Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/1/2016
-
(ACC Blog) Live! From #ACCaugust Round 2 – 2016
Aug 1, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
During the August recess, ACC’s Political Mobilization activities will be in full swing! Once again, we’ll be fanning out across the country to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative called #ACCaugust. -
(ACC Mentioned) Young Leaders Push for Sustainability
Aug 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
If you’re looking for insight into the future of the plastics industry, the young people featured in this week’s Rising Stars special report are an excellent place to start. -
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine Can Speak Spanish. Do Latino Voters Care?
Aug 1, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Nigel Duara, Cindy Carcamo and Jazmine Ulloa
...She watched those dynamics play out in 2000, when she helped Cal Dooley, a white New Democrat from Visalia, beat Republican Rich Rodriguez in one of the most fiercely contested U.S. House races in the state that year... -
Firms Tout Resilience, Cost-Cutting in Difficult Quarter
Aug 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
The long stretch of low oil and energy costs left its footprint on chemical company earnings in the second quarter as companies were forced to pass those savings on to their customers in the form of lower prices. But some sectors—particularly consumer specialties... -
Americans Face an Irreversible Rollback in Chemical Safety
Jul 28, 2016 | Roll Call
By Linda Reinstein
Nearly forty years ago, Congress recognized the dire need to protect the public from toxic chemicals with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. This landmark law gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate industrial chemicals... -
What Congress Did and Didn’t Do This Year: Accomplishments and Unfinished Business
Aug 1, 2016 | AP (In the Davis County Clipper)
...Toxic Substance: Republicans and Democrats agreed on the first overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act since it was approved in 1976. The law updates rules for tens of thousands of everyday chemicals, sets safety standards for dangerous chemicals... -
California Adds Bromodichloroacetic Acid to Prop 65
Aug 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed bromodichloroacetic acid on Proposition 65 as a substance known to the state to cause cancer. -
RGGI Market Status Report Points to CPP Compliance
Aug 1, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The first of a two-part status report demonstrates that "states within RGGI have done better since the program's launch than states that have yet to act," said Peter Shattuck, director of the Acadia Center's Clean Energy Initiative. -
Face the Facts: BLM Methane Rules Needed, Have Wide Bipartisan Support
Aug 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein
It’s unfortunate that a partisan group of Congressional representatives recently tried to turn back the clock on new rules from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management that can protect taxpayers and local communities from the needless waste of our natural gas resources... -
Is the Future of Green Energy Decided by Politicians?
Aug 1, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jacob Bayer
The U.S energy policy has been a hot button issue for a very long time, especially because big oil, coal tycoons and other energy giants constantly fund political campaigns to protect their interests. -
POLITICO Pro New York: PSC Votes to Approve Renewable Mandate with Nuclear Subsidy
Aug 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Scott Waldman
The state Public Service Commission has approved an energy policy that mandates New York receive half of its power from renewable energy by 2030 and that offers billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear energy industry. -
Pacific Northwest Weighs Response to Risks Posed by Oil Trains
Jul 31, 2016 | New York Times
By Kirk Johnson
...From ballot boxes to the governors’ desks in Oregon and Washington, a corner of the nation that seemed poised only a few years ago to become a new energy hub is now gripped by a debate over whether transporting volatile, hazardous crude oil by rail through cities... -
Climate Change Divide Bursts to Forefront in Presidential Campaign
Aug 1, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
During the 2012 race for president, the issue ofclimate change was nearly invisible. President Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, almost never spoke about it, and it did not come up during their debates. There was far more talk of ramping up oil and gas... -
Can California Tune Up Its Climate Strategy Before It’s Too Late?
Aug 1, 2016 | Sacramento Bee
By Editorial Board
As Philadelphia baked and wildfires roared like the apocalypse in California, Gov. Jerry Brown last week called on the nation to remember the impact this presidential election could have on climate change. -
EPA Pushes Back Against Foes of New Ozone Standards
Aug 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Rational and well within the bounds of what's required by the latest scientific evidence. That's the crux of U.S. EPA's legal defense of the 70 parts per billion ozone standards put in place last October as the agency parries competing lawsuits brought by business groups and...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Live! From #ACCaugust Round 2 – 2016
Aug 1, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
During the August recess, ACC’s Political Mobilization activities will be in full swing! Once again, we’ll be fanning out across the country to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative called #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members of Congress to raise awareness of the vital importance of our industry and showcase the economic benefits of the business of chemistry where it matters the most—in their districts.
Keep checking back on our progress here on our blog (read our 2016 preview post), on our new Twitter account @AmChemMatters, or our Facebook page. Participate in the experience by joining the conversation using the hashtags #ACCaugust and #ChemistryMatters.
Take the #ACCaugust tour with us! Zoom in and out and pan around to see where we’ve been:
Meeting with Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH-06) in Marietta, OH
Plant tour with Rep. David Joyce (R-OH-14) at Rhein Chemie (part of LANXESS) in Chardon, OH
Plant Tour with Rep. Dave Trott (R-MI-11) at BASF in Livonia, MI
Plant tour and roundtable with Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI-07) at Anderson Development Company in Adrian, MI
Plant tour with Rep. Robert Dold (IL-10) at Angus Chemical Company in Buffalo Grove, IL
Plant Tour with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA-02) at Covestro in Deerfield, MA
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/08/live-from-accaugust-round-2-2016/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Young Leaders Push for Sustainability
Aug 1, 2016 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
If you’re looking for insight into the future of the plastics industry, the young people featured in this week’s Rising Stars special report are an excellent place to start.
This is our third year of Rising Stars, and the quality continues to shine. The criteria is pretty simple — we put out a call for talented young people in the plastics industry, age 35 and below, who are future — or current — leaders.
I encourage candidates to share stories about their work, interests and concerns. They talk about the impact they’re having on the job, and their vision for the future. It’s also a great opportunity for them to highlight their community and industry activities, and to give a shout out to their mentors.
Many of my industry contacts shared names. Many more of the honorees came forward on their own. And more than a few good candidates didn’t complete the survey in time. (I hope to hear from them next year.)
I’m pleased to share some great stories about talented Generation X and millennial professionals who already are doing amazing things in their careers.
Top concerns
Any time we talk to industry leaders, especially the past few years, a top concern is how to recruit the next generation of workers and managers into manufacturing, and specifically into plastics.
Many of our Rising Stars have the same concern.
Zac Smith, a 24-year-old sales and customer service regional manager at Absolute Group of Cos., said it’s challenging when there are so few peers his age to network with of the industry events.
“Perhaps it’s because our industry is somewhat unseen to the general public, or perhaps university programs are not pushing students in our direction, but the industry is in serious demand of a youth infusion,” he said.
“I would like to help young engineers, service technicians, sales people and others to discover the opportunities the plastics industry offers,” Smith said.
The sentiments were echoed by others. Our Stars are personally experiencing career advances in plastics, and they wonder how they can get more people their age to join them.
Focus on sustainability
Another topic that just about everyone shared was sustainability. Read the profiles, and you’ll see it come up again and again.
“I think more people need to understand [plastics] advantages and also meet personally and cultivate trust in the bright men and women, fathers and mothers, who work to make the global food supply safer with plastics,” said Kyra Douglas, senior director for global regulatory affairs at the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.
“There is a misconception that plastics are not sustainable,” said Paige Kassalen, commercial trainee and representative on the Solar Impulse 2 ground crew for Covestro LLC.
“People often think of the plastics industry as not environmentally friendly, so they are often surprised that we are a triple bottom line company that strives for zero waste to landfill and has the planet as one of our core pillars,” said Christina Keller, president of CK Technologies.
Maybe one reason so many of the young people feel strongly about sustainability is because it’s already an important part of their jobs.
Robert Flores worked with the Association of Plastics Recyclers to confirm that Berry Plastics’ Versalite drink cups are recyclable. Rebekah Mumm helped Silver Line Plastics Corp. become the first pipe manufacturer to receive sustainability certification with the Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association.
Sadaf Shafiei Sabet is working on developing the next generation of eco-friendly plastic materials with Solegear Bioplastic Technologies Inc.
Brendan Wilson at Montrose Molders Corp. is encouraging OEMs to use bioplastics like cellulose-filled polypropylene, to take advantage of the potential part weight and cycle time reductions.
It’s clear that the next generation of plastics industry leaders have an environmental streak.
Improving plastics message
The interest in sustainability came to mind last week in a conversation with Steve Russell, vice president for plastics at the American Chemistry Council. ACC released a study on the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging compared to other materials.
According to the study, plastics are much more sustainable than other materials. In other words, plastics have science on their side. It’s a point that many in the plastics industry have been making for a long time.
But is science enough? Russell made an interesting point: That the industry needs to appeal not just to consumers’ reason, but to their emotion, too. Both the head and the heart, is how he put it.
It’s a good point. Logically, plastics are often the best material in some applications, but that doesn’t stop some consumers from feeling like they’re doing the right thing by using another product that’s heavier, or takes more energy to create.
It’s a difficult message to communicate, and it’s one that many consumers will be skeptical about if it comes exclusively from the plastics industry. But it’s apparent to me that the industry has plenty of young people who are ready to carry it forward.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160801/BLOG01/160809982/young-leaders-push-for-sustainability
-
Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine Can Speak Spanish. Do Latino Voters Care?
Aug 1, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Nigel Duara, Cindy Carcamo and Jazmine Ulloa
I'll tell ya,” Tim Kaine said, the crowd in Miami, warming up to the part of his life story that took him to Central America, “my time in Honduras changed my life in so many ways.”
The cheering grew louder. The newly introduced Democratic nominee for vice president paused for a half-second. Then Kaine launched into the Spanish-language part of his speech, telling listeners how he learned some of his lifelong values in the Honduran village he’d once called home.
“En Honduras aprendí los valores de mi pueblo,” he said, his Spanish inflected with the tones of the American Midwest.
The crowd roared. On his couch 2,000 miles away, Pete Rios smiled. Among the family gathered in his Dudleyville, Ariz., home, heads turned to the television, backs straightened and people clapped.
It is ancient political history now, but Rios was once at the forefront of the battle against English-only bills in reaction to an influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants in the 1980s. Now, Rios’ family was watching a white, English-speaking politician trying to appeal to voters like them in a language they once were threatened with punishment for using.
“It was just electric,” said Rios, a former state legislator and current county commissioner. “How amazing.”
Kaine’s Spanish has been sold as a draw to Latino voters in an election year in which the other major party’s nominee, Donald Trump, said a fellow candidate “speaks Mexican.”
But in interviews across the country, many Latinos said Kaine’s Spanish is less important than his positions on issues that to them matter more than words: immigration reform, detention and deportation policies, jobs. If Spanish were the ticket to the Latino vote, some said, Republican Marco Rubio might be on the ballot in November.
Kaine hasn’t limited his Spanish to his reference to Honduras at the rally at Miami’s Florida International University, where Hillary Clinton introduced him as her running mate. His speech at the Democratic National Convention last week was salted liberally with Spanish.
“Somos Americanos todos,” he declared — “We’re all American.”
Fifteen years ago, Kaine’s somewhat halting facility with the language would have been a major draw, politicians and analysts said. Today, some are offended at his attempts to communicate with Latino voters in Spanish.
Felix Sanchez, a Democratic political strategist and co-founder of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, said Kaine’s speaking Spanish is simply unnecessary.
“It's a political trope that has run its course,” he said. “I prefer to have candidates address issues, supply solutions and then see that they get it done, over scripted Spanish pablum.”
If Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, were serious about attracting Latino voters with a Spanish-speaking running mate, there were three Latinos being considered for vice president, Sanchez said: Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.); Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro; and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez.
“Becerra certainly is fluent and competent to hold the office. But if the argument is that Kaine was a better choice because he spoke better Spanish than Castro and Perez, well that certainly is a red-herring argument,” Sanchez said. “The truth is that Kaine is a strategic choice to win Virginia. Why not simply say that without making it seem like Latinos were also being thrown a penny because he speaks Spanish?”
Right-wing commentators were predictably unimpressed with Kaine’s Spanglish at the Democratic convention.
“Dems are enthralled by an American politician who can speak Spanish,” conservative political columnist S.E. Cupp wrote on Twitter. “Unless his name is Jeb or Marco.”
The notion of Kaine’s Spanish appealing to Latino voters is a fundamental misunderstanding of the electorate, said Nelson Flores, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.
“We certainly don’t need a politician to use Spanish for us to understand his or her message,” Flores said. “To suggest that a politician’s Spanish proficiency is relevant to this equation is to ignore the overwhelming rejection by Latinos of politicians such as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, who have also used Spanish as part of their electoral strategy.”
It wasn’t so long ago that the Clinton campaign was similarly accused of pandering to a minority audience. During her 2007 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton seemed to adopt a Southern black drawl during a recitation of the Rev. James Cleveland’s hymn “I Don’t Feel Noways Tired” at a church service in Selma, Ala. Mocking on the nightly news ensued.
Authenticity aside, Kaine’s use of Spanish may simply be too late for the generation of Latino voters now coming of age.
The principal factor driving the growth of the Latino population in recent years has been higher birth over death rates, not immigration. Thus, the community is undergoing a natural American integration process that is supplanting Spanish with English as the main language, said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.
A Pew Research Center survey of 1,500 Latino adults in the fall of 2015 found Spanish is a valuable part of Latino culture and identity, with 95% of Latinos saying it is important for future generations to speak Spanish. But most of the Latinos polled, 71%, said they did not believe fluency in the language is necessary to that identity.
Spanish isn’t necessary to appeal to Latino voters, either. A bipartisan survey conducted by the Spanish-language TV network Univision found the majority of Latinos — 68% — said their vote would not be influenced by whether a candidate spoke fluent Spanish; only 26% said it would. Still, the language is useful to attract voters who speak little English, of whom 4 out of every 10 reported they preferred candidates who speak to them in Spanish.
In interviews, many Latinos said they were listening more closely to what Kaine said about immigration policy than whether he said it in Spanish.
Some said they were disappointed when Kaine, in an interview with the Telemundo network last week, did not make any promises to halt the deportation of children from Central America who come to the country illegally.
“I think many of them could have a chance at asylum, if they have lawyers,” he said in Spanish, “but others won’t have that opportunity because they don’t entirely meet the rules for asylum status.”
But for others — especially older voters — the language is an important part of the message.
Guillermina Reyes, 50, who operates the El Moctezuma restaurant in Orange, is one of them. She said she can identify with Kaine because of his Spanish, more so than if he spoke only English.
“It’s magnificent. He would be able to capture what we want to tell him, directly,” she said. “But I would have voted for Hillary anyway.”
Celso Muñoz Reyes, a naturalized citizen who was born in Mexico and now lives in Santa Ana, said he enjoyed listening to Kaine recently on a Spanish-speaking newscast.
“I respect him more for speaking Spanish,” Muñoz Reyes said.
Like Reyes, he said he planned to vote for Clinton, regardless.
Still, he said, the gesture is even more welcome during a year of heightened rhetoric against Latinos from the other side of the aisle — particularly Trump, who at one point said “killers and rapists” were among those crossing the U.S. border from Mexico.
Even for elected officials, it’s no longer enough to simply run as a Latino.
“Fifteen years ago, this business I’m in, the window dressing was seen as enough,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. “Having the right name was enough. Speaking the language was enough. That’s not true anymore.
“Our vote is not a cattle call. You’re not going to get our vote because you have the right person speaking the right language at the right time.”
Minnie Santillan, a political consultant and staff member for California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), said Latinos are sophisticated voters who will rally behind the candidate who shares their values and is good for their party, regardless of heritage.
She watched those dynamics play out in 2000, when she helped Cal Dooley, a white New Democrat from Visalia, beat Republican Rich Rodriguez in one of the most fiercely contested U.S. House races in the state that year.
At least one poll found Rodriguez with a lead of three percentage points, and he even had a campaign boost from then-Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush. But on election day, voters seemed to care more about experience and stances on the issues, Santillan said. Dooley, a white farmer with large land holdings, was elected in a district with the heaviest concentration of Latinos in the Central Valley.
“Our people are smart enough to read through the fluff,” she said. “Our community is no different than any other community across the country. We want to be able to send our children to college. We want our children to have their healthcare needs met. … We want to have a vibrant economy so that our families will be able to put that bread on the table.”
Spanish might help Kaine some.
“It is a starting point,” she said. “But it’s just that — a starting point.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kaine-spanish-20160731-snap-story.html
-
Firms Tout Resilience, Cost-Cutting in Difficult Quarter
Aug 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
The long stretch of low oil and energy costs left its footprint on chemical company earnings in the second quarter as companies were forced to pass those savings on to their customers in the form of lower prices. But some sectors—particularly consumer specialties and agriculture—sidestepped the squeeze.
At DuPont, the agriculture business played hero, thanks to strong demand for corn seed and insecticides. Operating earnings for the business shot up 12% compared with last year’s second quarter. That boosted overall earnings 10% to more than $1 billion, better than analysts hoped for.
“Ag did better than expected in a very challenging market,” commented DuPont CEO Edward Breen on a conference call. He explained that DuPont was working to capture low raw material costs and operational savings but warned that rock-bottom prices for agriculture commodities will haunt the business for the foreseeable future.
Other highlights were in DuPont’s nutrition and health business and biosciences business, where earnings were up on strong sales of probiotics, specialty proteins, and biomaterials. The firm’s performance materials business had a successful quarter because of increased demand from U.S. and Chinese auto manufacturers. But volumes were lower in electronic chemicals and protection products.
Dow Chemical managed to push up earnings by 1% in the quarter even as lower prices weighed on sales, which sank 7%. Its agriculture business saw sales drop on low commodity prices, though productivity improvements stabilized earnings. Now the full owner of Dow Corning, Dow saw increased sales of silicones in consumer and construction applications.
Dow CEO Andrew N. Liveris touted the resilience and global nature of Dow’s businesses. “Despite the varied economic landscape, we continue to see favorable conditions and robust demand in our core consumer-led markets of packaging, automotive, and construction,” he told shareholders.
Huntsman Corp. and BASF had difficult quarters as lower selling prices impacted almost all types of chemicals. At Huntsman, lower prices helped push earnings down by 39% in performance products and 11% in pigments and additives. BASF saw earnings from basic chemicals fall 14%, though overall sales volumes were up compared with last year’s second quarter.
Industrial gas supplier Air Products also saw low energy prices impact its sales, but only by 1%. CEO Seifi Ghasemi thanked the firm’s employees for implementing his cost-saving and restructuring plans, which he said were key to raising earnings by 17%.
Divestments and mergers are another way chemical firms are managing in the uneven economic environment. Huntsman is getting ready to spin off a business containing titanium dioxide and textile chemicals. Air Products is spinning off its electronics materials business, which is to be called Versum Materials. And Ashland plans to separate Valvoline, its motor oil and retail chain. Overshadowing them all will be the combination of Dow and DuPont, expected to be complete later this year.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i31/Firms-tout-resilience-cost-cutting.html
-
Americans Face an Irreversible Rollback in Chemical Safety
Jul 28, 2016 | Roll Call
By Linda Reinstein
Nearly forty years ago, Congress recognized the dire need to protect the public from toxic chemicals with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. This landmark law gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate industrial chemicals, and gave hope to Americans that they could live in an environment that was free of dangerous toxins.
Unfortunately, 1976 TSCA has failed miserably, and the EPA has only managed to ban five chemicals since 1976. Today, 84,000 chemicals remain present in U.S. homes, schools, the environment, and consumer products. Shockingly, among these ever-present poisons is asbestos.
-For more than 100 years, scientific studies have confirmed asbestos exposure can cause the devastating and always-fatal mesothelioma, as well as lung, gastrointestinal, laryngeal and ovarian cancers, asbestosis and pleural diseases. The World Health Organization estimates 107,000 workers around the world will die every year of an asbestos-related disease. And in the U.S., 41 Americans die every day from asbestos-related diseases. Yet, asbestos is still legal in the U.S. and imports continue.
In fact, asbestos — of all things — was the vehicle that allowed the chemical industry to break 1976 TSCA, and put public health and safety at indefinite risk. In 1989, after conducting a ten-year study, the EPA issued a final rule under Section 6 of TSCA banning most asbestos-containing products. Yet, just two years later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ban in Corrosion Proof Fittings vs. EPA. As a result, most of the original ban on the manufacturing, importation, processing, and/or distribution in commerce for the majority of the asbestos-containing products covered in the 1989 final rule was overturned and Americans remain at constant risk of exposure to this deadly substance.
It’s no wonder that TSCA reform is “big business.” According to Open Secrets, in 2014, the chemical industry spent more than $64.7 million lobbying Washington. The chemical industry has vast resources to influence the regulation of dangerous chemicals, but Americans pay the ultimate price – in many cases with their lives. Although it may appear progress has been made with the passage of the TSCA Modernization Act (HR 2576) and Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall’s, D-N.M., “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S 697) — which will soon go to the Senate floor — we are dangerously far away from real TSCA reform. Astonishingly, both bills ignored even mentioning asbestos.
Just months ago, Udall acknowledged, “The poster child for TSCA reform is asbestos.” He’s absolutely right. Real TSCA reform must ensure the EPA can expeditiously review unsafe chemicals like asbestos and take action to protect public health. As written without an asbestos amendment, this legislation allows the EPA discretion to select which high priority chemicals will be prioritized for testing instead of mandating the prioritization of deadly chemicals such as asbestos.
Shockingly, three independent investigations in 2000, 2007, and just again in 2015 confirmed asbestos contamination in consumer products and children’s toys. Over the past fifteen years, the U.S. consumed 55,000 metric tons of asbestos and an estimated 150,000 Americans have died from preventable, asbestos-related deaths. Congress, the EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have taken no action to stop these toxic imports.
The USA lags behind the European Union and Australia in regulating asbestos. More than 50 countries have banned it, and these countries remain economically viable without asbestos in consumer products and toys. Unlike the USA, the EU has placed the burden of protection on industry instead of the everyday consumer, and established REACH (the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) to hold industries responsible for assessing and managing the risks posed by the chemicals they produce, use, and sell. Instead of individuals and nonprofits spending time and dollars privately investigating asbestos in consumer products, they consider it industry’s responsibility.
The time is now for real TSCA reform.
Americans demand and deserve legislation that protects us from hazardous chemicals and lethal carcinogens, not a chemical industry-supported TSCA rollback.
Unfortunately, both proposed bills fall short of what is needed to ensure meaningful TSCA reform, especially when it comes to asbestos. Now is the time for our lawmakers to come together to pass a bill to end the asbestos man-made disaster, ensure that this killer is expeditiously banned, and finally protect the American public from toxic chemical hazards.
Linda Reinstein, is president/CEO and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/americans-face-an-irreversible-rollback-in-chemical-safety
-
What Congress Did and Didn’t Do This Year: Accomplishments and Unfinished Business
Aug 1, 2016 | AP (In the Davis County Clipper)
Congress is out for a seven-week recess with several major accomplishments to highlight for voters -- the first overhaul of rules for asbestos and other dangerous chemicals in 40 years, a rescue package for cash-strapped Puerto Rico, and plenty of unfinished business.
Partisanship and election-year politics prevented Congress from fulfilling President Barack Obama’s $1.9 billion emergency request to combat the mosquito-borne Zika virus, a plea made in February. Politics scuttled any legislation to tighten gun controls in the aftermath of the massacre in Orlando, Fla.
The regular order that Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pursued for the 12 annual spending bills was undermined by congressional dysfunction and the power of House conservatives to hamstring the leadership. In a failure for the two leaders, Congress likely will be forced to pass a massive spending bill in the fall just to keep the government operating weeks before the election.
The House never did a budget, a major embarrassment for Ryan, who had served as chairman of the Budget committee.
A look at what lawmakers did and didn’t do:
Done and signed into law
Toxic Substance: Republicans and Democrats agreed on the first overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act since it was approved in 1976. The law updates rules for tens of thousands of everyday chemicals, sets safety standards for dangerous chemicals like formaldehyde, asbestos and styrene. The law also aims to standardize on the national level what is currently a jumble of state rules governing the $800 billion-per-year industry. Congress spent more than three years working on the legislation.
Puerto Rico: The U.S. territory and its 3.5 million Americans struggling through a decade-long recession and facing $70 billion in debt. After months of negotiations, lawmakers backed a rescue package that creates a control board to oversee the U.S. territory’s finances and supervise some debt restructuring. The legislation would not provide any direct financial aid to the territory.
Bison: The bison is the official mammal of the United States. Lawmakers called the bison, North America’s largest land animal, the embodiment of American strength and resilience and said it reflects the nation’s pioneer spirit. There had not been an official mammal of the United States.
Done and almost law:
Aviation: Days before a deadline, Congress wrapped up an aviation bill that attempts to close gaps in airport security and shorten screening lines. The bill also extends the Federal Aviation Administration’s programs for 14 months at current funding levels.
Drug Abuse: Congress overwhelmingly backed a compromise bill aimed at curbing abuse of heroin and other drugs, a nationwide epidemic that kills more than 100 Americans every day. The legislation creates grants and other programs aimed at addressing drug abuse, especially heroin and opioids, a crippling problem that claims victims across racial, economic and geographic lines. Democrats had pressed for authorizing significant money in the legislation, but the measure does not.
Genetically modified foods: Congress on Thursday sent legislation to President Barack Obama that would require most food packages to carry a text label, a symbol or an electronic code readable by smartphone that indicates whether the food contains genetically modified ingredients, or GMOs. The Agriculture Department would have two years to write the rules.
Entangled in election-year politics
Zika: Abortion politics stalled a $1.1 billion bill to combat the Zika virus. Republicans angered Democrats by adding a provision that would block Planned Parenthood clinics in Puerto Rico from receiving money to fight the virus.
Spending Bill: Completing the spending bills is Congress’ basic responsibility. The House has done just five of the 12 spending measures. An effort by majority Republicans to revive the process in the Senate, which had languished under Democratic control, sputtered. The gridlock ensures that in September, Congress will have to pass a massive spending bill to keep the government open weeks before the election.
Gun control: The massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., revived the call for gun control legislation. The Senate blocked a handful of bills to impose restrictions on those on the terror watch list. Republican leaders in the House couldn’t win over conservatives to move any legislation.
http://davisclipper.com/view/full_story/27239603/article-What-Congress-did-and-didn-t-do-this-year--Accomplishments-and-unfinished-business?instance=lead_story
-
California Adds Bromodichloroacetic Acid to Prop 65
Aug 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed bromodichloroacetic acid on Proposition 65 as a substance known to the state to cause cancer.
The substance forms when water containing natural organic matter and bromide is disinfected with chlorine-containing oxidising compounds.
Its addition to Prop 65 follows a 27 May notice of intent to list. The agency proposed to do so via the authoritative bodies listing mechanism, based on a 2015 National Toxicology Program (NTP) report.
No comments were received on the proposed listing. Its status as a carcinogen under Prop 65 took effect 29 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48939/california-adds-bromodichloroacetic-acid-to-prop-65
-
RGGI Market Status Report Points to CPP Compliance
Aug 1, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative -- an emissions trading program in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic -- will be the key to the region meeting the goals of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, according to a report by the Acadia Center, a clean energy research group based in the Northeast.
The first of a two-part status report demonstrates that "states within RGGI have done better since the program's launch than states that have yet to act," said Peter Shattuck, director of the Acadia Center's Clean Energy Initiative.
"As more states consider how to reduce climate pollution, RGGI's precedent is an important example of how market-based programs deliver real benefits," he said.
With its first auction in 2008, RGGI became the first mandatory cap on emissions to be coupled with tradable emissions allowances. It has generated revenue for states in the Northeast and spurred investment. But it's also been a contentious program for Republican lawmakers opposed to cap and trade. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) decided in 2011 to pull the state out of RGGI, calling it a "tax on electricity."
The report found that "power generators have incorporated RGGI requirements into normal business operations, and the electric sector as a whole has adapted to the shifting economics of different generation sources while continuing to provide a reliable supply of electricity."
Southern Co.'s Q2
A Wall Street analyst recently asked Atlanta-based Southern Co. about factors affecting growth at its two largest regulated electricity companies, Alabama Power and Georgia Power.
CEO Tom Fanning said environmental compliance on coal ash ponds and transmission upgrades would affect growth. The Clean Power Plan is also a factor, he said.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the Clean Power Plan resolves itself," Fanning said during the company's second-quarter earnings conference call last week. "And so you're going to start seeing what happens in terms of generation, both from ramping down and ramping up new forms of generation, ramping down old stuff and ramping up new stuff."
Southern owns four regulated electric companies across the Southeast but is expanding its presence nationwide, mostly through natural gas infrastructure. The energy giant has transformed itself from a once coal-heavy utility to one focused more on natural gas and nuclear power. The company has not identified specific coal-fired units that it would have to close to help states comply with the Clean Power Plan, but its executives have said that the rule would lead to more closures.
Southern is an active participant in lawsuits challenging the EPA carbon rule. So far, plaintiffs have succeeded in putting the brakes on state compliance with the rule, which the U.S. Supreme Court halted until legal challenges are resolved.
On Wednesday, EPA will hold a public hearing in Chicago on the proposed design details for the optional Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP).
In the final Clean Power Plan, EPA established the CEIP, which was designed to help states meet their goals under the plan by encouraging early investments in zero-emitting renewable energy generation and by removing barriers to investment in energy efficiency and solar measures in low-income communities. The hearing will be held in Chicago on Aug. 3, from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. CDT at the Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building.
The public comment period on the CEIP closes Sept. 2.
In case you missed it:
· A federal court should take into account a case involving U.S. EPA's retroactive veto of a water permit for a mining project as it considers the legality of the Clean Power Plan, an opponent to the rule argued last week. The libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the dissent in the water permit case "strongly supports" its arguments that EPA failed to adequately consider the costs and benefits of its power plant rule (Greenwire, July 28).
· States challenging the Clean Power Plan say a recent decision by a federal court to stay EPA's regional haze plan for Texas and Oklahoma boosts their arguments about the rule's effect on grid reliability. The ruling on the regional haze plan in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals bolsters the argument made by opponents in the Clean Power Plan litigation that EPA "has no expertise in managing electric generation," according to a court filing submitted by the 27 states that are challenging the carbon rule (E&ENews PM, July 27).
· Meetings of state electricity regulators have for years been dominated by conversations about how to cut greenhouse gas levels under the Clean Power Plan. But at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference last week, mentions of the federal climate change rule were few and far between (ClimateWire, July 27).
· The nationwide cost to states for compliance with the Clean Power Plan will be "relatively inexpensive, with cost increases of 0.1% to 1.0%," according to new modeling released by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University (EnergyWire, July 27).
For more information and news on the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E's Power Plan Hub.
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060041004
-
Face the Facts: BLM Methane Rules Needed, Have Wide Bipartisan Support
Aug 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein
It’s unfortunate that a partisan group of Congressional representatives recently tried to turn back the clock on new rules from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management that can protect taxpayers and local communities from the needless waste of our natural gas resources and methane pollution.
It was a disappointing move, considering that a bipartisan group of elected officials came together to defend the BLM’s natural gas waste rule during a budget fight on the House floor in July.
Some members of Congress are really good at expressing their opinions. However, in this case the facts clearly show that efforts to cut waste and protect our air are necessary and warranted.
Fact: Despite some creative data cherry-picking to spin a different story, the data is clear that methane emissions from oil and gas operations have grown significantly in the past decade (up 8% since 2005).
Methane waste is a big problem. The business consulting firm ICF has estimated that $330 million per year in federal and tribal natural gas resources are wasted due to venting, flaring and leaks at well sites.
And this means taxpayers are also losing out on tens of millions of dollars in annual tax and royalty payments that could be funding better roads, schools, and other needed infrastructure in impacted communities. This is a problem only getting worse and not solving itself. It is going to take tough but fair regulations – not inconsistent voluntary efforts from industry – to solve it.
Fact: Nonpartisan observers agree this problem needs attention.
A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that BLM should do more to protect taxpayers from unnecessary waste of their natural gas resources. The GAO finds that BLM needs more consistent policies in place to better limit methane waste and pollution from oil and gas production on the hundreds of thousands of acres of federal and tribal lands it oversees – the sort of requirements the BLM is in the process of finalizing.
Fact: Support is strong for BLM action to cut methane waste and pollution across the West.
· More than 200,000 individuals and groups commented in support of the BLM proposal during the public comment period.
· At the BLM’s public hearings in Farmington, New Mexico, Oklahoma City, Lakewood, Colorado and Dickinson, North Dakota voices supporting strong BLM methane action far outweighed the opposition by a ratio of more than 3:1.
· More than 80 local officials across the West, including county commissions in La Plata, Park and San Miguel counties in Colorado and Rio Arriba and San Miguel counties and the Santa Fe city council in New Mexico, all supported the rules.
· Business groups, methane mitigation companies, Latino organizations, agricultural groups, sportsmen groups, public health experts, clean air advocacy organizations, and taxpayer organizations have all voiced support for BLM’s efforts to limit methane pollution and waste.
· This is consistent with recent polling that found bipartisan majorities (fully 80 percent) of Westerners support commonsense rules to cut oil and gas waste on BLM managed lands.
In January, the BLM issued a strong proposed rule aimed at curbing natural gas waste and pollution on the nation’s federal and tribal lands. It’s now time for the BLM to strengthen and finalize this rule without delay to protect taxpayers, clean up our air, create jobs, and put American energy to good use.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/?_ga=1.171713440.1229106464.1464798832
-
Is the Future of Green Energy Decided by Politicians?
Aug 1, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jacob Bayer
The U.S energy policy has been a hot button issue for a very long time, especially because big oil, coal tycoons and other energy giants constantly fund political campaigns to protect their interests. There's a lot of money involved in energy production and distribution, so the fight for dominance on the energy market unavoidably becomes part of the presidential elections. Two terms with Obama left a lot of room for renewable energy to gain some strength and market share, however, the upcoming presidential elections could certainly bring many changes.
Obama's Stance on Energy
he U.S climate change policy will definitely be remembered as one of Obama's greatest achievements. Setting the carbon emission goals and working with the EPA on stricter regulation hasn't been easy, especially with all the naysayers Congress, Obama fought the good fight and won many times, but one has to wonder if he lucked-out a couple of those times.
Market-driven Changes
Success with the ambitiously set carbon emission goals would have probably been impossible during Obama's term had it not been for the low natural gas prices. The innovative ways of extracting natural gas made it a lot cheaper, and coal simply couldn't compete anymore. Nat gas didn't even have to be subsidized to take a larger chunk of the energy industry -the math for it simply works.
With cheap gas replacing coal, it was easy to show lower greenhouse emissions. The addition of solar capacities throughout the U.S didn't help the environment as much as coal getting naturally phased out.
Hillary's Idea of a Green Future
Hillary's plan about the future of the U.S continues in the same green direction. Her main goal is to heavily increase the number of solar capacities by simply staying the course. However, this might not be as easy now when solar is starting to get serious push-back on state level. For example, new regulations in Nevada now make solar a really bad investment. Even with the incentives in place, adding solar there simply doesn't pay off.
500 Million Solar Panels Will Not Come Easy
The future of solar will involve a lot of struggle state by state. Arizona is also in the process of passing new laws that may slow down solar proliferation and the same can be expected in other predominantly Republican states. Hillary's plan to add 500 million solar panels in 4 years will prove to be difficult if she can only rely on a handful of Democrat supporting states.
Sticking with Nuclear
However, these obstacles are not lost to Clinton and that might be one of the main reasons why she's not planning to phase-out nuclear plants. Nuclear is currently supplying a large chunk of carbon-free electricity and no one interested in achieving emission goals should even consider stopping them for now.
Trump's Ideas on Going Forward
Trump on the other hand has already voiced his intent to cancel the Paris agreement. He frequently speaks about removing restrictions for greenhouse gases generated and uses all the coal jobs as an excuse. It's true that a lot of people working in the coal industry lost their job, but from a historic perspective -that's what usually happens when an industry or a business simply becomes impractical.
Making Coal Competitive Again
Simply saying that people will get their coal jobs back does not actually sound like a plan since coal generated electricity does not come at a competitive price. To make coal work again, you also have to subsidize it and stifle the progress of other energy sources. Still, Trump does not seem to share the visceral dislike of renewables as most of his Republican colleagues, so even though he preferred coal, he does not seem set on crushing renewables altogether.
Subsidizing Energy Does Not Work
Both presidential candidates rely on subsidies to push their agenda, but no one seems to be saying the main issue -the energy sector is already heavily subsidized. Pouring more money on the supply side to tilt the outcome in your favor seems like applying a half-measure to a very serious problem.
Removing all subsidies is also not an option since it will affect the U.S energy security; not to mention that it might allow fossil fuels to corner the market with their enormous financial resources.
The U.S Needs Balance
So, what's the answer? -As an energy consultant I feel that the solution lies in creating balance instead of trying to radically shift it. Saying zero coal plants or zero renewables or zero just about anything is too radical. At this point when we still can't efficiently store energy, we need a little bit of everything. Of course, this sounds too idealistic and almost impossible to achieve.
Still, Obama's plans and the plans of our future leaders mentioned above also sound a bit unrealistic. Not only that, but it seems that both Clinton and Trump do not have a clear vision on how they can make their ideas work. In the end, whoever gets to lead this great nation will probably have to make a lot of compromises, so it wouldn't hurt to try balancing out the energy market.
Jacob Bayer is an energy consultant, startup enthusiast and father. He is founder and CEO of the energy consultancy Luminext Incorporated.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/289789-is-the-future-of-green-energy-decided-by-politicians
-
POLITICO Pro New York: PSC Votes to Approve Renewable Mandate with Nuclear Subsidy
Aug 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Scott Waldman
The state Public Service Commission has approved an energy policy that mandates New York receive half of its power from renewable energy by 2030 and that offers billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear energy industry.
The PSC voted to approve the measure at its monthly meeting today. In the first two years, ratepayers will pay about $1 billion to subsidize the three upstate nuclear facilities by forcing utilities to pay above-market rates for nuclear. The administration has said the plan will establish nuclear energy as a bridge fuel while the state builds out its nuclear portfolio. The plan would also preserve thousands of nuclear industry jobs and tens of millions of dollars in property tax payments in economically-challenged upstate regions.
PSC chairwoman Audrey Zibelman said the plan makes economic sense because it prevents the construction of new fossil fuel-burning power plants and ensures carbon-free energy sources stay online.
"It's no longer a choice, I believe it's a moral and economic imperative that we get there," she said.
There were enough attendees at the public hearing — including nuclear industry employees, lawmakers and environmentalists — to fill four hearing rooms. Before the vote, which has national implications as nuclear facilities across the country struggle to compete with cheap natural gas, anti-nuclear protesters chanted that the uranium used in nuclear plants should be "left in the ground," along with oil and gas. Pro-nuclear advocates, including labor unions, who packed the meeting, bristled at the opposition and said there was already enough nuclear fuel to last a century.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Pacific Northwest Weighs Response to Risks Posed by Oil Trains
Jul 31, 2016 | New York Times
By Kirk Johnson
The Chinook salmon that Randy Settler and other Yakama tribal fishermen are pulling from the Columbia River are large and plentiful this summer, part of one of the biggest spawning runs since the 1960s. It is a sign, they say, of the river’s revitalization, through pollution regulations and ambitious fish hatchery programs.
But barely four miles upstream from the fishermen’s nets, state workers are still cleaning up after a major oil train derailment in June. About 47,000 gallons of heavy Bakken crude bound from North Dakota spilled when 16 Union Pacific cars accordioned off the tracks. All of it, Oregon environmental officials said, might have gone into the river but for a stroke of luck that carried the oil instead into a water treatment plant a few hundred feet from the riverbank.
That juxtaposition — the rebounding river coming a hair’s breadth from disaster — has resonated across the Pacific Northwest and brought about a day of reckoning. From ballot boxes to the governors’ desks in Oregon and Washington, a corner of the nation that seemed poised only a few years ago to become a new energy hub is now gripped by a debate over whether transporting volatile, hazardous crude oil by rail through cities and environmentally delicate areas can ever be made safe enough.
“Communities around this state have awoken,” said Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown, a Democrat. Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee, who is also a Democrat, said he thinks that all oil transit should be halted until more stringent track inspection rules can be put into place. “Can it be transported into the Pacific Northwest safely?” he said. “That answer now is no.”
The volume of oil being shipped by rail across most of the rest of the nation has plummeted, as low oil prices and more pipeline capacity have reduced the need for trains. The number of rail cars carrying petroleum is down about 40 percent from the peak in 2014, according to the Association of American Railroads.
But here along the Columbia River gorge, about 60 miles east of Portland, the trains have continued to rumble through Oregon and Washington in numbers near their peak. Even with lower oil prices, railroad industry experts said, crude heading by rail to refineries in the Pacific Northwest has a shorter distance to travel from North Dakota, making the route cost effective.
In the tense environment since the derailment, the idea that the Northwest is now bearing a disproportionate burden of energy transport risk has accelerated local efforts to stop the trains or make them safer.
Last month, the City Council in Vancouver, Wash., where one of the biggest oil terminals in the nation is under review, voted to ban any similar proposals from even being considered in the future.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGERace to Build on River Could Block Pacific Oil Route DEC. 27, 2014U.S. Denies Permit for Coal Terminal in Washington State MAY 9, 2016New Oil Train Rules Are Hit From All Sides MAY 1, 2015With Proposed Rail Expansion, Northwest Confronts Its Clean Image AUG. 19, 2013
In Spokane, Wash., a city built by the railroad industry and one through which almost all oil trains pass, voters will decide in November whether to outlaw that transit. The City Council voted to put the proposal on the ballot, mandating a $261 fine for every rail car carrying oil or coal, even though the railroads have said they would file a lawsuit to overturn the statute as a violation of interstate commerce.
Both of Oregon’s United States senators have proposed the legislation, called The Mosier Act, that would require the Department of Transportation to reduce levels of volatile gases in crude oil and give greater teeth and resources to crash investigators.
Greater transparency in oil shipments is also on the horizon. Railroads have generally refused to divulge specific oil train schedules, citing security concerns, but starting in October, details about every oil train through Washington will have to be shared with state officials, who will then distribute reports to emergency management agencies through a secure system. The information will be shared with the public on a quarterly basis, starting in December.
Mr. Inslee, who is running for re-election, as is Ms. Brown in Oregon, will have the authority under state law to decide whether the oil terminal in Vancouver will go forward, a question that could reach his desk this fall. He said that he is keeping an open mind and awaiting the recommendation from the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which wrapped up a month of hearings on the terminal this week.
Some environmental groups are already calling the Vancouver project all but dead, saying that an approval by Mr. Inslee would run counter to the governor’s often-expressed convictions about climate change — not to mention the book he wrote on the virtues of renewable energy — and would also mean imposing a project on a city that has said it does not want it. Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, announced his opposition to the terminal on Friday, the last day of the hearings.
“For the railroads, the politics have turned for the worse,” said Clark Williams-Derry of the Sightline Institute, an environmental research and advocacy group in Seattle.
Railroads and oil companies said they have responded to public concerns and that oil transport can be safe.
A spokesman for Union Pacific, Aaron Hunt, said in an email that lag bolts — a track-fastening system that failed in Mosier, according to the preliminary federal investigation — are being replaced with more secure rail spikes and that the railroad had enhanced its inspection processes.
Dan Riley, a spokesman for Tesoro Petroleum, a partner in the Vancouver terminal project, said that the company has been a leader in shifting to newer, more secure tank cars and that the attention since the Mosier accident will only accelerate those safety enhancements. “It’s an opportunity to improve the entire system,” he said in an interview.
But railroads have also resisted rules that might have mitigated the Mosier accident and other derailments around the country, said Sarah E. Feinberg, the administrator at the Federal Railroad Administration, specifically outfitting trains with modern braking systems, calledelectronically controlled pneumatic braking.
“These trains are basically operating with a braking system from the Civil War era, and we have said to the railroads, ‘You must upgrade,’” she said. “And we get a tremendous amount of pushback from the industry: It’s too expensive, it’s too complicated, it’s logistically complicated.”
Tribal fishermen like Mr. Settler, 61, who has been piloting boats on the Columbia River since he was 9, said he fears that for the river, the worst is not over. State officials said recently that oil from the spill had seeped into the groundwater, which connects with the river. In any case, Mr. Settler said, it is clear to him that human failure and inadequate track maintenance, not bad luck, caused the crash.
“They knew it was a high-risk area,” Mr. Settler said on his boat on a recent morning off Mosier’s shoreline. “But it didn’t stop the trains from coming.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/pacific-northwest-weighs-response-to-risks-posed-by-oil-trains.html?_r=0
-
Climate Change Divide Bursts to Forefront in Presidential Campaign
Aug 1, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
During the 2012 race for president, the issue ofclimate change was nearly invisible. President Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, almost never spoke about it, and it did not come up during their debates. There was far more talk of ramping up oil and gas production than cutting emissions.
But this year, as Hillary Clinton thrusts climate change to the heart of her campaign, the issue is taking on a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election.
In speeches, Mrs. Clinton regularly highlights her plan to combat global warming, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, praised her at the Democratic National Convention last week for putting it at “the center” of her foreign policy. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her main rival in the primaries, spoke of the issue forcefully, saying that “this election is about climate change.” The party platform calls for a price — essentially a tax — on carbon pollution.
Mrs. Clinton’s opponent in the November election, Donald J. Trump, has gone further than any other Republican presidential nominee in opposing climate change policy. He often mocks the established science of human-caused climate change and dismisses it as a hoax. The Republican platform calls climate change policy “the triumph of extremism over common sense.”
The divide between the two parties over the issue is the widest it has been in the decades since it emerged as a public policy matter. That is all the more remarkable given that during the 2008 election, the Democratic and Republican positions on climate change were almost identical.
That year, Mr. Obama and the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, spoke of the need to address the human causes of global warming, and they proposed a nearly identical policy — a “cap-and-trade” plan, which would have limited carbon dioxide emissions and created a market for trading pollution credits.
“The elevated conversation about climate change in this election is truly historic,” said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, who addressed the Democratic convention on Thursday.
“In 2012, no one asked about it and the candidates didn’t talk about it,” he said. "In 2008, the candidates were in the same place, so no one talked about it. They’ve never talked about it this much, and the contrast between candidates has never been sharper.”
Democratic strategists once sidestepped the issue, seeing any proposal that might raise energy prices as politically risky. But they are now pushing it to the forefront.
At the convention, organizers played a short film by James Cameron, the director of blockbusters like “Titanic,” on the dangers of climate change. Another convention video montage put a spotlight on Mrs. Clinton’s role at the 2009 climate change summit meeting in Copenhagen. As part of a wide-ranging climate plan, she has set ambitious goals for producing energy from renewable sources, including by installing a half-billion solar panels by 2020.
Democratic Senate candidates in swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida are also embracing the issue. They have been emboldened by polls showing that a growing majority of Americans accept the science of climate change and would support candidates of either party who vowed to address the issue.
A Gallup poll in March found that 65 percent of Americans believed that climate change was caused by human activity, an increase of 10 points from a year earlier. The poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believed the same thing, an increase of four points from a year earlier. The poll also found that 76 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 accepted that human activity is behind climate change.
Some Republican strategists say they are concerned that Mr. Trump’s views on the issue could push younger voters away from the party for the long term, much as they fear that his immigration policies and remarks about women could alienate Hispanics and female voters.
“It’s important for Republican candidates to talk about the issue intelligently and not be dismissive of climate change,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. He worked for the presidential campaign of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and now works for an advocacy group backing Mr. Rubio’s Senate re-election campaign.
“The way you talk about climate change sends a signal to millennials about how sensitive you are to the environment,” Mr. Ayres said. “Millennials recently passed baby boomers to become the largest generation, so any party that hopes to own the future politically needs to be attractive to millennials.”
As they have on other policy issues this year, some Republican candidates are staking out positions different from Mr. Trump’s. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a state where voters tend to favor environmentally friendly candidates, has endorsed Mr. Trump but has broken with her party to vote to uphold the Obama administration’s climate change regulations. Her campaign website says she is “working to combat the effects of climate change.”
Still, most Republicans remain strongly opposed to Mr. Obama’s climate change policies, specifically a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations aimed at curbing planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants. If enacted, those rules could shut down hundreds of such plants.
Mr. Trump has vowed to rescind Mr. Obama’s climate change rules, and he has called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations. He has said he would “cancel” the accord reached last year in France that commits nearly every nation to taking action to curbclimate change.
But party strategists say there is a way for Republicans who may be positioning themselves to run for president in 2020 or 2024, such as Mr. Rubio or the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to talk about opposing the Obama rules without alienating younger voters.
“It’s important for the next generation of Republicans to show that they get it, and that they’re not just playing the old orthodoxy,” said Kevin Sheridan, a Republican strategist who was Mr. Ryan’s communications director when he ran for vice president with Mr. Romney in 2012.
Mr. Sheridan and other Republican strategists said it was unclear how Mr. Trump’s dismissive position on climate change would affect the party’s future.
“Anything that Trump says where he uses rhetoric that something’s a hoax or crooked — no one else in the party gets lumped in with that,” said Douglas Heye, a Republican strategist who was deputy communications director for Eric Cantor of Virginia, a former House majority leader. “That’s Trump-specific bombastic rhetoric.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/climate-change-divide-bursts-to-forefront-in-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0
-
Can California Tune Up Its Climate Strategy Before It’s Too Late?
Aug 1, 2016 | Sacramento Bee
By Editorial Board
As Philadelphia baked and wildfires roared like the apocalypse in California, Gov. Jerry Brown last week called on the nation to remember the impact this presidential election could have on climate change.
“What America needs today are not deniers, but leaders. Not division, but common purpose. Not bombast, but bold action,” Brown told the Democratic National Convention, lambasting Donald Trump and lauding Hillary Clinton. “Trump says global warming is a hoax. I say Trump is a fraud.”
The crowd cheered wildly. But cheers are cheap. Outside California, curbing climate change has been a far harder sell than it should be, given the peril. And here in the state capital, the matter of how best to combat it is devolving into a trickier question than Brown implies.
As state lawmakers return Monday from their July break, one of their toughest orders of business is how best to protect and expand California’s push to stop global warming, including the state’s signature climate change law. Passed in 2006 and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it calls for the greenhouse gas pollution that underpins global warming to be cut to 1990 levels by 2020; a proposal by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would extend it to 2030 and reduce those levels even more.
In polls, Californians are overwhelmingly supportive. But, like a 10-year-old Prius, the state’s strategy is showing its age, gathering problems and, as it clunks along, crying out for a tune-up. As lawmakers puzzle over how best to do that, the clock is ticking.
For example, there’s the drag of litigation. A state Chamber of Commerce lawsuit, now pending appeal, contends that the system created to implement greenhouse gas cuts, California’s famed cap-and-trade program, is actually a tax that should have required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to pass.
The program, which essentially levies fees on major polluters, is also suddenly stalling. After a roaring start last year, when every quarterly auction for emissions “credits” raised hundreds of millions of dollars, an auction in May generated an embarrassing $10 million.
Some groups have never gotten past the sticker shock of California’s decision to lead the charge on climate. The oil industry desperately wants to get rid of the current law’s low-carbon fuel standards. Pro-business Democrats and Republicans balk at the impact on gas prices and the costs for people trying to make a living in less affluent and more polluted regions.
Others wonder whether California’s prodigious push even matters. California’s emissions represent only about 1 percent of the global problem, and if we are really trying to get the biggest bang for the buck, they ask, why are we fiddling with electric cars and methane digesters in the Central Valley instead of focusing on green technology that will work in Third World countries, or restoring rainforests in Brazil?
Meanwhile, since term limits were eased, lawmakers of both parties have started asking why so much important policy is being driven, not by them, but by unelected regulators at the California Air Resources Board.
These and other factors are playing out in an election year, and it’s unclear whether Brown and state lawmakers will be able to agree on a game plan. But they need to get busy; these questions aren’t getting easier and the law’s 2020 expiration date is approaching.
Speeches are fine, but the governor and legislative leaders need to roll up their sleeves, start counting votes and get everyone on board with a workable plan for hitting long-term climate targets. For a state on the road to existential climate disaster, we’re relying on an unsettlingly shaky vehicle.
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article92727772.html
-
EPA Pushes Back Against Foes of New Ozone Standards
Aug 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Rational and well within the bounds of what's required by the latest scientific evidence.
That's the crux of U.S. EPA's legal defense of the 70 parts per billion ozone standards put in place last October as the agency parries competing lawsuits brought by business groups and environmental advocates contending that the new benchmarks are either illegally strict or unacceptably weak.
Neither side is right, lawyers for the agency wrote in a 139-page brief filed late Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They brushed aside, for example, industry arguments that the new primary standard is so low that "background ozone" -- stemming from natural or foreign sources -- could make attainment impossible in many areas.
Because compliance hinges on a long-term average of ambient ozone readings, background levels "will never exceed 70 ppb so frequently that they would prevent attainment," they wrote. As for environmental groups' contention that the agency should have set the primary standard at 60 ppb, the point is to protect public health, not air quality in the abstract, they said.
Environmentalists want a primary standard so low that outside air "is always and everywhere free" from potentially harmful ozone levels "without considering whether anyone will actually breathe that air while engaging in physical activity," according to the brief.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to set air quality standards neither higher nor lower than necessary, attorneys wrote, adding that agency Administrator Gina McCarthy's judgment in this case is "sound."
Ground-level ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, is spawned by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Besides irritating lung passageways, it can worsen emphysema symptoms and contribute to asthma attacks. Children and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable; the stricter threshold will eventually save up to 880 lives per year, according to EPA estimates.
The previous primary standard, set in 2008 under President George W. Bush, had been 75 ppb. In lowering it last October in response to a court-ordered deadline, EPA officials said the new benchmark would meet the legal requirement of protecting public health "with an adequate margin of safety."
"There no bright line, but I used as much thought and reason on how we could actually identify health impacts that we could eliminate," McCarthy said last fall in defending her decision. The agency also cut the secondary public welfare standard, intended to protect tree, plants and ecosystems, to 70 ppb.
As is true for virtually any major EPA rulemaking, however, legal and political blowback quickly followed. On Capitol Hill, a House-passed bill, H.R. 4775, would delay implementation of the new standards by eight years. The bill, which has drawn a White House veto threat, has little chance of passing the Senate.
The litigation before the appellate court consolidates five lawsuits, the first of which was filed by Murray Energy Corp., the Ohio-based coal giant, on the same day that the new regulations were published in the Federal Register. Other plaintiffs on the industry side include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute; allied with them are Wisconsin, Arizona and eight other states whose leaders also voice alarm about the effects of background ozone on their ability to meet the new standard.
On the opposing side are the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and several other groups that label the new primary standard "underprotective" of public health. They noted that the 70 ppb threshold is at the upper end of the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a panel of experts charged with sifting through the latest research. They also fault EPA's reliance on yearly averages for measuring compliance, saying that it will allow daily ozone levels to cross into territory that the agency deems dangerous.
But the committee advised EPA to stick with that approach, according to the agency's brief. Under the law, moreover, McCarthy has "significant discretion" in setting air quality standards, lawyers wrote. She "rationally" used that leeway to establish "increased health protection for millions of people across the nation," they said.
The plaintiffs had all filed an opening round of briefs in April (Greenwire, April 25). While EPA's response was originally due July 22, the agency had recently won a one-week extension. The final briefs are due late next month.
The appellate court has not announced a date for oral arguments or publicly named the three-judge panel that will hear the case.
To overturn the new standards, foes on either side must persuade a majority of the judges that EPA's decision was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion" or otherwise illegal.
In Friday's filing, the agency's attorneys repeatedly cited the appellate court's 2013 unanimous ruling in response to a legal challenge brought by Mississippi against the 2008 ozone standards. In refusing to overturn either the primary or secondary benchmarks, a three-judge panel that included two Republican appointees expressed reluctance to second-guess EPA's judgement.
Although reasonable people might disagree with the agency's reading of the scientific evidence, "any such disagreements must come from those who are qualified to evaluate the science, not us," the panel wrote. "We are satisfied that EPA's interpretations are permissible and that is enough."
In the latest case, environmentalists are also targeting a key aspect of EPA's secondary standard, saying that it fails to measure the cumulative damage that ozone causes trees and plants over an entire growing season. CASAC and the National Park Service had recommended adoption of a new approach that would take seasonal exposure into account, but EPA rejected it, according to their April brief.
In its response, EPA argued that the lower 70 ppb secondary benchmark would "control cumulative, seasonal exposures sufficiently to provide the requisite protection for public welfare."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/01/stories/1060041035
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested