Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/27/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Single-Stream Materials Recovery Facilities Can Recover Flexible Packaging, RSS Study Says
Sep 27, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Flexible packaging, such as pet food bags and snack pouches, offers several environmental benefits: it uses less energy and materials than other packaging options and reduces waste by protecting products and minimizing food spoilage. -
Air Products Launches New Catalyst & Additive Technologies
Sep 26, 2016 | Nasdaq
By Zacks Equity Research
APD announced that it has launched a new set of catalyst and additive technologies that further permit the use of low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) Hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) Blowing Agents in polyurethane foam applications. -
UN Committee Backs Action on PFOA and SCCPs
Sep 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
PFOA and short-chain chlorinated paraffins warrant global action under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), a UN expert committee decided last week. -
California Advisory Committees Release Agendas
Sep 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Two advisory committees to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) have released tentative agendas for their upcoming meetings. Both meetings will include consideration of substances for potential listing under Proposition 65. -
The Chemistry of a US Presidency
Sep 27, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Election season sees a chemical industry unenthusiastic about either candidate, and a research community overwhelmingly backing the Democratic nominee. -
Obama Could Use Obscure Provision to Permanently Ban Leasing
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
More than 50 years ago, President Eisenhower permanently protected 75 square miles of coral reefs along the Florida Keys, declaring them a "natural wonder" that must be preserved for future generations. -
Invoking Scalia, Judges Question Whether EPA Bent the Law
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The late Justice Antonin Scalia loomed large today as the courtroom battle over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan kicked off. -
Clean Power Plan's Day in Court: 4 Facts You Didn't Know
Sep 27, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Martha Roberts
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is hearing oral arguments about the Clean Power Plan – America’s first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants and our largest source of this harmful pollution. -
Opposing Sides Confident Ahead of Day in Court
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Litigants in today's showdown over U.S. EPA's landmark Clean Power Plan have spent the past week writing opinion pieces, sending email blasts and hitting the public appearance circuit to vouch for their respective sides. -
Clean Power Plan Leaves Businesses and Families Stuck with the Bill
Sep 27, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Randy T. Simmons and Michael Jensen
This week, arguments for and against what has been called the "most aggressively litigated environmental regulation in U.S. history" — the Clean Power Plan — were presented to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. -
California Legal Victory Exposes Fracking Flaw in U.S. Management of Public Lands
Sep 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jean Su
They are some of the most beautiful public lands in America -- vast tracts of open space ranging from the rocky foothills of the southern Sierra Nevada to the sun-kissed fields of Santa Barbara on the California central coast. -
Dakota Pipeline Battle Looms Over White House Tribal Summit
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Eight years ago, a young Sen. Barack Obama spoke to a crowd in Dallas, promising to represent the rights of tribes in the United States. -
Don’t Let Congress Abandon Flint
Sep 26, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
I get up in the morning and drink a glass of water before I do anything else. I rinse a piece of fruit under the tap. I prepare instant oatmeal with a half cup of water. I have a cup of tea that I prepare with boiling tap water. I wash the breakfast dishes. I take a shower and brush my teeth. Like most Americans, I don’t give a lot of thought to the water I use before I leave the house. I’m thinking about it now, because I just spent two days on Capitol Hill with residents of Flint, Michigan. -
Taconic Polluted N.Y. Town — Lawsuit
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A plastics manufacturer in Petersburgh, N.Y., intentionally polluted waterways and local air, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday in the state's Supreme Court. -
Chemical Safety Board Scrambles After Emails Surface
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
Members of the nation's chemical safety watchdog exchanged tense emails last week after reports surfaced of potential improper conduct by one of its board members. -
States, Industry Fault EPA Air Law Interpretation For Rejecting SSM Plans
Sep 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
States and major industry groups are faulting what they say is EPA's misreading of the Clean Air Act when it issued a rule forcing 36 states to scrap air law waivers for certain facility operations, saying the agency's claim of “fundamental” flaws in the waivers to justify the rule is not tied to specific statutory language and is therefore unlawful. -
As Talks Near, EPA Rejects Industry Request To Delay HFC Coolant Phaseout
Sep 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Days before international talks to phase out high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), EPA has released its final rule phasing out a second round of the coolants, rejecting refrigeration industry requests to extend by as many as one to three years the deadlines by which companies must phase out some of the chemicals. -
Debate Must Expose Divide Between Trump, Clinton on Climate Change
Sep 27, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Paul Bledsoe
When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump participate in the first of three Presidential debates tonight, the candidates will offer sharply contrasting visions of America and its future. But few issues will offer starker disagreements — or have greater long-term economic and national security implications — than energy policy and climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Sep 27, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Flexible packaging, such as pet food bags and snack pouches, offers several environmental benefits: it uses less energy and materials than other packaging options and reduces waste by protecting products and minimizing food spoilage.
But it’s typically not accepted in North American recyclingprograms, which means that flexible packaging usually ends up in landfills.
Considering the market for food and beverage flexible packaging is expected to exceed $83 billion by 2020, that’s a lot of plasticwaste.
New research from Resource Recycling Systems (RSS), however, shows flexible packaging can be captured in single-stream materials recovery facilities (MRF) with automated sorting technologies in use today. This could create a new stream of recovered materials while improving the quality of other recycling streams.
The research was commissioned by Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF), a collaborative of brand owners, manufacturers and packaging industry organizations that want to improve recycling and increase recovery rates for flexible film and packaging options. MRFF members include Amcor, Dow Chemical, LyondellBasell, Nestlé Purina PetCare and Nestlé USA, PepsiCo, Plum Organics, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, Sealed Air and Target as well as the Association for Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, the Flexible Packaging Association, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association and the American Chemistry Council.
“Flexible packaging has many positive attributes — highly efficient, great product protection, and low environmental impact. However, recovery has been one of its weak points,” said Brad Rodgers, foods packaging research and development director for discovery and sustainability at PepsiCo, in a statement. “This study is shedding light on pathways that can be deployed to improve flexible packaging end-of-life options.”
This first phase of the MRFF research program included baseline testing, equipment testing, and a series of recovery facility trials to test existing sortation technologies commonly used in MRFs, such as screens and optical scanners. RRS developed the test methodology and conducted the research trials.
Subsequent research will focus on further refinements to sorting technology, economic feasibility, assessing end-use markets for the material, and developing a recovery facility demonstration project.
The research follows MRFF member Dow’s launch of a new RecycleReady Technology that allows polyethylene-based barrier packaging to be recycled as part of existing grocery store drop-off recycling programs.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/09/27/single-stream-materials-recovery-facilities-can-recover-flexible-packaging-rss-study-says/
-
Air Products Launches New Catalyst & Additive Technologies
Sep 26, 2016 | Nasdaq
By Zacks Equity Research
Air Products and Chemicals Inc.
APD announced that it has launched a new set of catalyst and additive technologies that further permit the use of low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) Hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) Blowing Agents in polyurethane foam applications.
The products will be showcased at the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry's (CPI) annual Technical Conference held in Baltimore, MD, from Sep 26-28, 2016. At the CPI Conference, Air products will feature a Technical Poster on its new series of catalyst and additives technologies that enable HFO blowing agents. A second Technical Poster, "Emission Management Advances for Flexible Polyurethane Foam" will provide insight into a diverse set of additive solutions to help manufacturers attain low or non-emissive foam products and underline Air Products' position as an industry leader in foam emission management at CPI.
Among the products that will be showcased is Polycat 203 catalyst. It is a patented, water-free, non-emissive amine catalyst for Integral Skin Applications that demonstrates excellent resin-side stability when used with HFO blowing agents.
Another product that will be launched is Polycat 218 catalyst which is a a patented, blow-biased, non-emissive amine catalyst for Spray Foam Applications (SPF) that can provide faster initiation while maintaining excellent resin-side stability when used in combination with Polycat 204 and HFO blowing agents.
Dabco PM301 catalyst is a patented, non-emissive, organic modifier that can promote HFO blowing agent solubility in SPF applications. Polycat 211 and Dabco TMR18 catalysts are both new catalyst technologies that can be utilised to improve both system reactivity and physical properties in rigid foams that use HFO blowing agents and contain high water content levels.
At the conference, Air Products will also introduce a brand new additives selection guide that will highlight the performance benefits of Dabco hybrid catalysts and Polycat SA heat-activation catalysts to achieve delayed reaction, or faster cure in polyurethane coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers (CASE) applications.AIR PRODS & CHE Price
Air Products currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).
Stock to Consider
Some better-ranked stocks in the chemical space include Innophos Holdings Inc. IPHS, Innospec Inc. IOSP, and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. DD.Innophos Holdings sports a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). The company has expected earnings growth of 48.6% for the current year. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
Innospec which also sports a Zacks Rank #1 has posted positive earnings surprises in the trailing four quarters.
DuPont carries Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) and has posted positive earnings surprises in the last four quarters.http://www.nasdaq.com/article/air-products-launches-new-catalyst-additive-technologies-cm684887
-
UN Committee Backs Action on PFOA and SCCPs
Sep 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
PFOA and short-chain chlorinated paraffins warrant global action under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), a UN expert committee decided last week.
In a consensus decision at its meeting in Rome, the convention's POPs Review Committee agreed that it will start a year-long PFOA evaluation. This will include assessment of alternatives and risk management options, plus a formal recommendation on listing the substance in the treaty.
The fluorochemical and its salts are used as processing aids in the production of fluoroelastomers and fluoropolymers, such as PTFE. PFOA-related compounds are also used as surfactants and surface treatment agents in textiles, paper and paints, and fire-fighting foams. Also known as C8, the substance is a perfluorinated carboxylic acid (PFCA).
These in turn are a subset of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which are also referred to as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).
The decision says PFOA “is presumed to be an immune hazard to humans” and is linked to “high chloresterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension”. The committee also agreed that it does not degrade in the environment, is transported over long distances and bioaccumulates in animals.
Consequently, it said, “a safe concentration in the environment cannot be established”.
In the last two decades, emissions of long-chain PFCAs, from fluoropolymer production sites, have almost been eliminated in the US, Western Europe and Japan. But the expansion of production to countries such as China, India and Russia has offset these reductions.
Last year, the EU and its member states submitted a proposal to list PFOA, its salts and related compounds under the convention. A proposal to restrict manufacture, marketing and use, as well as of articles and mixtures containing these substances, is also under consideration.
And there have been calls by US politicians to prioritise action on PFOA under the new TSCA.
SCCPs
The committee also recommended a global ban on short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs). These are used as lubricants and coolants in metalworking fluids, in PVC, paints, adhesives and sealants and leather fat liquors, and as flame retardants in rubber and textiles.
All uses in the EU, Canada, the US and Norway have been phased out. But according to committee documents, the substances are still produced in Brazil, China and Russia and imported by countries such as Australia, South Korea, Argentina and Mexico.
They can also be produced unintentionally, during the manufacture of other chlorinated paraffin (CP) mixtures. This is important because medium-chain chlorinated paraffins and other CP mixtures are often used as alternatives to SCCPs. There is, thus, a need to develop other substitutes.
According to the draft risk management evaluation, discussed by the committee, they can cause toxicological effects in mammals. They may affect the liver, thyroid hormone system and the kidneys, for example, by causing hepatic enzyme induction and thyroid hyperactivity. This can lead to carcinogenicity in these organs in the long-term.
The substances are also classified as suspected of causing cancer, and are listed as category 1 endocrine disruptors for human health. This is according to the former preliminary criteria for prioritisation of potential endocrine disrupting substances.
The International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen) welcomed the committee's decision “after years of delay”. It said no other POP has been produced in such large quantities.
Describing them as endocrine disruptors, it said they are present in “alarming levels” in many children's products made of PVC, such as toys, costumes and stickers.
Deca-BDE
Last year, the committee recommended a global ban on the brominated flame retardant, deca-BDE. This is widely used in electrical equipment, plastic and textile products, adhesives, sealants, coatings and inks.
The recommendation was upheld this year. However, Ipen says the committee bowed to pressure from the European and Canadian automotive industries, and included a large number of “poorly defined” exemptions for the production and use of deca, for use in legacy vehicles' parts.
A proposed restriction on its use, including exemptions for recycled materials and spare parts, is being considered in the EU.
The substance has been classified by Echa’s Member State Committee as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
HBCD
This solvent is already listed under the convention, but unintentional releases, which account for almost all emissions, are excluded. This remains the case, as the committee did not recommend their inclusion.
The next conference of parties to the convention will be in Geneva, from 24 April to 5 May 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49893/un-committee-backs-action-on-pfoa-and-sccps
-
California Advisory Committees Release Agendas
Sep 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Two advisory committees to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) have released tentative agendas for their upcoming meetings. Both meetings will include consideration of substances for potential listing under Proposition 65.
The 27 October meeting of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (Dartic) will be reconsidering the listing status of chloroform. The agenda also calls for chemical listings via the administrative listing mechanism, and discussion of Prop 65 litigation.
The Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) is slated to consider the status of nitrite in combination with amines or amides, at its 15 November meeting.
The committee will also be considering prioritising, for future CIC review:
aspartame;
asphalt and asphalt emissions, associated with road paving and with roofing;
methyl chloride;
type I pyrethroids; and
vinyl acetate.
Public comment opportunities will be available at both meetings.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49895/california-advisory-committees-release-agendas
-
The Chemistry of a US Presidency
Sep 27, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Election season sees a chemical industry unenthusiastic about either candidate, and a research community overwhelmingly backing the Democratic nominee.
America is set to vote for a new president on 8 November, and the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will have to be able to address complex issues at the intersection of science and politics. As voting day nears, it is clear that the chemistry of this election is quite different from those of past years.
In recent history, the chemical industry has been pro-Republican come election time, but in the current face-off between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican challenger Donald Trump, the sector appears to favour Clinton, while the reverse may be true for the biotech industry. The academic and scientific communities, however, back Clinton overwhelmingly.
‘We are concerned about both candidates,’ states Larry Sloan, the outgoing president and chief executive of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. Although Sloan says Trump would be more likely to revisit the ‘excessive regulations’ that have burdened the chemical industry under the Obama administration, he states that Clinton is more pro-trade and more inclined to revisit big global trade deals. Trump has repeatedly promised to withdraw from some of the US’s biggest global trade agreements.
Sloan also criticises the Republican candidate as ‘not very knowledgeable’ on the recent overhaul of the 40-year-old law Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that regulates chemicals in America. This bipartisan achievement, endorsed by the chemical industry and some environmental organisations, was signed into law by President Obama in June. It gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enhanced authority to require testing of new and existing chemicals.
Sloan and many other observers agree that the EPA desperately needed this new authority, but they say more money and staff are required. Trump’s repeated vow to dismantle, or at the very least severely curtail, the EPA doesn’t bode well for TSCA.
Two former chiefs of the EPA who served in Republican administrations have also spoken out against Trump and endorsed Clinton, saying that he has shown ‘a profound ignorance of science and of the public health issues embodied in our environmental laws’.
Raising budgets, stapling green cards
In Clinton’s response to 20 questions about science and technology and coordinated by ScienceDebate.org, Clinton vows: ‘Advancing science and technology will be among my highest priorities as president.’ She goes on to assert that the US is ‘underinvesting in research’.
Clinton’s technology and innovation plan, released in June, proposes increasing the research budgets of key US science agencies. She also wants to automatically grant permanent residency to foreign nationals who receive master’s or PhD degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem) from US institutions. That proposal would enable highly skilled Stem workers to circumvent the temporary H-1B guest worker visa process. Clinton also wants ‘start-up’ visas to allow top entrepreneurs from abroad to come to the US and establish businesses.
By comparison, Trump wants to revamp the H-1B visa programme so that Americans are hired over cheaper foreign graduates. The Republican candidate is also calling for a lower corporate tax rate to encourage innovation, and slashing or eliminating spending on certain federal agencies and programmes, including the EPA and the Department of Education.
‘He has clearly demonstrated no interest in funding fundamental research,’ says Lawrence Krauss, a professor at Arizona State University’s school of earth and space exploration. ‘It is not clear to me he even understands what that is.’
Donna Nelson, an organic chemist and president of the American Chemical Society (ACS) who spoke with Chemistry World in a personal capacity, recalls that Clinton has described science and innovation as a foundation for the future. She notes that science funding seems to be ‘an afterthought’ for Trump.
‘God knows’
‘What Hillary Clinton would do is to extend the Obama administration’s support for science and technology,’ says Michael Lubell, the director of public affairs at the American Physical Society. ‘In the case of Donald Trump, I would say “God knows”.’
However, Trump does note in his response to ScienceDebate.org’s 20 questions that, despite increasing demands to curtail spending and balance the federal budget, ‘we must make the commitment to invest in science, engineering, healthcare and other areas that make the lives of Americans better, safer and more prosperous’.
Nevertheless, Nelson points out that Clinton has experience with the general science policy infrastructure that was in place during her husband Bill Clinton’s term as president. She can draw from that foundation, Nelson states, while Trump is trying to develop an original infrastructure.
Neal Lane, a physicist who served as science adviser to former president Bill Clinton and as director of the National Science Foundation before that, emphasises that Hillary Clinton has talked a lot during the campaign about the importance of investment in research and innovation in general. She has also discussed science education and workforce issues, as well as the necessity of having knowledgeable and skilled people emigrate to the US. By contrast he says Trump has not ‘said much of anything about the importance of research, anything positive about immigration and in many other ways has denigrated the importance of science to policymaking and to the country’.
Potholes take precedence
As an example of his last point, Lane cites remarks by Trump about investment in space science, technology and exploration. While campaigning in November, Trump said practical problems like potholes take precedence over space exploration. Trump also appeared to disparage the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – the nation’s well-respected biomedical research agency – on public radio last year. But what’s gotten Trump in most trouble with the scientific community is his questioning of climate change, calling it pseudoscience and even tweeting that ‘the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive’.
In his response to the ScienceDebate.org questions, Trump says ‘there is still much to be investigated in the field of “climate change”’, and he suggests that ‘the best use of limited financial resources’ would be to focus on things such as ensuring access to clean water worldwide, new energy sources and tackling diseases like malaria.
Former Republican congressmen John Porter, who served as the long-time chair of the House of Representatives subcommittee that funds science agencies, backs Clinton for president and says Trump ‘has no knowledge of science or the value of research’. From a support-for-science perspective, Porter says he would be ‘very, very unhappy’ if Trump is elected president. By contrast, he describesClinton as ‘very aware of the value of science’.
Nina Fedoroff, a molecular geneticist at Pennsylvania State University who served as the science and technology adviser to Hillary Clinton during the Obama administration, and Condoleeza Rice under Republican president George W Bush, echoes Porter. ‘She does understand the extent to which science drives our economy; Trump, not so much,’ says Fedoroff.
Immigration frustration
Fedoroff emphasises how hard it is for any foreign-born scientist to get through the US immigration system and obtain a green card, let alone become a citizen, and she notes that Clinton wants to ease that process. In contrast, Fedoroff calls Trump’s stance on immigration ‘a huge concern’. She notes that the nations he has identified as of concern from an immigration standpoint, like Iran and Pakistan, have ‘enormous talent pools’.
Krauss says that Trump is promoting xenophobia which is already stopping people coming to work and study in Stem in the US. ‘His policies, if implemented, would be a disaster – talented people from around the world would be denied entry,’ he states.
It does not appear that Clinton has an official committee of 30 or so top-level scientists to advise her campaign, as Obama did when he was running for president, but it is apparent that she still has plenty of support. Lane and Nelson are among what is described as a slew of prominent scientists offering their counsel to the Clinton campaign.
Lane says there will be ‘a long line’ of researchers and engineers who will be interested in helping a Hillary Clinton administration. ‘On the Trump side, I just don’t know – that is a totally different community,’ he adds. ‘I don’t know who would be on such a list, I have not heard of anybody.’
One person who has been linked with advising the Trump campaign on science and technology issues, though, is Republican congressman Lamar Smith, who chairs the House of Representatives’ science, space and technology committee. Smith has been involved in a number of public feuds with the academic community in recent years, however, questioning the value of a number of research grants. Smith, who trained as a lawyer and is not a scientist, has also repeatedly questioned the science of climate change.
Contributions to Trump and Clinton from the chemical and related manufacturing sectors reflects a lack of enthusiasm for Trump, compared with previous Republican candidates. The Center for Responsive Politics found that Trump received only about $43,000 (£33,000) in donations from the chemical and related manufacturing industry, which is less than a third of what Clinton has received. The last Republican challenger for the presidency, Mitt Romney, received $360,000 from this sector.
Industry cautious
Meanwhile, the US biotechnology industry appears unhappy with both major candidates. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization is not endorsing anyone, but the organisation’s president, former Republican congressman Jim Greenwood, has warned that ‘the stakes for the biotech industry could not be any higher’ in this election.
Greenwood has described the biotech sector as ‘fragile and under growing pressure’, noting that ‘a lone tweet by a candidate for high office can have unintended market moving consequences’. Those remarks appeared to reference incidents like the one in September 2015 when Clinton sent a tweet accusing drug companies of ‘price gouging’. The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell by 4.7% following that remark.
More recently, Clinton – who wants to reverse the ban on Medicare drug price negotiation – sent a tweet last month saying there is ‘no justification’ for Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ recent price hikes for EpiPens, used to treat serious allergic reactions. She said the price of the EpiPens has increased by more than 400% in recent years.
John Castellani, the recently retired president and chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, argued when he led that organisation that Clinton’s plan to regulate prescription drug prices would ‘turn back the clock on medical innovation and halt progress against the diseases that patients fear most’. He said she is proposing ‘sweeping and far-reaching’ changes that would restrict patient access to medicines, lead to the loss of ‘countless jobs’, and erode the US’s standing as the world leader in biomedical innovation.
But Trump has attacked the biotech and pharmaceutical industries too, arguing that Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices and import cheaper drugs from other countries.
Trump’s unpredictability problem
It is clear that Trump would work hard to cut taxes on corporations and slash regulations, which would appeal to the chemical industry and others. But Lane says it’s difficult for such sectors to support Trump because of the uncertainty surrounding the candidate and his positions.
Glenn Ruskin, who spent over a decade as a spokesman for the chemical industry before joining the ACS, agrees with Lane. ‘The one thing that industry thrives on is predictability,’ Ruskin says. He notes that Trump has repeatedly vowed to tear down the EPA regulatory regime but said nothing about what would replace it.
The Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas has just issued a report addressing how America’s next president should deal with science and technology policy. It urges the new commander-in-chief to select a top-notch scientist as an adviser before inauguration in January and develop a science, technology and innovation strategy within the first 100 days after taking office.
To help illustrate the importance of what is being recommended, retired Democratic congressman and physicist Rush Holt pointed out that former President Bush had no permanent science adviser in place when the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks occurred. He suggested that this was why the response to the subsequent anthrax attacks was poorly coordinated.
In contrast, Holt, the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted that Obama had already appointed John Holdren as his science adviser when he was drafting the economic stimulus package to counter the ‘Great Recession’ that hit in 2008. The result, Holt said, was that when the stimulus was enacted in February 2009, it contained an extra $21.5 billion to support R&D.
Whoever becomes the next US president in January, experts warn they won’t be able to navigate the current geopolitical turbulence without first laying down a sufficient science policy infrastructure.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/the-chemistry-of-a-us-presidency-/1017468.article
-
Obama Could Use Obscure Provision to Permanently Ban Leasing
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
More than 50 years ago, President Eisenhower permanently protected 75 square miles of coral reefs along the Florida Keys, declaring them a "natural wonder" that must be preserved for future generations.
In many ways, his 1960 declaration mimicked presidential monument designations with its emphasis on being unimpaired and "scenic and scientific values." But Eisenhower did not use the Antiquities Act, the 1906 law favored by a long line of presidents looking to protect land and water.
Instead, the 34th president of the United States was the first to use an obscure provision in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Section 12(a) could be described as Antiquities Act lite; it only works in water and focuses solely on prohibiting oil and gas activity.
Now, major environmental groups want President Obama to use it to cement his climate change legacy. Last week, the heads of Earthjustice, Environment America, Defenders of Wildlife, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, NextGen Climate and the Sierra Club asked Obama to permanently withdraw Arctic and Atlantic waters from oil and gas leasing (Greenwire, Sept. 20).
The request is bold — and unusual.
Since Eisenhower preserved the Key Largo reefs, only two presidents have used Section 12 for permanent protection: Nixon and Obama. Nixon withdrew waters around the Santa Barbara Channel Islands off California. Obama's use came decades later, when he set aside Bristol Bay in 2014 "without specific expiration" (EnergyWire, Dec. 17, 2014).
The proposal from environmentalists would be the broadest permanent use of the provision to date.
"Usually if the president doesn't want to lease something, he just doesn't lease it," said John Leshy, who served as Interior's top attorney under the Clinton administration and now teaches at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. "To go further and say 'I'm withdrawing the area' is somewhat unusual."
Leshy also called the provision "pretty sticky," meaning it would be hard to revoke. Much like the Antiquities Act, Section 12(a) does not include specific language allowing future presidents to reverse permanent withdrawals.
The issue has never been litigated. But Niel Lawrence, an attorney who is NRDC's Alaska director, expressed confidence that Obama's withdrawal of the Arctic and Atlantic would stick.
"It would be rash to say with certainty," Lawrence said, "but the better legal view is that a permanent 12(a) withdrawal cannot be undone by a later president, and that's the view that ought to prevail in court."
He cited a 1938 legal opinion from the U.S. attorney general, which dealt with the proposed abolishment of a national monument. It found that "if public lands are reserved by the President for a particular purpose under express authority of an act of Congress, the President is thereafter without authority to abolish such reservation."
The opinion dealt with the Antiquities Act. But Lawrence asserts that the legal argument is the same: Congress must give the executive branch the express power to undo such protections. In Section 12(a), it doesn't.
Nicolette Nye, a spokeswoman for the National Ocean Industries Association, disagreed. While Obama has the authority to withdraw waters under Section 12(a), "a future president could rescind such a withdrawal via a new executive order," she said.
Nye pointed to a series of executive orders that withdrew lease areas off the coasts of California, Florida, New England, Washington and Oregon. President George H. W. Bush first used Section 12(a) to protect them in 1990, building on a long-standing congressional prohibition. His executive order withdrew the areas from oil and gas leasing for 10 years.
In 1998, President Clinton extended the withdrawal until 2012. But President George W. Bush cut it short, rescinding Clinton's executive order in 2008 and reopening the areas four years early.
The case is comparable because of the scope of the withdrawal. Lawrence, however, highlighted the difference between such time-limited withdrawals and a permanent one.
No president, he said, has attempted to undo a permanent withdrawal. Eisenhower's Key Largo preserve lives on as the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. Even George W. Bush left in place portions of Clinton's withdrawal that had no specified end date. Those comprised marine sanctuaries off California, Florida, Georgia and Washington.
"No president has ever rescinded an open-ended reserve under this, and so there's no litigation history," Leshy said, later adding: "Nobody knows the answer because it's never been tried."
Would a President Trump or Hillary Clinton try to reverse such a withdrawal? Environmentalists contend that the oil industry, while powerful, doesn't have the incentive it once did. Drilling in the Arctic is expensive, and current interest in the Atlantic is low (EnergyWire, March 16).
Nye emphasized the need to keep options open to meet the energy demands of the future, citing government projections that fossil fuel could still supply much of the nation's energy in 2040.
Environmentalists have argued that the nation needs to more quickly transition to renewable energy. New drilling, they say, would thwart the Paris climate agreement to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius — and Section 12(a) gives the president broad authority to take offshore minerals off the table.
Obama is positioned to take a "bold" step on his way out, Lawrence said.
"I think this year is the moment in time for progress on climate change that we may not see for a while," he said. "I think that this is a great opportunity to permanently bar offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic because of the president's commitment to ocean preservation and his unusually clear understanding that we must do everything we can on climate change."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/27/stories/1060043495
-
Invoking Scalia, Judges Question Whether EPA Bent the Law
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The late Justice Antonin Scalia loomed large today as the courtroom battle over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan kicked off.
Several conservative judges suggested that Congress — not U.S. EPA — should be tasked with making major environmental policy decisions. They cited one of Scalia's last major environmental opinions as a possible frame for viewing this case, which may not bode well for the administration.
Oral arguments in the massive lawsuit challenging the rule to limit power plants' greenhouse gases began in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which took the highly unusual step of having its 10 active judges — excluding Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland — preside. Those arguments are expected to continue throughout the day.
The Washington, D.C., courthouse was jammed with energy and environmental officials, lawyers and reporters as arguments began, with some people waiting in line before sunrise to ensure they got a seat.
Among the EPA officials in attendance: Administrator Gina McCarthy, general counsel Avi Garbow, air chief Janet McCabe and air attorney Joe Goffman. Top White House energy officials Brian Deese and Dan Utech were on hand, as well as Council on Environmental Quality general counsel Brenda Mallory. Among the many other notables in the audience were John Cruden of the Justice Department, former House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), Richard Lazarus of Harvard University, Jeff Holmstead of Bracewell, Roger Martella of Sidley Austin and David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
First up this morning, judges pressed the administration and its challengers on whether EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to implement the Clean Power Plan, which aims to slash power plants' greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Central to the arguments was the 2013 decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, in which Scalia wrote, "When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate 'a significant portion of the American economy,' ... we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast 'economic and political significance.'"
In that case, the high court found that EPA had inappropriately used the Clean Air Act to issue a rule that required certain facilities to obtain air pollution permits for greenhouse gases.
"It might have been written with this case in mind," said Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee who has been critical of other Obama administration air pollution policies. He said the administration's rule is "fundamentally transforming an industry," and "Congress should be making the big policy decisions" or clearly delegate them to federal agencies in laws.
Kavanaugh added that EPA's objectives on the policy side are "laudable," given the challenges posed by climate change. And "I understand the frustration with Congress," he added. "Everyone understands that."
Judge Thomas Griffith, another George W. Bush appointee, questioned why the fight had arrived in their courtroom at all and wasn't instead playing out on the floor of the Senate. He said the administration had made it clear that it was looking to circumvent Congress with its regulation. President Obama said, "Congress isn't acting, so we will act," Griffith said. He joked at one point that the case must be important because he had heard about it on NPR this morning.
At the heart of the Clean Air Act debate is whether the law affords EPA the authority to interpret the law in the way it did with the Clean Power Plan. Courts typically grant federal agencies deference, known as Chevron deference, when interpreting laws. Regulating large sources of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act has presented unique challenges for EPA, because the act doesn't explicitly state how to tackle carbon dioxide. However, the Supreme Court has determined EPA has authority to limit greenhouse gases using the act.
In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA and in this case, challengers argue that for rules having so much impact, Congress must "speak clearly," as Scalia put it, for decisions of such "economic and political significance."
West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin and Peter Keisler of Sidley Austin, representing EPA's opponents today, argued that the agency had stepped far out of bounds with this rule.
"What this is doing is very different from what Section 111(d) [of the Clean Air Act] is all about," Lin told the judges.
Keisler argued that the Clean Air Act does not give the agency the authority to design performance standards for power plants in a way that would force the owner of the facility to invest in renewable technologies — which is one way to come into compliance with the rule.
Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, questioned whether EPA's rule was that far off from previous regulations requiring pollution controls. If a power plant had to buy a scrubber, for example, the plant would be subsidizing another industry creating coal scrubbers. "I think that's part of our understanding of how regulation works," she said.
Several judges questioned whether the rule was as "transformative" as challengers assert.
Judge David Tatel, a Bill Clinton appointee, said it appeared as though EPA was invoking established authority when it issued its rule.
"Mass. v. EPA changed the calculation," he said, referring to the 2007 Supreme Court decision holding that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Eric Hostetler of the Justice Department argued that the rule falls squarely within EPA's authority to control pollution. "It's about substituting cleaner technologies for dirtier technologies," he said.
Although several of the conservative justices on the court appeared skeptical of Congress' intent to allow EPA's regulatory regime, the outcome of the case will be determined by a majority. The judges hearing the case include six Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees, which could be favorable to the Obama administration.
In addition to the debate over EPA's statutory authority, the court will hear arguments over several other legal challenges in a courtroom drama that's expected to last the rest of the day.
The Clean Power Plan is currently on hold after being paused by the Supreme Court, and the case is ultimately likely to be heard by the high court. If the high court maintains a 4-4 split along ideological lines, the outcome of the D.C. Circuit case could determine whether the rule is held up or knocked down.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/27/stories/1060043503
-
Clean Power Plan's Day in Court: 4 Facts You Didn't Know
Sep 27, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Martha Roberts
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is hearing oral arguments about the Clean Power Plan – America’s first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants and our largest source of this harmful pollution.
For the first time, these vital safeguards are being reviewed on the merits. Here are four key facts you may not know about this critical court case.
1. Clean Power Plan opponents conceded the EPA has authority to issue these safeguards.
Clean Power Plan opponents are expected to tell the court today that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act because the EPA has already regulated these power plants for other substances.
They will argue that because these other pollutants – mercury, arsenic, acid gases and other hazardous air pollutants – were regulated under an entirely different section of the Clean Air Act, the new carbon rule isn’t valid.
That’s like arguing that a restaurant that has complied with health standards can’t also be subject to the fire code.
But opponents of the Clean Power Plan haven’t always sung to this tune. Several high-profile Clean Power Plan opponents have conceded EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants. Examples include statements by opponents’ counsel before the Supreme Court and even a “Clean Air Act Handbook” they drafted.
2. States and power companies are already well positioned to comply.
Nationwide, states and power companies are already shifting their electricity generation to cleaner or zero-carbon resources. Because the costs of renewable energy have plummeted, markets are now driving new investments in clean energy.
The latest government data shows that United States power-sector emissions have already declined 21 percent since 2005 – two-thirds of the way toward the 32-percent reduction the EPA anticipates the Clean Power Plan will achieve by 2030.
In fact, a recent analysis shows that all states opposed to the plan could comply with some common-sense steps.
3. Americans strongly support the Clean Power Plan, even in states opposed to it.
The Clean Power Plan sets common-sense targets to reduce carbon pollution from our nation’s largest source of these emissions, helping to protect families, public health and the economy against this urgent threat.
It adopts a flexible approach that enables maximum emissions reductions while maintaining an affordable, reliable electricity supply. Two former Republican EPA administrators and Republican members of Congress noted this approach in a recent op-ed.
Because one of the best ways to help secure emissions reductions from the electric sector is to deploy cost-saving energy efficiency investments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan is expected to decrease electricity bills for families.
It helps explain why a a large majority of the American publicsupports the Clean Power Plan – even in states officially opposed to the rule.
Indeed, 60 cities across the country filed in court to support the Clean Power Plan – including Houston, Grand Rapids, Miami and dozens others in states now fighting the EPA.
4. A broad and diverse, bipartisan coalition backs this plan.
A host of supporters are standing up in court to support the Clean Power Plan’s common-sense climate solutions and to highlight its robust technical and legal foundation.
The 60 cities filing in support of the rule were joined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and 18 states all across the country – as well as our nation’s leading business innovators.
Leading brands such as Google, Apple, Mars, IKEA, Amazon and Microsoft have weighed in. So have premier legal expertson the Clean Air Act and the operation of the electricity grid, along with top health and medical experts, and organizations seeking to protect consumers.
It doesn’t end there. The coalition includes more than 200 current and former members of Congress who filed in support of the rule.
This, along with the other merits that make up a rock-solid legal and technical foundation for the Clean Power Plan, gives us confidence that in the end, climate protection can win the day.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/09/27/clean-power-plans-day-court-4-facts-you-didnt-know
-
Opposing Sides Confident Ahead of Day in Court
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Litigants in today's showdown over U.S. EPA's landmark Clean Power Plan have spent the past week writing opinion pieces, sending email blasts and hitting the public appearance circuit to vouch for their respective sides.
The common message: They're confident they'll win.
Speaking on a panel yesterday, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said he is convinced his coalition of states will prevail in its massive challenge to the rule, which aims to cut carbon emissions from power plants. In fact, he said, his side might just win over the whole roster of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"We're hopeful that our arguments are so compelling that they're going to reach all 10 judges sitting on the panel," he said in a Texas Public Policy Foundation discussion hosted by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.
With Chief Judge Merrick Garland sitting out of oral arguments, the en banc court includes six judges appointed by Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republican presidents.
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan say the rule exceeds EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act and unconstitutionally treads on states' regulatory turf. Defenders, meanwhile, say the rule is well within the bounds of the Clean Air Act and well-supported by legal precedent. Both sides say their arguments will transcend party lines and score a decisive win at the D.C. Circuit.
"They grossly misrepresent how the Plan works, and grossly exaggerate its impacts on the power sector," Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger wrote in a blog post Friday. "None of their legal arguments holds up."
Doniger and NRDC's Lissa Lynch went on to assail their opponents' various arguments, including the notion that the Clean Air Act bars pollution-cutting measures "beyond the fence line" of power plants.
"EPA determined that the combination of using of smokestack controls and pollution credits from shifting generation among plants makes up a well-demonstrated system of emission reduction, one that is widely used by the power industry both to meet internal targets and prior federal and state regulations," they wrote. "EPA decided that this familiar approach is the 'best system of emission reduction' for each carbon-emitting plant, and the agency then set emission rate limits that can be achieved at manifestly reasonable cost."
Constitutional lawyers fighting the Clean Power Plan took to The Wall Street Journal to make their case against the rule. In an op-ed, BakerHostetler attorneys David Rivkin Jr. and Andrew Grossman, who are representing Oklahoma against EPA, argued that the rule violates principles of federalism by commandeering states to fulfill federal goals. They rejected EPA's argument that states are free to opt out of crafting a compliance plan and instead defer to a federal implementation plan.
"Whether or not the states choose to implement the plan directly, it leaves them no choice but to carry out the EPA's federal climate policy," Rivkin and Grossman wrote. "That's because the EPA can destroy but not create. It can regulate emissions of existing facilities, but it lacks the legal authority to facilitate the construction and integration of new power sources, which is ultimately the only way to achieve the plan's aggressive targets."
Pulling no punches, they added: "The Clean Power Plan implicates every evil associated with unconstitutional commandeering."
Former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman made counterarguments in her own opinion piece inTime magazine. The administrator, who served under George W. Bush, defended the rule, calling it legal, flexible and "in line with where the market is already going."
"First, the EPA's authority to move forward with regulating carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act is not a matter of debate," she wrote. "EPA has authority, and it is in fact obligated to move forward."
Lawyers from both sides, meanwhile, remain busy with court filings. Just yesterday, three states urged the court to toss an argument raised last week by Clean Power Plan opponents who say California's compliance plan confirms their fears that certain states will refuse to link emissions trading regimes with traditional coal states.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/27/stories/1060043463
-
Clean Power Plan Leaves Businesses and Families Stuck with the Bill
Sep 27, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Randy T. Simmons and Michael Jensen
This week, arguments for and against what has been called the "most aggressively litigated environmental regulation in U.S. history" — the Clean Power Plan — were presented to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The rule, issued last year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sets carbon dioxide emissions limits for fossil-fuel fired power plants, and is so controversial that 10 judges, rather than the usual three, will hear oral arguments.
The EPA has attempted to package and sell the rule as "fair" and "flexible," but its legality is questionable and it is neither fair nor flexible. The greatest cost of compliance will not be primarily borne by the politicians and bureaucrats who dreamed it up, but by businesses and families across the country who lack the political clout to impose their vision of the future, and its cost, upon everyone else.
The EPA argues that the Clean Air Act grants the agency authority to promulgate the rule, that they have adequately considered the costs of compliance and that the carbon dioxide emissions limits imposed on fossil-fuel fired power plants are achievable.
Opponents of the rule, including 27 states and many non-state organizations, argue that the EPA has reinterpreted the Clean Air Act in an effort to grant itself authority it should not have, that the rule violates states' rights by commandeering their resources and that the final rule is not a logical result of comments received on the proposed rule.
Regardless of the D.C. court's ruling, the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Clean Power Plan is ultimately upheld, the cost of compliance will be high, especially for people living in heavily coal-dependent states like Montana. Though the EPA claims the rule allows for flexibility, a study by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, from the University of Montana, concluded that the state-specific carbon dioxide emissions limit "drastically reduces" Montana's compliance options.
The bureau's model indicates that Montanans will experience about half the economic decline they experienced during the Great Recession. The rule will likely result in the complete closure of theColstrip Generating Station (a coal-fired power plant southeast of Billings, Montana) and a loss of more than 7,000 jobs, with the utility, mining, construction, and state and local government sectors being hit the hardest.
Additionally, the bureau concluded that Montana businesses will lose more than $1.5 billion in sales and that more than 10,000 people will leave Montana in search of better economic opportunities.
The Clean Power Plan isn't the only bad news for Montanans. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the electric grid for most of Texas, has also warned the rule will create major challenges for the Lone Star State. In combination with other EPA-proposed regulations, Texas may lose more than 4,000 megawatts of coal generation capacity (loosely, enough electricity to power 1.5 million to 2 million homes), which will challenge ERCOT's ability to reliably supply electricity to customers. ERCOT estimates that compliance with the rule will increase energy costs to consumers by up to 16 percent by 2030.
Environmental regulations like the Clean Power Plan may warm the hearts of the politically powerful, but the rule leaves states with limited compliance options, major reliability concerns and comes with a hefty price tag. Unfortunately, it won't be the environmental aristocracy in D.C. that gets stuck paying the bill.
Simmons, Ph.D., is a professor of political economy and director of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University. Jensen is a graduate student in economics at Utah State University and a policy analyst at Strata, an energy and environment research center based in Logan, Utah. Simmons is also president of Strata.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/298030-clean-power-plan-leaves-businesses-and-families-stuck
-
California Legal Victory Exposes Fracking Flaw in U.S. Management of Public Lands
Sep 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jean Su
They are some of the most beautiful public lands in America -- vast tracts of open space ranging from the rocky foothills of the southern Sierra Nevada to the sun-kissed fields of Santa Barbara on the California central coast.
But these incredible wild places are in the crosshairs of the oil industry. Or they were until a U.S. judge recently shot down a federal plan to open more than 1 million acres of these public lands and mineral estates to drilling and fracking.
Citing threats to water supplies and endangered wildlife, the court ruled that the Bureau of Land Management failed to analyze the risks of fracking and other dangerous extraction techniques when preparing a management plan that would have allowed oil drilling in these areas.
Californians celebrated the ruling, which came in response to a lawsuit brought by my organization, Earthjustice, and Los Padres Forest Watch. Polls show huge opposition to fracking in our state.
But the whole country -- not just California -- should be watching this case, because the BLM's troubling failure to assess fracking's threats to our air, water and climate is being replicated on public lands all over America.
In California, the failure in oversight was obvious. As the recent court decision notes, BLM officials estimate about a quarter of the new wells drilled on these lands in central California will be fracked. Yet the bureau’s 1,073-page management plan contained just three brief mentions of fracking and no analysis of fracking pollution’s threats to public health, endangered species or water supplies.
Fracking blasts huge amounts of water mixed with toxic chemicals underground to release oil and gas. It's been linked to air pollution and water contamination in many places around America. But BLM officials simply turned a blind eye to those concerns.
And that, the judge ruled, broke federal law.
This isn't BLM's first rebuke for ignoring fracking risks. In 2013 a federal judge ruled that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued oil leases in California's Monterey County without considering fracking's environmental dangers.
Following that ruling, the BLM has refrained from holding any new lease sales in that area while it completes an environmental review of the risks of fracking. A similar outcome is expected following the recent decision.
Other states aren't so lucky. Sadly, the bureau’s pattern of failing to properly assess fracking risks is commonplace.
The federal government manages almost 650 million acres of public land, as well as the fossil fuels beneath them. Some 67 million acres of federal fossil fuel are already leased to the industry -- an area more than 55 times larger than Grand Canyon National Park. Fossil fuel extraction imperils these amazing places. Our climate is also threatened: The leases generate nearly a quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas pollution.
Even in the face of lower oil prices, the BLM this September unveiled a plan to allow an oil company to drill 5,750 new oil and gas wells in Utah. And last year, the bureau approved plans that would allow nearly 19,000 new oil and gas wells in the Upper Colorado River Basin in western Colorado.
Some 90 percent of wells drilled on public lands are fracked, according to the Interior Department. Yet federal officials have repeatedly failed to give much consideration to the dangers of this extreme technique.
During the height of the fracking boom in recent years, many of the highest-risk oil and gas wells drilled on federal lands weren't even inspected by BLM officials, according to investigations by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Associated Press.
As climate change poses a growing threat to Western states -- California just sweated out the hottest summer on record -- it's outrageous that our federal government is bending over backward to ignore the risks of fracking while auctioning off public lands to polluting oil companies.
That's why people around the country and organizations like mine are stepping up to hold this agency accountable.
The BLM's legal defeat in California was a huge victory in the fight against fracking pollution. It's time for the Obama administration to get the message and end the reckless rush to auction off our public land to oil companies.
As America's west struggles against drought and climate change, the federal government must stop auctioning off new leases so that we can leave these dirty fossil fuels in the ground.
Jean Su is an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity and Californians Against Fracking.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/298018-california-legal-victory-exposes-fracking-flaw-in-us
-
Dakota Pipeline Battle Looms Over White House Tribal Summit
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Eight years ago, a young Sen. Barack Obama spoke to a crowd in Dallas, promising to represent the rights of tribes in the United States.
Yesterday, President Obama reflected on the progress made over the last eight years, saying his administration has made significant progress elevating the voices of Native Americans on a federal level, although there is more work to be done.
"I want everyone in this auditorium and all the folks back home in your respective communities to know that this whole time, I've heard you and I've seen you and I hope I've done right by you," Obama said. "I hope I've set a direction that others will follow."
Although well-received by the more than 560 tribal leaders, Obama's message was somewhat overshadowed by the ongoing battle over the Dakota Access pipeline. If completed, the proposed 1,134-mile pipeline would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Dakotas to Illinois.
Just an hour after the president left the stage in Washington, D.C., a planned demonstration began outside. Chanting "Whose water? Our water," the crowd bashed the Army Corps of Engineers for not rejecting the pipeline outright and the federal government more broadly for failing to adequately consult with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as it was being considered.
After a prayer and a song, the speakers riled the crowd, thanked other tribes for their support and vowed to keep fighting.
Still, many seemed cautiously optimistic.
"Fifty years ago, this pipeline would have already been in place," said Brian Cladoosby, president of the National Congress of American Indians and a member of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. "Today is a different day. The administration is hearing us."
Jewell calls for diversification in coal country
In conjunction with the conference, U.S. EPA and other federal agencies yesterday announced an interagency agreement to solidify the treaty rights of tribes related to natural resources affected by agency decisions.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency is spearheading a memorandum of understanding on tribal treaty rights and other initiatives designed to advance tribal sovereignty.
The move came just days after the departments of the Army, the Interior and Justice announced they would hold a series of listening sessions on infrastructure planning (EnergyWire, Sept. 26).
"We have made tremendous progress by including that in our agencies, but we want to make sure that is genuine and is being followed through and the agencies recognize its support," said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
Speaking on stage together, Jewell and McCarthy stressed that agencies must actively work so that resources and investments — especially relating to things like renewable energy development, clean water and clean air — do not bypass Native communities.
When asked about assistance for tribes dependent on revenues from coal resources, Jewell acknowledged that the transition can be hard.
"As we go through some of these profound changes over which we have limited control ... it is hard to let go of the 'from' if you don't know what the 'to' is," Jewell said. "If coal is a substantial part of your community, it is difficult to see what is next."
But she said, it may be practical to diversify where a community's revenues are coming from, whether that be to look at solar, wind or geothermal or at other commodities.
She encouraged concerned tribes to attend the energy subgroup meeting, one of many subgroups meeting today to discuss more in-depth issues affecting tribes.
A new, 'hard to undo' relationship
Attendees of the conference said although the Dakota Access fight loomed over the proceedings, they believe the work Obama has done over the past eight years to communicate with American Indian communities as equals was his lasting legacy.
Among Obama's achievements in Indian Country, the administration has invested nearly $14 million in tribal land grant colleges, bought back the equivalent of 1.6 million acres of land for tribes and allocated $11.8 million to support tribal climate change adaptation and planning projects.
"I think the Obama administration really gave the tribes a lot of opportunity to sit down at the table and voice their concerns, something that we really haven't had the chance to do much of in the past," said George Thompson, a tribal council member with the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
Overall, Vernon Finley, a tribal council member with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, said he is pleased with Obama's work in Indian Country.
"He's done so much to try institutionalize the government relationship that that's been excellent," Finley said. "It's going to be hard to undo that relationship, whoever comes in afterwards."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/27/stories/1060043469
-
Don’t Let Congress Abandon Flint
Sep 26, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
I get up in the morning and drink a glass of water before I do anything else. I rinse a piece of fruit under the tap. I prepare instant oatmeal with a half cup of water. I have a cup of tea that I prepare with boiling tap water. I wash the breakfast dishes. I take a shower and brush my teeth.
Like most Americans, I don’t give a lot of thought to the water I use before I leave the house.
I’m thinking about it now, because I just spent two days on Capitol Hill with residents of Flint, Michigan. They’re in the third year of having to think constantly about the water they are using because they can’t trust the water that comes out of the tap in their homes and workplaces. They’re thinking about it because they have to acquire and open bottle after bottle of water to rinse that piece of fruit. To have a cup of tea. To prepare breakfast. To bathe their children.
Flint residents think about the water they use because they have to travel across town to get bottles of water to accomplish those life tasks that most of us do without thinking every day.
I was honored to work with colleagues from the Sierra Club and Environment New Jersey to help Flint mothers and activists make their way through the House and Senate office building maze as they told their stories to members of Congress and their staff, and then told those stories to staff at the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Quite frankly, the stories from Flint are hard to hear. It’s outrageous that families in Flint are charged some of the highest water bills in the nation for water that they can’t use. It’s unthinkable to most that the lead contamination crisis that began in Flint more than two years ago has not been “solved” by now. It’s unconscionable that Flint families are in the third year of being unable to turn on the faucet and get a drink of water.
It’s important that these people took time off from work and away from their families and told stories of their children who are suffering from the health effects of lead poisoning – one mother brought us to tears talking about her eight-year-old daughter’s teeth disintegrating as she ate a sandwich. Another mom told us about how her family of five gets in the minivan once a week to travel out of the county to have a shower.
Even more troubling than the personal stories from Flint is the possibility that Congress might leave Washington before passing legislation that includes funds targeted toward repairing some of the damage, and preventing other American communities from suffering similar crises.
While the Flint delegation was in our last DC meeting at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Senate passed the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) by a broadly bipartisan vote of 95-3. The bill authorizes water-related projects across the country, including at least $100 million to replace and repair lead water pipes in Flint.
The House version of the bill has not yet come to the floor, but does not contain the funding for Flint. We heard in a number of offices that the conference of the two bills is likely to retain the Senate’s funding provision for this hard-hit community, but with so few days left on the Congressional calendar, the delegation from Flint shouldn’t be blamed for being skeptical.
Congressman Dale Kildee, the representative for Michigan’s 5th District welcomed his constituents from Flint at a press conference at the Capitol, saying about funding for Flint: “They could put it in the water resources bill. They could put it in one of the spending bills. As far as I’m concerned, you could put it in the morning prayer.”
Let’s not leave it to prayer or partisan politics. Take our action here and let your member of Congress know that the final water resources bill that goes to the President should include funding for Flint and funding to prevent future water crises in communities across the U.S.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/09/26/dont-let-congress-abandon-flint/
-
Taconic Polluted N.Y. Town — Lawsuit
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A plastics manufacturer in Petersburgh, N.Y., intentionally polluted waterways and local air, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday in the state's Supreme Court.
The lawsuit concerns perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, allegedly released by Taconic Plastics Ltd. Four residents claim to have been exposed to the chemical for years.
PFOA is used to make Teflon and other products, and is a potential human carcinogen.
"During the manufacture of certain products, PFOA at the Taconic facility was heated to the extent that it took on a vapor form, which was then released through smoke stacks and carried by wind into the surrounding community," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also maintains that employees at the plant tossed PFOA-laced materials in the garbage, which was then carted to the town landfill.
The suit was filed by Weitz & Luxenberg PC, a personal injury firm.
Local news reports claim the company informed New York's Department of Environmental Conservation about groundwater pollution as far back as 2005.
"This company's pollution has left its mark on Petersburgh, and members of the community will need access to a number of resources in the coming years to get their lives back on track," said Robin Greenwald at Weitz & Luxenberg. "Residents of Petersburgh need water filters, regular testing of their private wells and biomonitoring to detect illnesses associated with the chemicals Taconic has unleashed on the community, and this lawsuit seeks to provide them with all of these things".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/27/stories/1060043489
-
Chemical Safety Board Scrambles After Emails Surface
Sep 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
Members of the nation's chemical safety watchdog exchanged tense emails last week after reports surfaced of potential improper conduct by one of its board members.
And in an effort to rehabilitate its image, the Chemical Safety Board is scheduling an offsite meeting next month for its top officials to discuss reforms to the troubled agency.
The actions came after Greenwire reported that member Rick Engler may have engaged in improper correspondence with officials at the largest industrial labor union in the country, according to private emails (Greenwire, Sept. 21).
"Today has again highlighted that we have some very fundamental behavioral and philosophical items to discuss if we have any hope of successfully executing the new strategic plan and improving the agency's image over the next 4 years," CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland wrote in an email obtained by Greenwire to her three fellow board members just after midnight last Thursday.
"Board member actions, not staff actions, continue to plague the CSB year over year, and I am going to implore us to break this cycle," she said.
Sutherland also wrote about the agency's internal political woes and criticized Engler's apparent lack of transparency.
"I could rage about how frustrating it is to have the exact same conversations about teamwork, openness, transparency, communication, respect for the staff and each other, cohesiveness and respect for swim lanes," Sutherland wrote.
She then outlined a four-point agenda to be discussed at the planned offsite meeting for agency members, the first two being how to reform stakeholder and public engagement.
The third point reflects the fact that CSB members are individually — not collectively — appointed by the president.
Although members go through their own Senate confirmation process, they are "also part of a TEAM," Sutherland wrote.
"We have different views that should be heard and used, but we must learn how to avoid being 4 independent agencies with 4 individual missions," she continued.
The fourth point, in Sutherland's words, is "revisions to the investigation report review process that I hypothesize will make us and the team happier."
'Consider asserting' public confidence
"I am very disappointed in your email," Engler wrote in a reply to Sutherland the morning after.
"At a time when my hope would be that there would be at least some rallying to support the role of the agency against those who do not believe in its mission and those individuals who may be intent on destroying it, instead, your focus is to criticize me," he continued.
Engler proceeded to respond point by point to Sutherland's email, but ended his reply with a plea to her.
"[P]ublicly," he wrote, "I ask you to consider asserting that you have the utmost confidence in the integrity of all board members."
In an interview today, Sutherland said she does have confidence in the board's members and work.
"In any organization, at the end of the day, when issues — whatever those issues are — arise, [when] you're one of the people who is a leader at that organization, you try to resolve it," she said. "You have confidence in people as you try to resolve an issue.
"Who knows where things end up," she added. "The only thing you can do is try."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/27/stories/1060043497
-
States, Industry Fault EPA Air Law Interpretation For Rejecting SSM Plans
Sep 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
States and major industry groups are faulting what they say is EPA's misreading of the Clean Air Act when it issued a rule forcing 36 states to scrap air law waivers for certain facility operations, saying the agency's claim of “fundamental” flaws in the waivers to justify the rule is not tied to specific statutory language and is therefore unlawful.
The argument -- detailed in Sept. 26 briefs filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- echoes attacks that EPA critics have made over the agency's statutory interpretations in other lawsuits over air rules, and could pose an important test of its ability to force changes to state air law compliance plans.
For example, petitioners in a separate suit faulted EPA's reading of the air law in its finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to issue a power plant maximum achievable control technology air toxics rule. The Supreme Court said EPA erred by not considering costs in that finding, remanding the case to the D.C. Circuit.
A pending case also in the D.C. Circuit challenges EPA's approval of a Clean Air Act waiver allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for non-road mobile sources than federal requirements. Opponents of the rules are claiming that the agency has misread the air law's requirement for the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” necessary to grant the waivers, and briefing in that lawsuit is ongoing.
The suit over the air law emissions limit exceptions for facility startup, shutdown and malfunctions (SSMs) could similarly set a precedent on EPA's statutory interpretations for rejecting state air plans.
The case, consolidated as Walter Coke, Inc. , et al v. EPA, et al., contests EPA's June 2015 rule that requires 36 states to remove language from their state implementation plans (SIPs) -- blueprints for air law compliance -- that allow facilities to exceed air pollution limits during SSM events. Environmentalists and EPA argue that such exemptions allow large amounts of harmful air pollution to escape controls. But industry groups and allied states counter that the waivers are vital because excess emissions during startup are unavoidable, as are unforseen malfunctions.
The “SIP Call” rule declared the SIPs to be “substantially inadequate” to justify the move, and set a Nov. 22 deadline for removal of the SIP provisions. States that miss the compliance deadline risk the imposition of federal plans instead through which the agency would directly remove the SSM provisions from SIPs.
The exemptions include blanket SSM exemptions, but also “affirmative defenses” that automatically shield industry from civil liability in the event of a malfunction deemed unavoidable by EPA, and “director's discretion” provisions in state plans that it says provide too much leeway to permit unlawful exemptions.
EPA took this step in the wake of rulings by the D.C. Circuit that outlawed first blanket SSM exemptions -- and later also affirmative defenses -- as being incompatible with ensuring that emissions limits apply continuously, and also with courts' discretion to decide penalties for air law violations. The agency is also stripping similar measures from federal regulations, and replacing them with a policy of case-by-case enforcement discretion.
'Substantially Inadequate'
However, states opposed to the rule as well as groups representing major industrial sectors are arguing that the agency is erroneously citing “fundamental” problems with the provisions to justify the SIP Call.
“EPA fails to apply the appropriate standard for a SIP call, failing to give the phrase 'substantially inadequate' any meaning. EPA argues that this standard is met if a SIP is, or even might be, inadequate to meet a 'fundamental legal requirement.' EPA is incorrect; the 'substantially inadequate' standard applies to 'any requirement' of the Act, fundamental or not,” says a coalition of 19 states in their joint reply brief.
A broad industry coalition including electric utilities and others in its reply brief reinforces this point, arguing that EPA cannot simply assert that an issue is “fundamental” in order to find a SIP inadequate.
Any SIP Call citing substantial inadequacy “must identify a specific requirement of the Act, i.e., something that the Act requires a state to do, or not do, in its SIP. Moreover, EPA must show that the 'implementation plan' 'is substantially inadequate' to comply with the identified requirement,” the groups claim.
In another reply brief filed by Texas and industry groups in the state, the petitioners say that Texas' SIP provisions allowing affirmative defenses “are not 'substantially inadequate' 'to comply with'” the air law. “They are fully consistent” with the air law's enforcement scheme, Texas petitioners say.
The Texas petitioners initially sought to litigate the SIP Call, as it affects Texas, in the 5th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the state and has previously ruled affirmative defenses permissible. They continue to argue that the 5th Circuit's 2013 ruling in Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA precludes re-litigation of the same issues.
Legal Arguments
States and industry also raise a slew of other arguments against the SIP Call, including overstepping its authority to change state plans and inadequately justifying the rule.
For example, the states in their brief say, “EPA misapplies the SIP call standard and impermissibly creates new . . . requirements by disregarding 'general duty' emission limitations and calling so-called automatic exemptions, director’s discretion provisions, and affirmative defenses.”
EPA and environmentalists argue that “general duty” requirements are too vague, and are inadequate to meet specific air law mandates.
According to the states, the agency relies “heavily on EPA-invented semantic and structural requirements and EPA’s hypothetical concerns that courts might interpret SIPs in a way that disregards States’ understanding of their SIPs and conflicts with EPA’s understanding of the Act. This is not the federalism balance Congress contemplated.”
This claim revisits arguments that EPA has frequently overstepped it authority and undone the balance of air law “cooperative federalism” under the current administration, an argument that some EPA critics made when the agency first issued its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule emissions trading program.
Industry petitioners in their brief make similar points, and again condemn as “unsupportable” EPA's “policy preference for self-contained 'continuously applicable emission limitations' as if it were a mandate from Congress or a reasonable interpretation” of the air law. “It is not,” they say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-fault-epa-air-law-interpretation-rejecting-ssm-plans
-
As Talks Near, EPA Rejects Industry Request To Delay HFC Coolant Phaseout
Sep 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Days before international talks to phase out high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), EPA has released its final rule phasing out a second round of the coolants, rejecting refrigeration industry requests to extend by as many as one to three years the deadlines by which companies must phase out some of the chemicals.
While EPA's rejection of the industry requests could cool their support for the rule, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy suggested the final regulation could aid administration efforts to reach a more ambitious deal in the upcoming talks, slated for Oct. 8-14 in Kigali, Rwanda.
“We are reducing emissions of HFCs that are harmful to the climate system and showing the world that we can do this responsibly and thoughtfully by working with businesses and environmental groups. I'm especially excited that we have taken these actions ahead of next month's Montreal Protocol negotiations,” she said in a statement accompanying the rules' release.
The agency finalized Sept. 26 the rule, which removes several high-GWP HFCs from a list of acceptable substances under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.
EPA also finalized a related rule under section 608 of the Clean Air Act to broaden refrigerant management and handling guidelines for ozone-depleting substances to cover HFCs, as well as require quarterly leak inspections.
The pair of rules comes as United States negotiators are prepping for upcoming international talks where negotiators are expected to strike a deal for global phasedown of the high-GWP refrigerants as an amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
Sources have said EPA's first SNAP rule, promulgated in July 2015, was critical to bringing many developing nations to the table to negotiate an HFC phasedown. This second SNAP rulemaking, in conjunction with the management guidelines, could serve a similar role as the negotiations head toward the final stretch.
While negotiators are expected to reach a final deal, they are still debating the ambition of any agreement as some developing countries -- including India -- remain hesitant to accept earlier phaseout dates.
Any HFC phaseout deal reached in Kigali has the potential to limit as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by the end of the century, and advocates are calling the deal a crucial first step toward meeting the Paris Agreement goals.
Nonetheless, EPA's rejection of several requests from the refrigeration industry to delay the SNAP rule's deadlinescould stymie industry support for the agency's efforts ahead of the crucial international talks.
Both commercial and household industry refrigeration industry groups urged EPA to alter the SNAP proposal to reflect industry's recommended transition dates, which were as much as one to three years later than the agency's selected deadlines.
'Negligible' Impacts
In comments on the proposed rule, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), as well as other industry groups, argued a slight delay would have a “negligible” impact on the rule's emissions benefits but would significantly aid industry by allowing time both for updates to building and safety codes needed for the use of some mildly flammable low-GWP alternative refrigerants and for product redesigns.
But EPA maintained the dates it proposed, a move that is likely to draw outcry from industry. One of the industry-requested dates -- for several HFC chemicals used in commercial chillers -- was the result of a first-time consensus deal brokered by industry and environmentalists on the chemicals, and EPA's initial rejection of that consensus deal in the proposed rule came as a shock to industry stakeholders.
AHRI and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent in February a joint letter to EPA recommending a Jan. 1, 2025, phaseout date for several HFCs used in chillers, but EPA proposed -- and has now adopted -- a deadline one year earlier, Jan. 1, 2024.
On the home refrigeration side, AHAM had urged EPA to adopt the 2024 industry-wide target as its deadline for phasing out several HFCs in household refrigerators and freezers and air-conditioning, but the agency's rule adopts a 2021 phaseout date, as proposed.
Broadly, EPA in its proposed rule had requested more detailed justification from industry as to why their proposed dates were necessary. Industry sources told Inside EPA at the time of submission that their comments sought to resolve any discrepancy, but the agency in its final rule notes the comments did not provide sufficient enough evidence to warrant a change in deadline.
Phaseout Date
The agency also acknowledges the AHRI/NRDC recommended deadline, but contends that their subsequent comments to the proposed rule did not appropriately explain, with enough detail, why the phaseout date needs to be delayed by a year, refuting AHRI and other industry groups' arguments that building and safety codes will not be updated in time.
“EPA is not aware that any part of the Federal government was represented or consulted when the AHRI Chiller Section and NRDC agreed to recommend a January 1, 2025, transition date; however, we do note subsequent to the AHRI Chiller Section and NRDC letter announcing this agreement, [the Department of Energy (DOE)] along with AHRI and [the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)], announced the $5.2 million effort 'that will establish a more robust fact base about the properties and the use of flammable refrigerants' with an intent to update standards,” EPA writes in the final rule.
That effort, spearheaded by AHRI, is aimed to help speed the necessary updates of standards and codes, though industry had argued a 2025 phaseout date was still required as many states and local jurisdictions may not yet have adopted the updated codes by then.
But EPA in its final rule notes that its selected phaseout date of 2024 allows for enough time. “Although EPA recognizes that in general standards and model codes need to be developed to allow for the use of [mildly flammable] refrigerants, and that States and localities need to adopt those model codes or similar requirements, it is not reasonable to condition the entire market by such actions,” the agency writes.
It adds that it “found several examples where acceptable alternatives have been used in both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers, and received information that indicates that industry standards are expected to be updated as early as 2017 and that model building codes would be updated possibly in the 2018 cycle or most likely the 2021 cycle.”
Household Refrigeration
EPA cites the AHRI-led effort in its justification for maintaining the 2021 deadline for household refrigeration products, as well, instead of adopting AHAM's requested 2024 phaseout deadline.
In addition, the agency downplays portions of the AHAM comments that argued the environmental impact of delaying the phaseout deadline until 2024 would be “negligible,” noting that EPA does “not consider that as part of the analysis for determining the appropriate change of status date.”
Rather, EPA notes that it considers environmental effects only as part of determining whether safer alternatives exist, and then considers “the technical challenges of a transition and the availability of alternatives” to identify a phaseout date.
EPA also writes that AHAM and other commenters did not provide “sufficient information to indicate that more time than what EPA proposed would be needed.”
It adds: “Although the comments did not provide a detailed analysis of what steps are required to complete a transition and how long each step takes, and whether steps can occur simultaneously or must occur in series, we find that much component equipment development can occur at the same time as other product design work.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/talks-near-epa-rejects-industry-request-delay-hfc-coolant-phaseout
-
Debate Must Expose Divide Between Trump, Clinton on Climate Change
Sep 27, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Paul Bledsoe
When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump participate in the first of three Presidential debates tonight, the candidates will offer sharply contrasting visions of America and its future. But few issues will offer starker disagreements — or have greater long-term economic and national security implications — than energy policy and climate change. NBC’s Lester Holt, tonight’s moderator, would serve the American voters well by pushing both Clinton and Trump to explain their energy and climate positions in depth.
Donald Trump has made energy a central theme in his campaign, basing his policies almost entirely on increasing production of U.S. fossil fuels. For example, he has repeatedly claimed he can increase U.S. coal production and use — “We're going to save that coal industry, believe me” — despite the fact that nearly all independent analysts note that it is cheap natural gas itself that has crowded out coal use, along with coal’s public health and air pollution problems.
Trump also urges expansion of fracking for shale oil and natural gas development. He has accused Clinton of trying to ban hydraulic fracturing and energy production on public lands and most offshore areas. In fact, Clinton supports shale oil and gas production as long as it meets safety regulations and has local support, and the Democratic nominee also backs appropriate oil and gas development on public lands and waters.
Perhaps most strikingly, Trump has repeatedly denied the science of climate change, despite the overwhelming agreement among scientists, national security experts and others that climate change is a profound threat to our planet’s economic and political stability. Specifically, Trump has labeled climate change science a “hoax” on half a dozen occasions and called it a “Chinese conspiracy,” among other dismissals.
Trump says he will “rescind” the pending Clean Power Plan rules to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the utility sector, and other regulations that cut emissions. He has also said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement — the first agreement in which all nations have made detailed commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions — despite the fact that legal experts say he would not be able to do so.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast to Trump’s emphasis on fossil fuels, has promised to make “America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.” Clinton has proposed large expansions in the use renewable sources, “enough to power every home in America” in ten years including by adding “half a billion solar panels” in her first term.
Clinton has proposed launching a $60 billion “Clean Energy Challenge” through the states, extending efficiency regulations for American vehicles, and revitalizing coal communities through a focus on new energy sector and other jobs. She has also proposed cutting oil and gas subsidies, and said she would pursue a domestic infrastructure bill which emphasizes clean energy.
Clinton calls climate change “an urgent threat and a defining challenge.” She supports the Clean Power Plan to cut power sector emissions, and says she will “deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference,” reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels, and creating a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. The Republican Nominee Trump has made no climate commitments, at all.
The implications of these contrasting visions are momentous. Most climate scientists believe we are on course for runaway warming and devastating climate change impacts without large changes in our energy systems.
To take just one climate impact, involving sea-level rise, as many of 2 million U.S. homes will be subject to inundation and hundreds of millions of people displaced by coastal flooding around the world in this century alone. Hundreds of millions more will face drought and water shortages, increased disease, unendurable extreme heat, and will be made refugees, destabilizing whole countries, if climate change continues unabated.
Scientists are also finding that climate change is playing a large role in many current extreme weather disasters. For example, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found that the recent Louisiana record flooding that destroyed or damaged more than 60,000 homes and cost billions was made “at least 40% more likely” because of climate change.
Global leaders like U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon call climate change “the defining issue of our age.” President Obama recently termed growing climate impacts “terrifying” and this month he signed a presidential memorandum establishing that climate-change impacts must be factored into national security-related policies.
Such statements have been reinforced by many experts, including recently by 25 military and national security leaders, among them former top advisers to Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, who warned earlier this month that climate change poses a “significant risk to U.S. national security and international security.” Indeed, previous Republican nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney did not deny climate change science, as Trump does.
Tonight, if Lester Holt does not prominently feature energy policy and climate change issues, then second debate moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper, or third debate moderator Chris Wallace, must do so. Anything less would be a complete abdication of their journalistic responsibility to inform voters on one of the most important issues of our time.
Paul Bledsoe is president of Bledsoe & Associates, a Washington-based energy and climate change consultancy. He was communications director of the White House Climate Change Task Force under former President Bill Clinton.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/297827-debate-must-expose-divide-between-trump-clinton-on
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested