the need to repair and replace deteriorating drinking water infrastructure, and the use of Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds [SRFs]," the letter says.
Perchlorate is the only chemical for which the agency has determined it needs to set an enforceable drinking water standard since 1996, but the agency has struggled to actually do so.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) earlier this year sued the agency for failing to craft a perchlorate maximum contaminant level within SDWA's two-year deadline.
An NRDC source told Inside EPA in December that the group's concerns extend beyond perchlorate and includes the agency's failure to promulgate any new standard since 1996, calling it "pretty disappointing that the agency has taken so long and hasn't much to show for it."
SDWA 'Shortcomings'
The Democrats, in their letter, mention public and private conversations with the majority leadership in which they have "repeatedly" urged them to reauthorize the SDWA SRF "and address other shortcomings in [SDWA]."
The letter in particular points to crumbling water infrastructure systems that generally need more investment -- water main breaks, shut-downs, source water contamination, "as well as drought and other threats from climate change." Specifically, it mentions the Flint, MI, lead contamination crisis and the high levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) found in states like New York, New Jersey and Michigan, as reasons for urgent action in updating SDWA.
The drinking water source says the June 30 letter may be an attempt to "lay out their vision" for setting more enforceable standards, and that a bill introduced this fall would likely be a statement bill, although there are "some scenarios predicting that Democrats will take over the House, and it could then get a lot more interesting" in the next Congress.
The water industry would not necessarily endorse new amendments or a new SDWA framework, the source says: "The structure of the 1996 amendments are appropriate, and EPA has to determine whether it's cost effective to change them. I can't say whether what they have in mind is appropriate in our view."
During the July 7 hearing, Pallone criticized the committee leadership for holding five hearings on nuclear fuel disposal but doing very little to address drinking water. He noted that he and Tonko have requested hearings "to address meaningful steps to provide the additional tools" that state and local governments need to ensure the public is provided with clean and safe drinking water.
Tonko was also critical, saying the House has not addressed lead in water, which he called a widespread problem affecting more communities than just Flint. And he noted concerns about PFC-contaminated drinking water. "We cannot ignore these problems any longer. Safe drinking water is essential. This is one of many issues we could address this year," he said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-call-sdwa-hearings-could-inform-new-legislation
-
What Toxins Have You Been Exposed To? Your Baby Teeth May Hold the Answer.
Jul 11, 2016 | Washington Post
By Rachel Cernansky
Baby teeth may soon be worth a lot more than the sentimental value they offer nostalgic parents. It turns out that these teeth store a unique type of health record, with the potential to reveal everything that an individual has been exposed to, including environmental toxins such as lead and pesticides, and stress hormones produced by the baby in utero.
It may sound like science fiction, but it’s the key to much of Manish Arora’s work. An environmental epidemiologist and exposure biologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, Arora explains that teeth form rings as they grow — just as trees do, but daily instead of annually — and each ring contains information about exposures that occurred on the day it was formed. Using specialized equipment, he has developed ways to analyze what’s contained in those rings.
“I often describe [teeth],” he said, “as biologic hard drives.”
Arora’s work is part of an emerging field of study focused on the exposome, a term coined in 2005 to refer to the totality of health-affecting exposures that a person experiences.
Researchers say the studying of the exposome could dramatically alter how we assess health. Through a fingerprick of blood, for example, a doctor eventually may be able to analyze what an individual has been exposed to and use that information to help determine health risks linked to or caused by those exposures. By revealing exposures that occur during fetal development and throughout childhood, the baby teeth may provide the earliest and most extensive window into how environmental factors influence health.
“From childhood asthma to adult obesity, people are hypothesizing that exposures that occurred even when your mother was pregnant with you can be influencing your risks,” said David Balshaw, chief of the Exposure, Response and Technology Branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “The question becomes: What can you do about it?”
He says that the more we can connect specific early-life exposures with later health problems, the more we can adjust our behavior to reduce those risks. Someone identified as being at greater risk for respiratory conditions because of certain exposures in utero, for example, might want to avoid living in an area with a high level of particulate emissions.
Taking out the guesswork
While Balshaw said his agency and others have been developing the concept of the exposome and the tools for studying it for more than a decade, those efforts are now maturing, with projects sprouting up around the world. There are children’s studies in Europe and Japan. An international effort, based at Imperial College London, is working to develop a personal exposure monitoring system to collect and analyze data using smartphones, satellites and sensors. The Health and Exposome Research Center: Understanding Lifetime Exposures, or HERCULES Center, at Emory University was established in 2013 with the first exposome-specific grant in the United States.
Recent leaps in both analytics and genomics technologies — along with a recognition that studying the genome alone wasn’t going to produce a complete picture of human health — have propelled the field. “It was very clear that the environment part had to be plugged into this,” said Gary Miller, director of the HERCULES Center. Interest in the exposome is particularly high for those studying children’s health.
Steve Rappaport, an environmental health professor at the University of California at Berkeley and director of the Berkeley Center for Exposure Biology, for instance, is studying blood samples from about 3,000 newborns to see what differences they may show between those who developed leukemia later in childhood and those who did not. Because genetics contributes little of the risk for childhood leukemia, Rappaport said, he’s on a hunt for what in the environment causes it.
Previous efforts to pinpoint environmental causes of disease have usually involved a hypothesis that substance X leads to condition Y — which essentially amounts to guesswork, said Rappaport, because that approach involves testing specific substances rather than casting a wide net to find anything and everything that might get caught. In other words, looking for one thing almost precludes finding anything else.
“The idea of [the exposome] is, you don’t guess. You look for everything you can measure,” he said. He thinks his team has identified three or four molecules in the blood that seem to predict development of childhood leukemia and are environmental in nature, meaning they are not genetic and resulted from external exposure or even internally, such as from diet or stress.
Links to breast cancer?
Rappaport hopes to begin another study looking for associations between women who develop breast cancer and what their mothers were exposed to during pregnancy. (The mothers’ blood was collected in the 1960s and stored.) He would measure compounds that are produced when the blood reacts with substances such as toxic chemicals, then evaluate commonalities in the blood of women whose daughters have developed breast cancer. “There’s some hypotheses that many cancers are initiated very early in life, during gestation,” he said.
That’s part of the motivation for focusing exposome research on children. There are implications for a host of adult-onset conditions, from Alzheimer’s to heart disease, that are increasingly linked with things that happen early in life. (Another reason is that children are simply more vulnerable to the harmful effects of chemicals: Their systems are still developing, and because their bodies are small, an exposure that might not be that significant in an adult can cause damage in a child.)
Researchers are also excited about the opportunities the exposome opens up for studying the effects of chemical mixtures as well as the role that the timing and extent of exposures play in predicting health. That’s why Arora’s tooth biomarker is so promising: It can identify not only what a child was exposed to but also when the exposure occurred. And because the ring created on a baby’s birth date is different from every other line, Arora’s information is very precise as to whether an exposure occurred in the womb or not.
Critical windows
“In the last couple years, we’ve really been interested in not just dose, but when did that exposure happen,” he said. “There are critical windows during our development when we are highly susceptible. And if exposure happens outside those windows, it might not be related to the health outcome at all, but if it happens in that critical period, it could have a huge impact.”
(Thalidomide, used briefly in the early 1960s as a treatment for morning sickness, may be the best-known example of this: When taken between about the fourth and ninth weeks of pregnancy, the drug can cause severe birth defects, but otherwise it may carry little risk and even benefit some women.)
Arora will be using his tooth biomarker to study, among other things, how mixtures of chemicals affect neurodevelopment in children. Instead of looking at the impacts of individual chemicals, as has been the traditional method of determining the toxicity of a substance, and rather than studying the effects of a group of chemicals of his own choosing, he has developed a method for studying thousands of chemicals at once.
“No one is exposed to one chemical at a time. Everybody is exposed to clusters of chemicals at a time,” said Robert Wright, director of the Lautenberg Laboratory for Environmental Health at the Icahn School of Medicine. “Very few, if any, studies have actually addressed that.”
Wright, Rappaport and other researchers are confident that their work will be key to treating or preventing some major health problems.
Perhaps more than anything else, the scientists say, the exposome marks a fundamental shift in looking at health. It moves research away from the “one off, ‘this exposure, that disease’ understanding,” Balshaw said, and toward an approach that accounts for the many combinations of substances we are exposed to — in the air, food, ourselves — throughout life. We live in a complex world; proponents of the exposome are hoping to give the medical community the tools to deal with that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-toxins-have-you-been-exposed-to-your-baby-teeth-may-hold-the-answer/2016/07/11/9cf1d740-1d18-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html
-
Dems Strike Compromise on Energy Provisions in Platform
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
Democrats on Saturday struck a compromise over energy policy in the party's 2016 platform that calls for incentives that favor renewable energy development over natural gas power plants but does not include an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing promoted by supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
A "unity" amendment backed by supporters of both presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Sanders -- who is expected to abandon his bid for the nomination and endorse Clinton as early as tomorrow -- also failed to include a formal carbon tax, although it states that "greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy."
The Democratic National Committee's 187-member Platform Committee approved the measure in a Saturday night vote during a two-day meeting in Orlando, Fla., to approve amendments to the party's 2016 document. The platform will next be presented for ratification at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia the week of July 25.
During the at-times raucous Saturday meeting, opponents of fracking held signs that read "Frack No" and "Ban Fracking" and chanted "No Fracking Way" at one point as Josh Fox, the anti-drilling documentary filmmaker and platform committee member, proposed two amendments to the platform.
Fox's initial effort was a simplistic measure that called for Democrats to support "a full national moratorium on fracking."
"There is a political revolution going on in this country. And fracking has no place in it. In fact, a lot of it is because of fracking because Americans have had enough of being abused by the oil and gas industry in our own backyard," Fox said. He later added: "This government has been co-opted by the natural gas industry for far too long and we are here to take it back."
Although he pointed to New York's ban on the process as a model, Fox did not distinguish between the state's allowance for low-volume fracking or other states like Maryland, which last year imposed a moratorium on all kinds of fracking (EnergyWire, July 8).
But Democrats did not vote on that measure, instead adopting a substitution sponsored by Trevor Houser, who leads the Rhodium Group's energy and natural resources practice and is a Clinton adviser.
The substitute amendment echoed arguments offered last month by former U.S. EPA Administrator Carol Browner -- who was tapped by the Clinton campaign to serve on the platform drafting committee -- when she argued against a ban on drilling and instead supported regulatory measures such as closing the "Halliburton loophole."
The amendment also said Democrats would ensure "tough safeguards" to govern the drilling practice, including safe drinking water provisions, as well as vows to reduce methane emissions tied to fracking and to replace "thousands of miles of leaky pipes."
The measure also supported the concept of local control, which Clinton has endorsed on the campaign trail.
"We believe hydraulic fracturing should not take place where states and local communities oppose it," the amendment stated.
In a brief explanation of the amendment, Houser argued that immediately restricting fracking would push the nation back to a reliance on coal and would also undermine "millions of union households" who are involved in the oil and gas industry.
"We have a proud tradition in this country of using our bedrock environment laws ... to protect our families and our economies while creating jobs," Houser said.
Greens see progress
While Fox and other environmentalists lamented the failure of their proposal to curb fracking via a national moratorium, the filmmaker lauded the passage of the compromise, which will promote infrastructure for energy generated by renewable sources over that of natural gas.
"We dealt a serious blow to #fracked gas power plants & infrastructure 2day. We must defeat them now in the streets, but we have the platform," Fox wrote on his Twitter account following the vote.
In addition to calling for carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases to be "priced" to reflect environmental impacts, the amendment endorsed additional executive actions, such as the Clean Power Plan.
"Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science, and support using every tool available to reduce emissions now," the amendment states.
The platform will also endorse new investments in infrastructure, including expediting new transmission lines for production from renewable energy.
"We need to make our existing infrastructure safer and cleaner and build the new infrastructure necessary to power our future," the amendment states.
The measure would also call for a new standard that echoes the Obama administration's reasoning when it rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, asserting that federal actions should not "significantly exacerbate" global warming.
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune praised the amendments' passage yesterday, calling the Democratic platform "the strongest platform in history when it comes to tackling the climate crisis."
He added: "The positive differences between this platform and the ones unveiled four and eight years ago are astonishing, and we applaud everyone on the committee for advocating for the bold, ambitious action we need to tackle the climate crisis and protect the health of every community."
But Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter chided Democrats for refusing to embrace a moratorium on fracking, asserting the party has "rejected the science, as well as the will of most Americans."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/11/stories/1060040025
-
Future Shale Production Will Hinge on Technology, EIA Says
Jul 11, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
After the energy bust, the future of U.S. shale oil will depend greatly on how quickly drilling technology can evolve over the next 25 years, the Energy Information Administration says.
Rapid technological change and high energy prices could help domestic drillers push shale oil production to 12.9 million barrels a day by 2040, up from last year’s 4.9 million barrels a day, the EIA said Monday in an early look at some of its long-term projections due in a report later this month.
But if crude prices languish and breakthroughs in drilling come slowly, the shale plays at the center of the recent oil boom could produce just 3.1 million barrels a day, the EIA says. In this projection, technological advancements come in at half the speed as the first scenario.
The EIA says its forecasts for shale oil production vary the most across all of its long-term projections. Shale oil is a relatively new resource that has the potential for fast growth when oil prices are high or a sharp decline when prices fall.
In its middle-of-the-road forecast, the EIA says the downturn in energy prices will probably push U.S. shale oil production down to 4.2 million barrels a day next year, before a higher prices help push production to 7.1 million barrels a day by 2040.
“The increase in tight oil production is largely attributed to higher oil prices and the ongoing exploration and development programs that expand operator knowledge about producing reservoirs,” the EIA said.
Overall, the EIA expects the nation’s output of crude oil, condensate, natural gas liquids and biofuels to rise to 18.6 million barrels a day in 2040, up from last year’s 14.8 million barrels a day.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/07/11/future-shale-production-will-hinge-on-technology-eia-says/
-
Sustainable FERC's Clements Discusses State, Federal Regulatory Relationship as Industry Transforms
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E TV
As new sources of energy are integrated onto the grid, what is the relationship among distributed energy resources, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulatory agencies? During today's OnPoint, Allison Clements, director of the Sustainable FERC Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, discusses the evolving dynamics between federal and state regulators as policies and technologies change.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Allison Clements, director of the Sustainable FERC Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Allison, thank you for coming on the show.
Allison Clements: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Allison, talk a bit about what the Sustainable FERC Project was created to do and the role that it is playing in the conversation on the grid's current transformation.
Allison Clements: Sure. We are a coalition of national and regional clean-energy-focused nonprofit organizations hoping to break down the federal regulatory barriers to our communities' clean energy goals. And that means whatever is happening at FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates our nation's transmission grid -- because it was designed in 1935, this grid, there's a lot of things that haven't caught up to the type of resource mix we see today, the clean wind power and solar power that are coming onto the grid at a rapid clip. And so what we're trying to do is make the rules that govern the grid fair for those clean energy resources.
Monica Trauzzi: And you have a lot of states moving to act when it comes to clean energy and sometimes that sort of goes against what FERC is trying to do. Describe the relationship there and sort of what you see as the key challenges.
Allison Clements: Sure. I think we're going through a time of growing pains, but it's a really exciting period of growing pains in terms of the pace at which our nation's electric system is changing. And if you think about -- there's a statute that regulates that grid. It's called the Federal Power Act. It was written in 1935, right? That was when there was kind of one transmission line, one big power plant that spewed out emissions, and then a series of homes that needed to get power. That's the outdated, old grid. All of a sudden now in the last decade we're seeing what has become kind of this ecosystem grid where customers apply energy through their cars and through their rooftops, and where big, beautiful, clean wind turbines are providing power to our homes and businesses. And so as a result, the states and the federal government have to kind of grow together and figure out the parameters, if you will, of who is regulating what. And so we've seen a series -- a couple of court cases where -- that these kind of issues are playing out.
Monica Trauzzi: So how does the Supreme Court decision in the Maryland case earlier this spring affect future planning by states?
Allison Clements: You know, the good news for states on that case is that it doesn't affect the ability of states to continue to pursue their own clean energy agendas. It actually provides a set of parameters by which they should go about that clean energy policy design in order to avoid some of the pitfalls that the Maryland program fell victim to vis-à-vis the Federal Power Act.
Monica Trauzzi: So I know that you have a series of blogs that you're working on specifically focused on distributed energy resources and the relationship with FERC and the regulated grid. What are the primary issues that you see under that umbrella?
Allison Clements: A lot of the discussion around kind of the exciting changes that are taking places in our sector, which is rooftop solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, you know, you -- smart buildings, are happening at the kind of local utility level. There's a lot of exciting things happening in New York, in California, and in a lot of other states who are trying to kind of think forward about what our future energy companies and the systems around them look like. There's also a relationship which is kind of less documented and becoming more relevant about the relationship between these distributed resources and customers and the bulk transmission system. So for example, you know, as a neighborhood of homes with smart air conditioners or smart pool pumps, you actually can participate in wholesale energy markets. And understanding that relationship and the impact that customers can have and that distributive resources can have on our transmission system, both in terms of cost savings, reliability services and emission-free power, are pretty interesting intersections that I'm looking at right now.
Monica Trauzzi: So a program like the Clean Power Plan, what kind of impact does that have in your view on the jurisdictional issues that exist between FERC and the states?
Allison Clements: I think that just like the Federal Power Act, the Clean Air Act has that relationship of collaborative federalism between states and the federal government. And states have the opportunity to implement the Clean Power Plan in a lot of ways. I think we say they'd be wise to consider the kind of cost-effective and clean opportunities that happen at that local level, at that customer level to contribute to Clean Power Plan compliance.
Monica Trauzzi: One of the core challenges to integrating new sources of energy onto the grid is siting and building the transmission that will support the newer technologies. There have been calls from both sides to change the siting process, to look at it. Some want it to -- the speed to be ramped up. Do you think that the process is in line with rapidly changing state and federal policies?
Allison Clements: That's a great question, and siting happens at the state level in a lot of cases, and so every state has the ability to kind of dictate their own destiny with regards to what type of transmission poles and wires they want to put out, or new power plants they want to put in. And I think we've made a lot of progress on the siting front. The good news is that you're already seeing in the country -- in Texas, in California, in the Midwest -- moments where 50 percent of the energy being generated is coming from renewable energy resources already -- no more changes, no more siting. And so that's an exciting development that shows we can integrate a whole lot more renewables onto the system without necessarily getting into protracted siting debates.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we're going to end it right there.
Allison Clements: All right.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Allison Clements: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2148/transcript
-
California Should Lead the Way, Pairing Clean Energy and Protected Open Space
Jul 11, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jamie Williams and Nancy Pfund
Right now California awaits the release of a crucial land management plan that could serve as an example for the entire nation. Once implemented, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (commonly referred to as the DRECP) will stand as a cornerstone to California’s energy independence, facilitating clean, renewable energy production while conserving large stretches of pristine and vulnerable desert lands. California must move forward - demonstrating that conservation and renewable energy development can coexist in the 21st century.
Phase one is a Bureau of Land Management plan which is unprecedented, both in size and scope. Covering 10 million acres of BLM-managed land, the DRECP is a constructive collaboration between federal, state and local agencies - providing a roadmap for the placement of large-scale renewable energy projects in the most appropriate locations. Once implemented, it will benefit California’s fight against climate change and serve as a model for other states looking to balance clean energy and conservation needs.
his plan can deliver real progress toward meeting California’s ambitious mandate to produce 50 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources by the year 2030. Ultimately, success in California and elsewhere will require innovations, including energy conservation, efficiency, and storage; widespread rooftop solar deployment; and large-scale wind, solar and geothermal production on both public and private lands. On the large scale energy front, the DRECP, with its careful zoning of renewable energy projects, can greatly accelerate California’s transition to a clean energy economy. When the BLM applied a similar zoned approach in Nevada, three solar projects were approved in under ten months – less than half the time it has taken using more haphazard project-by-project methods.
The need for a solid plan is clear in the California desert, a region already feeling the impacts of prolonged drought and rising temperatures from climate change. If we’re going to get serious about slowing the march toward extinction for many native plants and animals, we must move swiftly to invest in clean energy, while taking steps to conserve wild places. With protection, these desert lands can become a wide, connected safe-haven, providing enough space for plants and animals to migrate and adapt to a warming temperatures.
Home to the desert tortoise and herds of Nelson’s bighorn sheep, hawks and bobcats, California’s desert lands are a real life storybook of Western history – complete with Native American petroglyphs, pioneer trails and historic mining towns. Some places seem untouched over thousands of years – even as the city of Los Angeles burst through its boundaries, creating a suburban empire to the West, and Las Vegas exploded into a global gaming and tourism destination to the north. Miraculously, squeezed between these fast-growing cities, you can still find solitude and tranquility in nature, with places to hike, camp and witness the astonishing beauty of a starry night sky.
As leaders in both conservation and renewable energy, we encourage the BLM to move quickly to finalize the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. We can seek renewable energy solutions without spoiling our precious public lands. California is poised to demonstrate to the nation that ambitious goals, combined with intelligent planning, can yield exceptional results. Let’s push this innovative plan over the finish line.
Jamie Williams is the President of The Wilderness Society. Nancy Pfund is the Founder and Managing Partner of DBL Partners, an early investor in Tesla Motors and SolarCity
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/287127-california-should-lead-the-way-pairing-clean-energy
-
New API Standard Aims to Reduce Poisoning Risks at Tank Sites
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The oil and gas industry has developed a new standard designed to reduce the risks of poisoning workers who measure crude oil in tanks.
With the new standard, officials at the American Petroleum Institute say fewer workers will need to climb tank batteries and measure oil by hand.
"This standard enables personnel to take measurements of crude oil from a lease tank without opening the hatch on the tank," said Lisa Salley, vice president for global industry services at API, "thus protecting them from potentially hazardous vapors and gases."
API announced the new standard late last week. Its formal name is MPMS Chapter 18.2, Custody Transfer of Crude Oil From Lease Tanks Using Alternative Measurement Methods.
Worker safety researchers have documented at least 10 deaths that they believe are related to "tank gauging" in the oil field (EnergyWire, Jan. 28).
On some tanks, toxic gases in the oil whoosh out of the hatches, exposing the workers to dangerous levels of chemicals. It's particularly dangerous with oil extracted from shale formations, which can be more volatile than conventional crude.
Beyond the threat of immediate death, testing by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has shown that tank gaugers can be exposed to unsafe levels of benzene, a carcinogen, and other petrochemicals (EnergyWire, Sept. 18, 2014).
Critics say hand measurement -- with manual gauges and devices called "sticks" -- is antiquated in the smartphone era.
There are safer, automated ways to gauge tanks that don't involve manually opening hatches. Hand measurement has continued for a variety of reasons, including Bureau of Land Management rules, state requirements, industry practice and plain habit.
Federal land managers at BLM are also looking at whether to change measurement rules to allow more automatic tank gauging. BLM rules often incorporate API standards, so the group's new standard will play a role. New measurement rules are expected later this summer.
Much of the gauging is done during "custody transfer," when the oil is being taken off the well site for processing. A record of the amount is needed so that the buyer pays the proper amount.
API officials said the new standard integrates "proven methods" of custody transfer from other parts of API's Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards. API standards are developed by groups including representatives of government, academia, the public and industry.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/11/stories/1060040011
-
California Issues Draft Permanent Natural Gas Storage Regulations
Jul 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California's Department of Conservation (DOC) on Friday released preliminary draft permanent regulations covering natural gas storage facilities in the state, an outgrowth of the four-month storage well leak that was sealed in February and an emergency order from Gov. Jerry Brown resulting from the prolonged incident.
The final regulations will eventually replace emergency ones established early this year by DOC's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) (see Daily GPI, Feb. 8). The preliminary draft includes new requirements for the state's dozen gas storage fields.
Calling it a "discussion draft," DOC and DOGGR officials said the early release provides an opportunity for public comment prior to starting the formal rulemaking process and will allow them to be "refined into formal draft regulations."
Emergency rules now in effect created a requirement for daily checks for leaks at every well in each of the state's storage facilities. They were a direct response to Brown's emergency proclamation after he toured Southern California Gas Co.'s 86 Bcf, 3,600-acre Aliso Canyon storage field and its leaking storage well early this year (see Daily GPI, Jan. 6).
Public comments will be compiled by DOGGR through Aug. 11 with two public workshops set for Sacramento (Aug. 9) and Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley (Aug. 11), respectively.
DOC Director and state Oil/Gas Supervisor Ken Harris said the draft permanent rules update construction/operating standards for gas storage wells, new data and monitoring requirements and beefed up risk management/emergency response plans for each storage facility.
"Our emphasis is to ensure public safety and various environmental protections during the operation of storage facilities," Harris said.
Other highlights in the preliminary draft include: More stringent construction standards that include tubing/packer requirements and sub-surface safety valves on all wells; More frequent testing, including casing wall thickness inspections and pressure tests at least every two years; and Mandatory risk management plans including well fires/blowouts, hazardous material spills, explosions, natural disasters, geologic hazards, and emergency response plans.
DOGGR has committed to"significant" public review of the ultimate final regulations.
Ultimately, the final rules would require DOGGR's review and approval of each storage field's injection of gas supplies prior to putting more gas in the field. DOGGR will have the authority to order operations stopped at storage facilities found not to be in compliance with the final rules.
Similarly, DOGGR will have to review and approve each storage project's risk management plan identifying potential threats and hazards to reservoir well integrity, along with risks to life, health, property, and natural resources. The plans also must specify a risk assessment approach and the submission of the results of those assessments.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107021-california-issues-draft-permanent-natural-gas-storage-regulations
-
NTSB's Tank Car Agenda Eyes 'Aggressive Retrofit'
Jul 11, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety
The National Transportation Safety Board has released the final agenda its July 13 roundtable discussion on the next steps in rail tank car safety, which is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. EDT in the agency's Board Room and Conference Center in Washington, D.C., with NTSB Board Member Robert Sumwalt moderating it.
The event is intended to evaluate the industry's pace of transition from DOT-117 railcars to DOT-117 cars. The agenda says the day's second discussion topic is tank car retrofit logistics and capacity and "what is the industry's current capability to pursue an aggres
That section sets the dates by which railcars used to transport Class 3 hazardous liquids may no longer be used unless they meet the DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R specifications. For transporting unrefined petroleum products in Class 3 flammable service, including crude oil, Jan. 1, 2018, is the end date for non-jacketed DOT-111 tank cars. It is March 1, 2018, for jacketed DOT-111 tank cars; April 1, 2020, for non-jacketed CPC-1232 tank cars; and May 1, 2025, for jacketed CPC-1232 tank cars. For transporting ethanol, the end date is May 1, 2023, for non-jacketed and jacketed DOT-111 tank cars; July 1, 2023, for non-jacketed CPC-1232 tank cars; and May 1, 2025, for jacketed CPC-1232 tank cars.
Roundtable participants will include representatives of many rail organizations, including the Association of American Railroads, GBW Railcar Services, American Railcar Leasing, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Wells Fargo Rail, and AllTranstek LLC. The Federal Railroad Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Railway Association of Canada, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada also will have representatives participating, according to the list of participants included in the agenda.
The roundtable is free and open to the public to observe and no registration is necessary; in addition, the event will be webcast live and an archive of the webcast will be available afterward at http://stream.capitolconnection.org/capcon/ntsb/ntsb.htm. The Twitter hashtag for the event is #NTSBMWL.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/07/11/ntsb-tank-car-agenda.aspx?admgarea=news
-
NTSB On Why They Didn't Respond to Mosier: Been There, Done That
Jul 11, 2016 | Patch
By Colin Miner
Been there. Done that.
That's the basic summary of a nearly 50-page response from the National Transportation Safety Board to questions from Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkely who wanted to know why didn't the agency send an investigative team to probe the oil train derailment and inferno outside of Mosier.
More than a dozen of a more than 90-car train carrying Bakkan crude oil from New Town, North Dakota to Spokane, Washington derailed.
Several of the cars burned - sending flames and smoke into the air that could be seen for miles.
The disaster wreaked havoc on the town of Mosier, forcing evacuations for some and forcing others to forego showers and flushing toilets for days.
While many agencies sent representatives to investigate the disaster and oversee the clean-up, one agency was conspicuously absent - the NTSB.
So, Oregon's senators - Wyden and Merkley - wrote to the NTSB wanting to know why.
"This information indicated that the circumstances of this accident did not pose any new significant safety issues," the agency wrote back.
"The tank cars were breached in a manner similar to those
that we have seen in other accident investigations."In other words, the agency had seen enough oil train crashes that they felt they were not going to learn anything new from this one.
And, the agency said, it's not like they weren't paying attention. They told the senators that they are keeping in touch with the Federal Railroad Administration in case there are "any new significant safety issues."
The agency says that they have already seen similar issues in several previous investigations including ones in New Brighton, Pennsylvania and Columbus Ohio.
On top of that, the agency's response pointed to a bigger problem: even if they wanted to send someone, it would have been hard.
A major factor in deciding not to send a crew to Mosier was the "limited resources and the current investigative workload in the Office Of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Investigations (RPH)," the NTSB wrote.
The NTSB has 13 railroad investigators on staff," the agency says. That includes three each "for the specialties of track, signal and train control, and motive power and equipment. In addition, there are four specialists in railroad operations.
"A typical launch team is composed of an investigator-in-charge (IIC) and an investigator from each of the specialty areas. Therefore, a launch requires the resources of 5 to 7 investigators (plus many other staff during the course of the investigation)."
The NTSB says that there are 23 open investigations in the Railroad Division and 4 open investigations in the Hazardous Materials Division.
Given those numbers, the NTSB points out that, to put it mildly, they are stretched thin.
Wyden tells Patch this is not acceptable.
"I find it very disturbing that the NTSB did not appear to have enough resources to send an investigative team to Oregon to more closely examine the Mosier accident," he said. "I will be scrutinizing whether the size of NTSB’s investigative staff should be increased."
http://patch.com/oregon/gresham/ntsb-why-they-didnt-respond-mosier-been-there-done
-
Clinton Campaign Rejects Dem Plan for Carbon Tax
Jul 11, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is stepping away from a plank in the Democratic platform endorsing a price for greenhouse gas emissions.
In a concession to supporters of Clinton’s primary rival, Bernie Sanders, the party platform committee this weekend embraced language calling for a tax on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a measure some environmentalists and greens see as key to cutting down on climate change-causing emissions.
Clinton, though, has not said she supports such a policy, and her personal climate change plan does not include a carbon tax of any kind.
After the platform committee met this weekend, one of her advisers repeated that she won’t push the measure as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
“Her plan is clearly articulated on her website," Clinton energy policy adviser Trevor Houser said, The Associated Press reports. "It's not her plan."
A carbon tax was one of a few specific environmental priorities Sanders supporters looked to attach to the Democratic platform. The final language on climate issues says that, “carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases should be priced” to reflect their impact on the economy.
The platform supports expanding renewable energy, calls for more regulation of hydraulic fracturing and sets several goals for reducing emissions and expanding clean energy. Clinton supports those measures, though she has resisted the call for imposing a carbon tax.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287223-clinton-campaign-carbon-price-is-not-her-plan
-
The Democrats' Climate Change Conundrum
Jul 6, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor (In Real Clear Energy)
By Henry Gass
Climate change is a top liberal priority, but that very urgency is making the issue divisive as much as unifying for Democrats.
A wide rift has opened over a basic question: Just how ambitious should the Democratic Party be in trying to reduce carbon emissions and stabilize Earth’s climate?
Dueling views emerged recently as Hillary Clinton delegates faced off against Bernie Sanders delegates in crafting the party’s draft 2016 platform. Provisions pushed by the Sanders camp calling for a carbon tax and a ban on “fracking” failed to pass. The full platform committee meets in Orlando Friday and Saturday, and Senator Sanders is hoping for amendments.
The debate pits younger Democrats against older ones, and fans of political pragmatism against those who say the climate challenge is too urgent for incremental policy steps.
But behind the clash is also a trend of rising concern. Climate change has never been more prominent as a political issue – about two-thirds of Americans say they care a “great deal” or a “fair amount” about climate change, the highest percentage since 2008. And, in contrast with Republicans, more than 80 percent of Democrats – Clinton voters included – are concerned about climate change.
The question for Democrats is not whether to ramp up the effort on climate policy, but how and how rapidly.
“It’s a tough issue for both sides to talk about, but particularly for the left side to talk about,” says David Hopkins, a political scientist at Boston College. “When you get down to the specific policies, especially policies like a carbon tax [that] impose costs on voters, then it becomes an uncomfortable topic.”
How bold is bold?
Democrats learned this last week when various members of the committee drafting the party platform criticized one another over the climate policies articulated – and not articulated – in the draft.
Drafting the official party platform has traditionally been how political parties heal and form a united front for the general election. Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that fact by giving Sanders an outsized influence in draftingthe platform. While the drafting committee is usually controlled by the leading candidate and the party establishment, Sanders was allowed to name five members. (The Clinton campaign named six others, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, named four).
One of Sanders’s delegates is Bill McKibben, a climate activist and founder of the environmental advocacy group 350.org, who last Monday wrote in Politico that the Clinton campaign was “obstructing change to the Democratic platform,” particularly on climate policies. In particular, he highlighted how two of his proposals – to call for a carbon tax and a ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the platform – were voted down 7 to 6.
“The Clinton campaign is at this point rhetorically committed to taking on our worst problems, but not willing to say how. Which is the slightly cynical way politicians have addressed issues for too long,” he wrote.
Two days later, one of Clinton’s delegates on the drafting committee, Carol Browner, shot back with her own Politico column.
“It’s perfectly fair to debate the best way to achieve our shared goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius this century,” she wrote. “But debating the merits of different policy solutions is quite different from setting up a litmus test for what it takes to be ‘serious’ about climate change.”
Even without the fracking and carbon tax amendments, she added, the draft is “the boldest climate vision ever to appear in our party’s platform,” calling for an accelerated transition to clean energy, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80 percent by 2050 while drawing half the country’s electricity from clean energy sources.The young hawks
But this approach may not pass muster with climate hawks who increasingly see climate change not as a political or policy issue, but as an urgent existential one.
“There’s been progress made, and I’m happy to see that, but that doesn’t mean I’m satisfied,” says Adam Hasz, executive coordinator for SustainUS, a youth-led environmental advocacy group.
“I don’t think on climate we can afford a middle ground,” adds Avery Raines, the group’s environmental advocacy fellow. “Americans cannot afford to compromise in any way.”
This may not jibe with the traditions of political pragmatism and compromise that most politicians – including Clinton, who has billed herself as a “pragmatic progressive” – are used to. But climate change is not an ordinary political issue, says Mr. Hasz.
“This isn’t a fight over politics, this is a fight over physics, and the climate policy ambitions right now don’t acknowledge that,” he adds. “Climate is not like other issues where you can solve it [over] 50 years. We have one shot, [and] we’re perilously close to missing that shot.”The 'yes, but' Democrats
There may not be enough Democrats who share those beliefs to sway the rest of the party, however.
Eighty-four percent of Democrats are concerned about climate change, but younger voters may be more accepting of the financial costs of aggressive climate action than most others, according to Barry Rabe, director of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan.
“It’s a group that, compared to the average person, is substantially more concerned about climate change and has less invested currently in paying energy bills on a weekly or daily basis,” he adds. “They’re more likely to see an advantage, they’re less likely to face a direct cost.”
Compare this to lower-income and working class Democrats and you start to see why these intraparty differences may be so insurmountable.
Those groups “may feel that they are less prepared to pay the cost that might be part of the ways of mitigating climate change,” says Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. “A lot of these individuals will know it’s a problem – and they want something done – but they’re reticent to support policies that might entail substantial cost and possible peril to their employment.”
Whether climate change will play a prominent role in the general election is unclear. For years, the issue has been perennially subordinate to more immediate concerns, like the economy and national security. What is certain is that there will continue to be a vocal minority dissatisfied with American climate action.
“This was going to be a long-term thing no matter what,” says R.L. Miller, co-founder of Climate Hawks Vote. “There will always be people pushing for more.”
[Editor's note: This story has been corrected to clarify that, as of the date of publication, the Democratic platform had not yet been settled.]
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0706/The-Democrats-climate-change-conundrum
-
A Reverse Course on Climate Lurking in the House Spending Bill
Jul 11, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Henry A. Waxman
American air and water are cleaner since the first serious environmental laws in the U.S. were passed in the 1970s. This is a great American success story that I hope is not undone by hidden and misunderstood legislation now being considered in Congress.
The House of Representatives will soon take up an appropriations bill that threatens to reverse decades of progress in cleaning our air and water, cutting programs necessary to curb climate change such as the Clean Power Plan and ignoring the pollution from burning wood for energy. What was once an American success story could easily become undone if significant changes aren’t made before the bill reaches the President’s desk.
The first major flaw included in the Fiscal Year 2017 Departments of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill is a provision that would block implementation of the Waters of the United States or Clean Water rule, which is designed to protect drinking water for over 100 million people. At a time when cities around the country fear their water supplies becoming as contaminated as those in Flint, we need to improve clean water protections, not roll them back.
Second, the bill slams the brake on carbon pollution cuts by blocking the Clean Power Plan. This program has been crafted to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, the largest source of climate-related pollution in the U.S.
California’s devastating wildfires and ongoing drought, West Virginia’s tragic floods, and severe weather around the country show the urgency of action on climate change. And NASA data indicates that 2016 will be the hottest year on record – surpassing heat records set in 2014 and broken again in 2015. We need to do more to combat climate change, not undo some of the first steps of climate action.
Lastly, and most incredibly, the House bill includes a little-known provision that would altogether ignore the carbon pollution emitted by burning biomass—trees and other wood products—to generate power.
Logging companies claim that biomass burned for power is “carbon neutral” – thus, not yielding a net pollution increase. They claim that growing new trees absorbs enough carbon pollution to offset the emissions created by burning mature trees. In effect, they assert that wood power is as clean as solar or wind electricity. This is simply not true. The reality is that burning biomass to generate electricity can produce more carbon pollution than it saves by replacing coal.
This biomass loophole would increase carbon pollution at a time when it is imperative that we reduce it. New trees require up to a century of growth to absorb enough carbon dioxide to offset pollution from mature tree combustion. Worse, there is no guarantee that replacement trees planted today to offset the pollution will survive that long. And even if the new trees eventually offset this pollution after a century, climate change is happening now. We can’t wait.
Taken together, the biomass loophole and halting the Clean Power Plan would undercut the pollution reductions necessary to fulfill the United States’ commitment as part of the Paris Climate Agreement. If we undermine our pledge, other nations might too. This would further amplify the threat to us from extreme weather, smog and tropical diseases linked to climate change.
We’ve seen this movie before: the House passes a spending bill loaded with dozens of harmful budget cuts and anti-environment riders. It faces a certain presidential veto. And at the brink of a government shutdown, the House relents by restoring funds and removing riders.
The House can cut to the chase by promptly eliminating the anti-environment provisions in the Interior spending bill before debate begins this week, and before President Obama issues his veto threat.
Henry A. Waxman spent 40 years serving in the House of Representatives. He served as chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and was a lead author of the landmark Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. He currently serves as Chairman of Waxman Strategies.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/287119-a-reverse-course-on-climate-lurking-in-the-house
-
Threatened Oil Industry Rethinks Climate Stance
Jul 11, 2016 | Politico
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
Facing the increasing likelihood of a Hillary Clinton presidency, growing attacks from liberals and its own divides over a potential carbon tax, the oil industry is rethinking its political strategy on climate change.
The American Petroleum Institute is making quiet efforts to revamp its climate messaging, creating a task force that could revisit the industry’s long-held opposition to taxing greenhouse gas emissions. Many in the politically powerful industry believe that such a levy could be on the table if Clinton wins in November, especially if Democrats retake the Senate. The Democratic party's Sunday endorsement of a carbon price in its platform promises to fuel that speculation further.
The API task force — which POLITICO first reported last month — comes as the industry faces a fierce campaign by climate activist groups who want federal regulators to block additional drilling and keep fossil fuels in the ground. That includes an escalating effort to target ExxonMobil, the nation's biggest oil company, which faces investigations by attorneys general in three states and the U.S. Virgin Islands over its public statements on climate change.
Also weighing on Big Oil is a two-year collapse in global prices, the Obama administration’s environmental regulations and the international climate agreement that the U.S. negotiated last year in Paris — further signs of how much political ground has shifted under the industry’s feet since the days of "drill, baby, drill" less than a decade ago.
"The political environment has shifted so dramatically with Paris, with the 'keep it in the ground' campaign having controlled the conversation, with a president making climate change policy part of his legacy," one oil industry official said. "So it makes sense for API to be reviewing its approach to climate."
Clinton has promised to build on President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, in contrast to Donald Trump’s pledges to repeal the administration’s climate regulations and repudiate the Paris deal. Over the weekend, Clinton's campaign reached a deal with Sanders backers and environmentalists to add language to the Democratic platform calling for establishing a price on carbon, although the word "tax" was conspicuously left out.
Clinton energy adviser Trevor Houser distanced the Democratic nominee-in-waiting from the platform's carbon-pricing language, however, telling the Associated Press that taxing carbon is "not her plan."
The petroleum group is kicking off its review by convening a task force to consider updating its message on climate change, which four industry sources say is expected to take a broad look at the debate. Its creation stemmed from discussions among API’s executive committee members at a meeting last month, according to one source.
"We’re at the point in the election cycle where people are speaking in very broad strokes here," said Bruce Thompson, president of another industry group called the American Exploration & Production Council, who was not a party to the task force's creation. "Before we’re for or against or anything like that, we’d want to know what we’re talking about."
Thompson declined to take a firm position on a carbon tax before any concrete proposals emerge.
The industry’s harshest critics are unconvinced that oil companies will embrace a change of heart. "Considering that they've so far taken out one ice cap and much of the world's coral, I guess a task force would be in order," said climate activist Bill McKibben, who led the successful campaign to kill the Keystone XL oil pipeline and served as one of Sanders' representatives on the Democratic National Committee's platform-writing panel.
Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, called the action "more evidence that the politics of climate change have shifted and that proponents of addressing climate change are clearly winning." But she said the industry needs to do more than talk about climate change.
"It remains to be seen if this task force prompts badly needed changes in how API spends money on lobbying and elections," she said.
API spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel declined to confirm the plans for the task force. "We assess all of our priority issues on a regular basis," he said in an email.
Some in the industry see the task force as the brainchild of Exxon, a powerful API member that is fighting allegations from climate activists that it misled the public and its investors about decades of internal research that documented the threat of climate change. An Exxon spokesman did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Exxon is also an outlier among U.S.-based oil companies in supporting at least the concept of taxing fossil fuels’ carbon emissions in return for easing other regulations on the industry. European-based oil majors BP and Shell also back a carbon tax as preferable to the litany of new rules Obama has slapped on drillers and refiners. But Chevron and the politically active Koch Industries vehemently oppose the idea.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Democratic leader-in-waiting, has said his party could pursue a carbon tax if Clinton wins the White House. But Clinton hasn’t publicly embraced the suggestion, and her appointees to the DNC platform committee voted down an earlier, more direct carbon tax proposal by Sanders backers.
One source told POLITICO the task force is an attempt to preempt further discord within the industry over the best approach to addressing global warming — and to avoid a repeat of public split that erupted a year ago when API pushed to end to the prohibition on U.S. crude oil exports. Congress ultimately lifted that 40-year-old ban, but not before oil producers who wanted to sell their oil abroad butted heads with small oil refiners who feared that exports would increase their prices.
According to a third industry source, the task force will give companies an opportunity to develop a unified defense against the legal attacks on Exxon. While a carbon tax is likely to play into the discussions, this source said he doubted that the divided membership would come to a consensus on the issue. Other industry officials similarly doubted that the task force will yield a dramatic shift in the industry's approach to climate change.
House Republicans have attempted to head off the carbon tax discussion before it begins. Last month, the House approved a non-binding resolution, largely along party lines, underscoring its opposition to the policy. Exxon took no position on that vote.
If the industry ever supports a carbon tax, it would probably be predicated on the elimination of a series of climate change-related regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Interior Department. Exactly which regulations to target — and whether Democrats can be persuaded to eliminate them — would be one likely topic for the task force.
The split among API’s members over how and whether to tackle climate change opened in 2009, when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson first endorsed a carbon tax as “a more transparent and a more effective” means to cut greenhouse gases than the cap-and-trade bill that Obama supported. But that bill died, and Obama spent the bulk of his first term pursuing an "all-of-the-above" energy policy that included support for offshore drilling and much praise for the U.S. natural gas boom.
But Obama’s second-term hawkishness on climate change has deepened the oil industry's schism, particularly after six major European oil companies last year urged U.N. climate negotiators in Paris to push “governments across the world” for a price on carbon. Four of the six are members of API, through their U.S. subsidiaries.
API President Jack Gerard has acknowledged that the industry has conflicting opinions over how to talk about and make policy on climate, telling reporters last year that there are “different views within our industry as to how that should be addressed.” The group’s lack of a black-or-white position on a carbon tax is not without precedent. API also has stayed neutral on whether to increase the gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure projects, as Gerard told reporters last year.
Last month's symbolic House vote to condemn the idea of a carbon tax, however, pulled those tensions into the open.
API told Bloomberg that it would take no position on the House proposal, echoing Exxon's stance. The group told POLITICO that it's "had a long history opposing carbon taxes," declining to address whether its position had changed.
Exxon has repeatedly touted its support for a carbon tax in a bid to counter attacks from Democrats and environmentalists over allegations that it misled the public about its internal climate research. The company scored a victory last month when the Virgin Islands' top law enforcement official withdrew a broad subpoena against the oil giant, but state AGs continue to circle the company.
Activists said their campaign against the industry will continue regardless of any tweaks API may make to its messaging.
"Talk is cheap and it'll take a lot more action for this to look like anything other than a desperate charade," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said.
A version of this story was published on POLITICO Pro on June 28.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/oil-industry-climate-change-225369
-
Climate Activism Raises Stakes for Conference
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Senate Democrats will take the floor starting tonight to call out fossil fuel industry-funded groups that they say have "fashioned a web of denial to block action on climate change."
The talkathon, scheduled to stretch through the week, could coincide with a Senate vote to launch negotiations with the House on energy reform legislation that environmentalists have deemed a radical giveaway to polluters (E&E Daily, June 29).
Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) needs to overcome doubts from Democrats who say the bill contains proposals that are not bipartisan and therefore are doomed to fail. Influential green groups, like the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters, claim that rejecting the current House offer is essential to protect against harm to the environment.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of the 19 senators delivering climate speeches, will file a resolution today accusing fossil fuel companies of using "a sophisticated and deceitful campaign" to erode public understanding of climate change to protect their interests.
"We stand with the climate champions in Congress who are shining a badly-needed light on the nefarious activities of the Koch brothers and other Big Polluters," LCV President Gene Karpinski said in a statement expressing support for the senators' action.
"For far too long, they have [misled] the public on the scientific consensus surrounding climate change and tried to block efforts to address it," Karpinski added, calling the resolution and floor speeches a "critically important step" in educating the public.
Another vocal critic of fossil fuel companies, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), will host a screening of "Merchants of Doubt" tonight on Capitol Hill (E&E Daily, July 11). Lieu is introducing the House version of the so-called web-of-denial resolution, and Whitehouse will deliver a speech at the documentary showing.
The climate activism raises more questions about whether 60 senators will vote to go to conference on the energy bill.
As Congress counts down this week to a seven-week recess, Murkowski has been working with ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to set up a framework for reconciling differences with the House on the Senate's legislation (S. 2012). Murkowski hoped staff could start working during the summer break.
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Greenwire this morning that no vote is currently scheduled.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/11/stories/1060040071
-
Another Inconvenient Truth: It’s Hard to Agree How to Fight Climate Change
Jul 11, 2016 | New York Times
By John C. Schwartz
By just about any measure, the movement to battle climate change has grown so large that the truths of Al Gore’s decade-old movie now seem more mainstream than inconvenient.
In Paris in December, 195 nationsagreed to reduce greenhouse gases. In the United States, 70 percent of Americans say that climate change is real. Pope Francis has joined the call for action. Hundreds of thousands of people have come together for climate marches in Paris and New York, and demonstrators recently held fossil-fuel protests on six continents.
“That’s what I call momentum,” Daniel R. Tishman, the chairman of the board of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in its recentannual report. “This isn’t just the wind at our backs; these are the winds of change.”
But the movement that started with a straightforward mission — to get more people to appreciate the dangers of climate change as a precursor to action — is feeling growing pains. What may seem like a unified front has pronounced schisms, with conflicting opinions on many issues, including nuclear power and natural gas, that are complicating what it means to be an environmentalist in this day and age.
The factional boundaries are not hard and fast, with groups shifting their positions as the science and waves of activism evolve. The environmental movement has always been a congregation of many voices, and some disagreement should be expected on such complex and intractable problems as saving the planet. Still, the tensions remain strong.
Consider some of the biggest points of contention:
Nuclear power
There are sharp disagreements over whether nuclear plants should be part of the energy mix to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Disasters like that at the Fukushima plant in Japan have undercut confidence in the technology, but it remains attractive to the Obama administrationand many in the environmental movement, including James E. Hansen, a retired NASA climate scientist.
Supporters argue that nuclear plants can produce enormous amounts of power without the carbon dioxide that burning coal and natural gas produce. They also point out that the energy sources replacing existing plants tend to come from natural gas, causing greenhouse emissions. That was the case in New England when the Vermont Yankee plant was shut down, and in California after the closing of the plant at San Onofre.
California has decided to wind down the Diablo Canyon reactors by 2025, a lengthy transition that could allow a buildup of renewable energy sources to replace the lost power. The nuclear power debate extends to questions of whether to develop a new generation of plants that supporters say would be less expensive and safer, or whether to extend the lives of existing plants.
Opponents of nuclear energy argue that the move to renewable energy sources would not require a new generation of nuclear plants. Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard historian who has written about the tactics of those who spread doubt about climate change, said proponents of nuclear power had not proved that the risks of operating the plants, and the waste they produce, could be managed.
“We all agree that there is urgency to this matter,” she said in an email interview. “So do we really want to bet the planet (literally) on a technology with such a bad track record? And that even when it works takes decades to build?”
She has called the pronuclear arguments from environmentalists “a new, strange form of denial,” pointedly using a word associated with those who have disputed the validity of climate science itself.
Natural gas
Burning natural gas produces less carbon dioxide and smog-producing pollutants than burning coal, so environmental groups such as theSierra Club and even President Obama once praised it as a “bridge” to renewable fuels: that natural gas plants could replace coal plants until alternate sources like solar and wind power could take over.
More recently, however, the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which is used to extract fossil fuels, and growing worries about the greenhouse gas methane, which often leaks when natural gas is produced and transported, have led many scientists and activists to call natural gas a “bridge to nowhere.” (The Sierra Club now has a “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign.)
Climate campaigners like Bill McKibben have argued that the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, might make it worse than coal. He has described those who favor natural gas as a way to reduce greenhouse emissions as believers in “painless environmentalism, the equivalent of losing weight by cutting your hair.”
The fight has made its way into the Democratic campaign for the presidency: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a national ban on fracking, while Hillary Clinton has suggested that the technology should be carefully regulated and that, if natural gas is a bridge to alternate energy sources, “we want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible.” Those putting together the Democratic Party platform narrowly rejected the call for a ban.F
Fossil-fuel companies
Two distinct camps have emerged on the best strategy for dealing with companies like Exxon Mobil. One camp wants to attack their very existence, and to hurt their businesses and reputations as a way of accelerating the transition to renewable technologies like wind and solar.
Universities and institutional shareholders like pensions and church endowments are being pressed to sell their stock in fossil-fuel companies, to fight projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and todisrupt construction of fossil-fuel facilities.
This approach animates the “keep it in the ground” campaign led by groups like Mr. McKibben’s 350.org, which argues that many of today’s fuel reserves are “unburnable” if climate change is to be slowed, and so must be considered “stranded assets” — a notion that oil giants likeExxon Mobil and Chevron reject.
On the other side is the camp that wants to engage with the companies, particularly through shareholder proxies, to push for action on climate change.
Groups like the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, as well as New York State and City officials, recently presented at Exxon Mobil’s annual shareholder meeting proposals that would require the company to assess the business risks of meeting the Paris climate goalsand to “acknowledge the moral imperative” to keep global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since the start of the industrial era; they also helped to pass a resolution giving shareholders greater say in corporate governance.
Shareholder action has improved corporate responsibility on many fronts, said Sister Patricia Daly, a Dominican sister of Caldwell, N.J., who is the executive director of the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment.
“Companies know the work we have put on their desk is beneficial,” she said in a recent interview, and cited the emergence of sustainability directors and efforts by many companies to reduce their emissions. “I’m confident we have really initiated that over the decades,” she said.
Insiders vs. outsiders
More fundamentally, a split is growing between the large, traditional environmental groups that try to work with companies and the scrappy campaigners who stand proudly outside.
Naomi Klein, an author on environmental and economic issues, has sharply criticized what she called “a very deep denialism in the environmental movement among the big green groups,” like theEnvironmental Defense Fund, which has worked with fossil-fuel companies to research methane leaks and to pursue market-based solutions to the climate crisis, like putting a price on carbon.
Ms. Klein argues that capitalism inherently worsens climate change. Working within the system as the institutional players do, she has said, is “more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we’ve lost.”
Mr. McKibben said the kind of noisy activism that characterizes the work of organizations like 350.org helps correct what he sees as the institutional inertia of the established groups. He said the lack of mass-movement activism was a key reason behind the failure of legislation like the 2010 effort to develop a system to limit and put a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
“If we’re going to win the climate fight, it will come with a change in the zeitgeist,” he said. “And that — not particular pieces of legislation — is the ultimate point of building movements.”
Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, disagreed. Working with industry, he said, had helped deepen the understanding of such issues as methane leakage, which could produce remedies.
“More and more businesses want to be part of the solution,” Mr. Krupp said. Collaborative efforts helped lead to last month’s bipartisan passage of an overhaul of toxic substances legislation, he said, adding, “And we’re getting close to being able to do it with climate change.”
Given these fault lines on various issues, a question naturally arises: Are they hurting the overall environmental movement?
Even on that question, there are disagreements.
For Matthew Nisbet, an expert in environmental communications at Northeastern University, there is a risk that differences of opinion within the movement could lead to greater enmity over time, resulting in a lack of focus. Progress could be lost, he said, “if they start to see each other as rivals and opponents, and they lose sight of broader climate goals and their true opponents.”
But many in the various factions of the movement say that there is more agreement than it may seem from afar.
Mr. Krupp said that although tactics and technologies may differ, consensus has emerged on many points.
“We have to keep most of the fossil fuels in the ground,” he said. “We all agree with that. The math dictates that. We all agree that the conversion to clean energy should be as quick as possible.” Of natural gas, he said, “it’s an exit ramp, not a bridge.”
The movement to combat climate change is building an even bigger tent as more nations, businesses, religious groups and even conservatives have committed to dealing with the threat of rising seas and changing weather.
The number of Republicans speaking out in favor of climate action is growing, with the emergence of climate-oriented conservative groups like R Street and the efforts of Jay Faison, a philanthropist who has pledged millions of dollars to support candidates willing to buck the party’s orthodoxy on climate change.
Ellen Dorsey, the executive director of the Wallace Global Fund, which has promoted the divestment of fossil-fuel holdings and investment in cleaner technologies, has called disagreements within the green camp “noises around the margin.” She predicted that a combination of high-level collaboration and street-level activism would hold governments to their Paris climate pledges and push back against recalcitrant business interests.
Ultimately, Mr. Gore said in a recent telephone interview, economics may accomplish much of what governments have so far failed to do. Plunging costs of renewable energy make it more competitive than ever with fossil fuels. Similarly, the former vice president said, the biggest obstacle for nuclear power could be the expense of building new reactors.
“I don’t have a theological opposition to nuclear power,” he said. “It’s simply not cost competitive.”
Mr. Gore said that tensions among climate change activists follow the traditions of the civil rights movement, abolition, women’s suffrage and gay and lesbian rights. “In all such movements, there have been schisms, and minor splits as well,” he added. “It’s just a natural feature of the human condition.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/science/climate-change-movement.html?_r=0
-
Under Pressure, State to Propose Cap-and-Trade Changes
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California regulators tomorrow will issue proposed revisions to the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases intended to extend the market through 2030 and resolve oversupply issues.
The adjustments to the program are significant. They would set a new 2030 emissions target; set up new linkages to other markets, such as Ontario, Canada's; and establish new policies for what to do with unsold carbon allowances, a move seemingly aimed at reducing a current oversupply that has cut into anticipated state revenues.
But the move comes amid unusual circumstances, with questions swirling about the legality of future carbon regulations. State lawmakers, businesses and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) are currently in the middle of negotiations to cement the authority that the landmark cap-and-trade system depends on.
Observers say the California Air Resources Board's (ARB) proposal to "revise the requirements for unsold allowances and vintages available in the current auction" could increase demand for copious supplies that are currently causing low demand at state-run auctions (ClimateWire, May 27). One way to increase demand for the allowances could be to allow them to be used in the post-2020 trading period.
"The solution to pollution is dilution," said Danny Cullenward, a research associate at the Carnegie Institution for Science. However, he said, tweaking market rules could hurt perceptions of the program's environmental integrity. "If pre-2020 allowances can be used after 2020, we'd be solving the short-term oversupply problem at the expense of post-2020 market integrity."
Other proposed amendments would provide for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, allocate allowances to businesses in order to prevent emissions from escaping state borders, and streamline how emitters register and participate in auctions.
ARB plans to consider the amendments at a board meeting in September before formally adopting them sometime in the spring of 2017.
The supermajority question
State regulators who are pushing ahead with reforms to cap and trade say they would like to work with lawmakers but don't think legislative authority is necessary, as Brown set a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in an executive order last year.
But lawmakers failed to pass the bill extending carbon targets through 2030, S.B. 32, on their first attempt last year, and Republican state senators commissioned a legal opinion finding that they may need legislative authority beyond Brown's order (ClimateWire, April 25).
A central question in legislative negotiations with oil companies and others is whether S.B. 32 requires a two-thirds vote. A supermajority would insulate it against legal challenges citing Proposition 26, a 2010 constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes or fees (ClimateWire, June 16). The bill as currently written does not explicitly authorize the use of cap and trade, as the 2006 law, A.B. 32, did.
Players behind the scenes say that Brown and lawmakers are split on whether a two-thirds vote is necessary or even possible without giving up major concessions.
A spokeswoman for Brown said last week that he was working on extending the targets legislatively.
"We will not meet our world-leading clean air and emission reduction targets unless we solidify and redouble our commitment to the state's cap-and-trade program and climate goals beyond 2020, and we will work hard to get that done," said Deborah Hoffman. "An extension will not only provide market certainty but will ensure ongoing funding for clean energy programs, especially in vulnerable communities."
But the funding -- currently required to go toward activities that reduce greenhouse gases, including Brown's pet high-speed rail project -- could be one of the hostages in negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups.
A transportation trade-off?
Another policy that could be on the table is a trading program for low-carbon transportation fuels, known as the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Environmentalists consider that a major plank in the state's climate platform that might not be worth giving up in exchange for a supermajority.
"If the oil industry's not going to allow a two-thirds vote to occur unless the LCFS is on the table, then you're essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul," said Alex Jackson, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's California climate program.
The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents some two dozen oil companies, including BP PLC, Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC and ConocoPhillips Co., is in favor of lawmakers having a greater say in climate policies.
"On behalf of California's oil and gas industry, WSPA has been engaged in ongoing talks with the Administration to improve the state's current climate change programs," WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement. "As vested stakeholders in this process, we are serious and committed to improving the state's current programs and ensuring legislative oversight concerning the decisions that will determine California's next course of action to combat climate change."
However, one person familiar with the negotiations, who asked not to be identified, said he or she was skeptical that oil groups would accept anything Brown would be willing to offer, and that their real goal is to scuttle extension of cap and trade.
"This is the heart of the fact, that they’re trying to build a narrative that this program is not doing what it set out to do," the person said.
Oil industry-connected groups have been promoting that cap and trade is flawed or in trouble. Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy last month sent an email linking to a Los Angeles Times story with the headline "California's cap-and-trade program faces daunting hurdles to avoid collapse." The story talked about low interest in the last sale of allowances. CARE in the email said that it wasn't unusual "but rather an ongoing trend."
CARE two weeks later said on Twitter: "Where did all of California's clean air money go? See the waste". The tweet linked to a CARE website that talked about the spending of cap-and-trade revenues, headlined "Here’s how California is wasting our clean air opportunities."
A 2014 WSPA document released by the Washington Research Council showed that CARE is one of multiple coalitions partly funded by WSPA.
ARB also faces pressure from representatives of poor and minority communities that have long-standing grievances against cap and trade for allowing businesses to avoid reducing emissions at the source. The agency's Environmental Justice Advisory Committee is putting on meetings around the state to educate residents and take comments about the state's plans through 2030. The first meeting is tonight in San Bernardino.
Reporter Anne C. Mulkern contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/07/11/stories/1060040045
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested