Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/24/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Jennifer Abril to Head SOCMA
Oct 24, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
Jennifer L. Abril is the new head of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), a trade association for specialty chemical makers. -
Little Lobbyists for Big Change
Oct 21, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Earthjustice
A team of amazing kids battle lead contamination. Long known as a potent neurotoxin, lead is still used in a range of products in the United States, from cosmetics to wheel weights, batteries to aviation gasoline. -
Carbon Price 'Simplest' Way to Comply — Southwest Power Pool CEO
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A regional approach based on a trading system and a price on carbon would be the most affordable way to meet the goals of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan should it survive legal challenge, said Nick Brown, president and CEO of the Southwest Power Pool. -
Attorney Says Clean Power Plan Ruling Not Expected for Months
Oct 24, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Federal appeals court judges posed tough questions to both sides of the dispute over the Obama administration's proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), but a ruling is not expected for months, and the entire issue may not be settled until 2018, according to an attorney who attended last month's oral arguments. -
EPA to FERC: 'We Really Need to Talk'
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
U.S. EPA is seeking a headquarters-level discussion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to promote deeper, more comprehensive climate reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines. -
Rigs are Returning to Shale Fields
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The active drilling rig rate in the United States continued to rise at a strong clip last week, as a confident industry showed fresh interest in shale gas activity. -
Dentons' Sohn Discusses Future of Energy Markets Under Clinton, Trump
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
How will energy markets react to the transition to the next administration? Which industries stand to gain the most under a President Clinton versus a President Trump? During today's OnPoint, Jon Sohn, counsel at Dentons, discusses the critical role energy and climate will play in the next administration. -
Policy Prescriptions: Trump and Clinton on Energy
Oct 24, 2016 | Washington Post
By Matthew Daly
Energy independence has been a goal of every president since Richard Nixon, but it remains elusive. -
N.J. Refinery Mirrors Texas Safety Issues
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
The Phillips 66 Bayway Refinery is the second largest on the East Coast. The Linden, N.J., facility is 12 miles from the 9/11 memorial in Manhattan, and a disaster there could disrupt energy supplies for millions in the Northeast. -
Spill at Kan. Vodka Plant Leads to Respiratory Complaints
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A chemical spill at a plant in Kansas on Friday sent a toxic plume over the city of Atchison and led doctors to treat over 100 people for respiratory problems. -
1,300-Barrel Leak Hits Susquehanna River
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A pipeline in Pennsylvania spilled about 1,300 barrels of gasoline into the Susquehanna River on Friday. -
HFC Deal an 'Empty Promise' without Senate — Inhofe
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The global agreement on curbing heat-trapping pollutants used in air conditioning and refrigeration will be an "empty promise" from the Obama administration without Senate approval, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). -
Washington State’s Ambitious Carbon Tax Proposal
Oct 24, 2016 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
Anybody hoping for a robust national discussion about climate change this election year has been sorely disappointed. But one state, Washington, has been having just such a debate, thanks to an ambitious ballot proposal that would impose a tax on carbon emissions. -
Coffman’s Stance on Climate Change Disingenuous, Irresponsible
Oct 24, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Samantha Lichtin
When asked by the Aurora Sentinel whether global warming is caused by human activity and what Congress should do to prevent it, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) replied by expressing doubt in the role we humans play in climate change, repeating platitudes of U.S. energy independence, and disparaging those who seek a future beyond fossil fuels.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Jennifer Abril to Head SOCMA
Oct 24, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
Jennifer L. Abril is the new head of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), a trade association for specialty chemical makers. Abril was formerly president of the International Fragrance Association. Earlier in her career, she worked for SOCMA and the American Chemistry Council, another trade association. Abril replaces Lawrence D. Sloan, who recently became head of the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Remainder of article available at this link with login: http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i42/Jennifer-Abril-head-SOCMA.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Little Lobbyists for Big Change
Oct 21, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Earthjustice
A team of amazing kids battle lead contamination
Long known as a potent neurotoxin, lead is still used in a range of products in the United States, from cosmetics to wheel weights, batteries to aviation gasoline.
Wheel weights—the unassuming metal bars added to your wheels by your local mechanic when rebalancing your tires—are a big source of lead in our communities. They easily fall off tires on roads, highways, and driveways, and begin shedding particles of toxic lead in as little as two weeks. That lead ends up in our soil, streams, and homes. The United States Geological Survey has estimated that every year 4.4 million pounds of lead enter our communities due to wheel weights.
A team of intrepid young scientists in a South Carolina robotics league decided to do something about it.
While many kids might visit Washington, D.C., on a school field trip, these students were at the nation’s capital this month to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Congress to ban neurotoxic lead in the wheel weights on our cars.
Their journey started in South Carolina, where the Hyperbolics, a FIRST® Lego® League robotics team, began to research real-world problems for a team science project. That seed grew into a public campaign to ban toxic lead in wheel weights.
Proving how common discarded wheel weights are, the Hyperbolics found a lead wheel weight less than a block from the EPA’s front door and brought it into their meetings. Below, Elliot Turner pointed out a fragmented lead wheel weight he and his team found along Constitution Avenue.
In the photo below, Emma Turgeon holds up another old lead wheel weight found a block from the EPA building. (These young advocates are pros and take care to wash their hands after handling wheel weights.)
Through Get The Lead Out, the Hyperbolics’ campaign in their home state, a bipartisan bill was introduced in South Carolina to phase out the use of lead wheel weights. During the campaign, the students learned that lead is a danger for kids all across America and that the EPA had stalled in its efforts to ban lead wheel weights.
They then decided to take their campaign to Washington, D.C.
The students put on their game face and got ready to make their case. The first meeting of the day was with the EPA, where the students told agency officials about the dangers that lead wheel weights pose to their community.
Next, they met with Senate Environment & Public Works Committee staff at the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Below, Hyperbolics member Emma Turgeon presents some of the dangers of lead wheel weights to EPW Committee staff.
Any exposure to lead poses serious health hazards, especially for young children. Lead poisoning can create developmental disabilities, seizures, hearing loss, kidney failure, and behavioral problems in children. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that over half a million children in the United States have levels of lead in their blood high enough to require a medical intervention.
Members of the Hyperbolics presented one of the broken lead wheel weights they found that day on Constitution Avenue, laid next to an intact lead wheel weight found earlier.
The young advocates took turns laying out their case for protecting kids and the environment from more lead contamination. The presence of the weights served as strong evidence for just how prevalent this problem is.
Hyperbolics member Rohit Rajagopalan (foreground) discussed industry support for banning lead wheel weights with EPW Committee staff member Tom Fox.
The team originally began their campaign by meeting with local tire shops in South Carolina. They soon earned support from wheel weight manufacturers and retailers such as Plombco, Hennessy Industries, and Bridgestone Firestone. Wheel weights are easily manufactured with alternative metals, including steel, with virtually no difference to cost.
While EPA has been slow to act on lead wheel weights, seven states (California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Washington, and Vermont)—and all of Europe—have rejected this harmful and unnecessary use of toxic lead.
Eve Gartner (second from right), one of Earthjustice’s litigators fighting communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals, and Andrea Delgado (right), Senior Legislative Representative at Earthjustice, listened as the students made their presentation.
Protecting children, workers, consumers, and communities from toxic chemicals is a priority for the Healthy Communities team at Earthjustice. To this end, the team is working to uplift the voices of impacted communities and connect them to decisionmakers. Gartner and Delgado helped coordinate meetings on Capitol Hill, and mentor the students on the fundamentals of advocacy and the role that Congress and the Administration play in establishing laws and regulations that protect children from chemicals.
For years, Earthjustice has been advocating and litigating to protect children from exposure to numerous sources of lead, so working with these students was a perfect fit.
Hyperbolics Coach Bob Brown gave encouragement to Rohit Rajagopalan, as the students prepared for another presentation. The volunteer coach is an engineer and mathematician, who said that when he started working with these kids, he felt like he had “found his tribe.”
Undeterred by federal agencies’ sluggish pace on lead, this team and their coaches are devoted to preventing unnecessary lead poisoning in communities.
The students’ crash course in maneuvering the politics of Congress included a crash course in navigating the labyrinth of congressional office buildings. Below, the students took a quick break from figuring out where the next meeting was to figure out the location of Senator Bernie Sanders’ office.
Lily Brown made the team’s case at the final meeting of the day with the House Energy & Commerce Committee staff, at the Rayburn House Office Building.
Under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA has new authority to prioritize lead as one of ten priority chemicals for immediate risk evaluation and action. The team made their case for making lead a priority chemical under the recently revised law. Doing so would give EPA the authority to ban or significantly reduce the manufacturing, processing, distribution, use and disposal of lead—including its use in wheel weights.
Lily closed her presentation to the Committee with a plea: “We ask that you choose to regulate lead, and that you then phase out lead wheel weights as quickly as possible.”
“Keep doing this, and you can take my job!” Earthjustice’s Andrea Delgado told Emma Turgeon as they walked out after a meeting.
Delgado, who advocates on Capitol Hill for stronger environmental health regulations for all people, especially those most impacted by environmental harm, was inspired by the young changemakers who had come to D.C. “Legislators serve at the pleasure of the people,” Delgado has said. “How we elevate the voices of the people most impacted by the issues we’re working on, is really the big task at hand.”
Below, members of the Hyperbolics mimed holding up the U.S. Capitol building. Emotions were high after a full day of advocating for reducing lead exposure and lead poisoning for kids just like them.
The Hyperbolics left their mark on D.C., and are already planning next steps in their campaign to ban toxic lead wheel weights.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/10/21/little-lobbyists-for-big-change/
-
Carbon Price 'Simplest' Way to Comply — Southwest Power Pool CEO
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A regional approach based on a trading system and a price on carbon would be the most affordable way to meet the goals of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan should it survive legal challenge, said Nick Brown, president and CEO of the Southwest Power Pool.
"When you look at a trading regime, it could be as simple as a decision made on the price in our markets for carbon. Personally, I think that would be the simplest way to go forward," said Brown, whose company oversees electricity generation and transmission in 14 states in the central United States from Texas to Canada.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
Brown told E&E News he does not favor a carbon tax because "of the question where does the revenue go?"
"But if there's a price on carbon, then you're incenting behavior that is consistent with the ultimate goal — a less carbon-intensive industry," he said.
SPP believes "in a market-based trading solution and believe[s] they're going to be less costly, they're going to be more reliable, and they're going to require less infrastructure than any other solution that I can imagine," he said.
Meanwhile, North Dakota Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk told E&E News he believes EPA "set up" the state with a very low goal of CO2 emissions reduction of 10.6 percent in the draft rule.
In an interview, Kalk said, "It was a setup, quite honestly. I said publicly, 'They're giving us some standards that'll never happen because they don't want us to be vocal.'" The final rule calls for the state to cut its power plant emissions by 45 percent.
He worries that retirements of coal and nuclear plants in nearby states could lead to power shortages in places such as Minnesota, which imports power from North Dakota.
He said "states that aren't energy rich like us" such as "Minnesota may not have enough power. Some of these big, heavy populous states, they're going to be in trouble. And what's interesting is they're not as vocal as you'd think they would be," Kalk said.
This week
Tomorrow, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy holds a webinar about how cities can benefit from new funding streams for energy efficiency programs under the Clean Power Plan.
Also tomorrow, the University of Richmond School of Law hosts Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), energy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and Trevor Houser, energy adviser to Hillary for America, as they square off in a forum focusing on energy and environment issues surrounding the 2016 presidential election.
On Wednesday, the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies holds a conferencein Baton Rouge that will feature a discussion of climate risk and fossil fuels and baseload generation development challenges.
On Thursday, the United States Energy Association in D.C. will host an off-the-record panel to discuss the Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Act (S. 3179), introduced by Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). The bill would boost the federal tax credit for CCS and would increase the value for each ton of CO2 captured and stored from power plants and industrial facilities. Senate staff will join Department of Energy and coal industry officials in the discussion.
Also Thursday, the National Energy Marketers Association will hold their fall policy roundtable in Austin, Texas. A session is scheduled on the implications of the Clean Power Plan on the Texas power market.
In case you missed it
Hillary Clinton considered an aggressive carbon tax as a central pillar of her campaign's climate agenda, according to internal emails that show closely held details about her thinking at the outset of the presidential race (ClimateWire, Oct. 21).
The lawsuit over EPA's carbon rule for new power plants features similar battle lines, many of the same attorneys and the same federal court as the litigation over the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Oct. 20).
Last year, John Podesta called for student protests against Harvard Law professor and Obama administration foe Laurence Tribe, according to hacked emails (E&ENews PM, Oct. 18).
Environmental groups are worried a technicality could undermine the carbon-cutting goals of the Clean Power Plan in Virginia and elsewhere (ClimateWire, Oct. 17).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060044691
-
Attorney Says Clean Power Plan Ruling Not Expected for Months
Oct 24, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Federal appeals court judges posed tough questions to both sides of the dispute over the Obama administration's proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), but a ruling is not expected for months, and the entire issue may not be settled until 2018, according to an attorney who attended last month's oral arguments.
Meanwhile, the American Gas Association (AGA) said it is working with its members to prepare for the CPP, in the event it does become the law of the land.
On Sept. 27, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the case State of West Virginia et al v. EPA et al [15-1363]. Twenty-seven states have sued over the CPP, arguing that it is an overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
"It was a long day," Megan Berge, a partner with Washington, DC-based law firm Baker Botts LLP, told NGI on Friday. "It was eventful. The court was extremely well prepared, and you had really tough questions pitched at both sides by an array of judges -- different judges being more active at certain times than others."
In an unusual move, the appellate court decided last May to cancel having a traditional three-judge panel hear the case and instead opted for 10 of the court's 11 judges to make a ruling en banc (seeDaily GPI, May 18). The 11th judge, Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, was recused from the case.
Berge said that after seven hours of argument, it was apparent that the major sticking point in the case revolved around what standard the court would apply to determine legal questions. Specifically, the court will try to determine whether the EPA has the statutory authority to enact the CPP because certain terminology in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is ambiguous. If the EPA's interpretation of the CAA is deemed reasonable, the rule will stand under "Chevron deference," a legal term that originated from a landmark 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.
Conversely, the court could also decide to apply the "major questions doctrine," a standalone exception to Chevron deference.
"That's where the vast majority of the focus was [in court]," Berge said. "Once you figure out what standard applies, meaning how much deference is given to EPA, that's going to determine how they approach the legal question: whether or not the statutory authority is in the CAA for EPA to have come up with this program."
Berge said that if the major questions doctrine is applied, "then you are taking a hard look and applying a higher bar to EPA's interpretation. A lot of the argument was focused on whether the rule is so transformative as to be a major question. It's not just a question about the cost, it's also a question of authority and how it's going to dictate changes within the electric sector.
"That issue was front and center. It was the very first argument of the day, and it was the theme that continued throughout the day."
The crux of the states' opposition to the CPP lies with CAA, which Congress amended in 1990. Lawmakers at that time prohibited the EPA from regulating hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at national standards under more than one section of the law. Specifically, the states said Congress expanded Section 112 of the CAA to include source categories for HAP, but EPA could not also regulate source categories under Section 111(d), a rarely used part of the law where EPA was granted the authority to require states to invoke HAP standards.
Berge said her firm is representing five petitioners in the case: four electric generating companies and one national trade association. Although the appellate court usually renders a decision within four months of oral arguments, a ruling on the CPP could take as long as six months, she said.
"Folks need to remember that while there was an extensive number of arguments actually raised in [the oral arguments], there were even more arguments that were just briefed. If the court is going to uphold the rule, that means they have to address all of the arguments."
In January, the appellate court denied a motion by several states and power generators to stay implementation of the CPP until all legal challenges were resolved. The Supreme Court then issued stays in two related cases in February (see Daily GPI, Feb. 10; Jan. 22).
Berge said an eventual appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
"I think they will take it," she said. "I think the stay that was issued by the Supreme Court sufficiently indicates a level of interest that the court will take the petition...Our projection is the issue won't be resolved until 2018."
The Obama administration unveiled the final version of the CPP in August 2015 (see Daily GPI,Aug. 3, 2015). The plan, which embraces renewables, solar and wind power, but not so much natural gas, calls for states to reduce emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Under the CPP, states must develop and implement plans that ensure power plants in their state -- either as single plants or as a collective group -- achieve goals for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2022 and 2029, and final CO2 emission performance rates by 2030. The CPP gives states the option of choosing between either an emissions standards plan or a state measures plan to reduce emissions. They would also have the option of trading emissions rate credits with other states.
AGA members making preparations
During a meeting with reporters Wednesday, Richard Meyer, AGA manager for energy analysis and standards, said its members faced various challenges with the CPP.
"It really depends where they are, what state they're in, and to consider the politics," Meyer said. "In some states, you have attorneys general that are behind supporting the suit against EPA, but are still going ahead with their state implementation plans."
"Our position at AGA has always been one that the direct and distributed use of natural gas can and should play a role where states wish to incorporate those elements into their state implementation plans. [We have] been working...to help create the space for our members to move within their states and processes to develop a state implementation plan."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108196-attorney-says-clean-power-plan-ruling-not-expected-for-months
-
EPA to FERC: 'We Really Need to Talk'
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
U.S. EPA is seeking a headquarters-level discussion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to promote deeper, more comprehensive climate reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines.
"We as an agency think they need to take a more comprehensive approach to analyzing greenhouse gas emissions for natural gas projects," said Ken Westlake, who heads the National Environmental Policy Act section for EPA's Region 5 Office in Chicago.
"There have been a number of new pipelines or extended pipelines proposed to cross the country this year, and this particular letter represents us saying to FERC, 'We really need to talk comprehensively about FERC's approach to greenhouse gas analysis in their NEPA documents.'"
So far, it's radio silence.
"We have not received any reply from FERC," Westlake said in an interview.
The meeting request was spurred by EPA last week accusing FERC of ignoring its request for a deeper look at downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the $1.4 billion Leach Xpress natural gas pipeline, which TransCanada hopes to build in the heart of the Marcellus and Utica shale plays (Greenwire, Oct. 13).
Westlake today said EPA's push goes far beyond Leach Xpress.
"It's not just for this project," he said. "It's a policy conversation we need to have with FERC about their approach to greenhouse gas emissions across future" environmental impact statements.
FERC declined to comment.
EPA officials last week said they want a "definitive resolution" through a sit-down meeting and expressed concern about FERC's approach in light of the White House issuing a guidance that advises all agencies to quantify projected emissions for energy projects whenever the necessary tools, methodologies and data inputs were available.
As the lead agency on NEPA reviews for gas pipelines, compressor stations and export terminals, FERC takes comments from advisory agencies like EPA.
Westlake noted that EPA's comments are advisory only and the agency cannot compel FERC to hold a headquarters-level gathering to discuss policy.
"We try to choose our words carefully and promote ongoing relationships," he said. "Ultimately, we cannot compel them to have a meeting. We think we've made it clear such a policy discussion would be beneficial, and we'll continue to make that point until we see progress."
EPA, he added, is looking for more consistency in pipeline reviews and for a life-cycle analysis of emissions to be standard practice for FERC on gas pipelines. He noted the White House Council on Environmental Quality guidance clearly advises agencies across the board on how they ought to approach the issue of climate change and said EPA is encouraging other agencies to take an approach that follows the CEQ guidance.
EPA officials said they want to meet before FERC makes a decision on the Leach Xpress, partly to make sure the agency digs deep into downstream emissions from other projects under NEPA going forward.
Some analysts question whether FERC would grant EPA's wish.
ClearView Energy Partners LLC analyst Christi Tezak told clients in a note last week that EPA's request is "highly unusual" and that it's not clear whether it would affect the proposed Leach Xpress. The project's approval could come late this year.
Although FERC has expanded the scope of its environmental reviews for gas projects under NEPA over the past year, EPA has repeatedly found the reviews wanting, Tezak wrote.
"In some respects, we think the EPA's recommendations appear to reflect a concerted effort to change how the FERC manages the mechanics of the certificate process under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), not just NEPA reviews," she wrote. "At this juncture, we're not sure such efforts will succeed."
Tezak also noted some inconsistencies, pointing to FERC analyzing emissions from gas use for some projects but not others. That, she said, could leave developers open to delays or even legal challenges.
FERC, for example, didn't quantify downstream indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the Leach Xpress pipeline but did analyze those emissions in an environmental impact statement for the Mountain Valley pipeline, which would stretch 300 miles from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia.
"The variation between FERC's indirect GHG emissions analyses," Tezak wrote, "could leave some projects more vulnerable to challenge in court than others."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/24/stories/1060044726
-
Rigs are Returning to Shale Fields
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The active drilling rig rate in the United States continued to rise at a strong clip last week, as a confident industry showed fresh interest in shale gas activity.
Backing up that confidence is a new report from global engineering and consulting firm Black & Veatch.
The survey of B&V clients highlights troubles and uncertainties ahead — weak natural gas prices squeezing investment margins, rising liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply and questions over future gas demand in Asia. But it also suggests oil and gas companies are confident about gas's future, thanks to emerging markets expanding their electricity and chemicals consumption and climate change mitigation taking hold in the developed world.
Deepa Poduval, director of management consulting at Black & Veatch, said natural gas producers and distributors have good reason to be optimistic on gas's longer-term outlook, despite today's relatively weak prices.
"Between the low gas prices and the move toward more environmentally friendly fuels, natural gas, I think, is certainly gaining market share and ground," she said in an interview. "Both for power generation as well as for industrial uses, I think natural gas use is projected to grow in all of those developing economies."
Seventy percent of respondents to B&V's study reported being either "optimistic" or "very optimistic" on growth out to 2020, according to the newly released "2016 Strategic Directions: Natural Gas Industry Report."
"With another year of low natural gas prices on the books, the market anticipates a rebound with emerging economies leading the path to growing market demand," explained John Chevrette in the report.
Rigs on the rise
Natural gas prices have experienced a lot of volatility this year, and gas benchmark pricing moved down in trading Friday. But this summer has seen a strengthening in the price after it hit new lows in March.
The North American Henry Hub index price stands at around $3 per million British thermal units (Btu), enough to send some drilling rigs chasing shale gas again as oil and gas companies take advantage of low services and equipment costs.
More softening in the price may be in store if warmer weather continues. In a note to clients, Barclays Capital analyst Nicholas Potter sees a downside for the price if data shows an inventory build in early November but said his firm "would view further weakness as a buying opportunity for calendar 2017."
Two weeks ago, oil-field services giant Baker Hughes Inc. reported that 15 rigs were added to the active U.S. fleet in one week, with new gas-directed drilling contributing strongly to that data. On Friday, that company reported another 14 rigs added to the active market, with three more gas-directed drilling rigs added to the count.
The gas rig count in the Marcellus Shale region is down from the start of the year but is up from an August low, when 21 gas-directed rigs were being deployed. Baker Hughes reports there are now 34 rigs in the Appalachian field. In the Utica Shale, gas drilling activity has expanded from a low of 10 rigs in March to 15 last week.
Seventy percent of respondents in the study believe natural gas prices are poised to rise again. The report argues that now is the perfect time for investment, because project costs have fallen steeply along with gas and oil price declines.
Wavering coal consumption and new gas-powered electricity generation is driving demand growth for natural gas in the United States. Poduval sees the same forces at play overseas. And she's confident that gas consumption will rise in emerging markets as higher GDP levels spur domestic demand for industrial applications, chemicals and plastics.
"As their economies grow obviously their industrial demand even for domestic uses is going to rise," Poduval said. "Currently natural gas penetration is fairly low so there is a lot of upside to go from where they are now to support the level of economic growth that they are projecting."
The B&V report also makes the case for the further expansion of shale gas drilling. The industry has gotten used to low gas prices going back to 2008, and the oil price bust has spurred cost reductions and greater efficiencies in drilling that also makes horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing for shale gas more profitable, the report notes.
Slower gas demand in Asia will depress prices and investments, but the study suggests this could tighten supplies and set the stage for a future rally in gas prices. Fourty percent of respondents to the survey said they think the current natural gas supply-demand imbalance will reverse itself starting from about 2021 to 2025, with 16 percent not seeing significant balance improvements until after 2026.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/24/stories/1060044690
-
Dentons' Sohn Discusses Future of Energy Markets Under Clinton, Trump
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
How will energy markets react to the transition to the next administration? Which industries stand to gain the most under a President Clinton versus a President Trump? During today's OnPoint, Jon Sohn, counsel at Dentons, discusses the critical role energy and climate will play in the next administration.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jon Sohn, counsel at Dentons. Jon, thank you for joining me today.
Jon Sohn: Thanks for having me here.
Monica Trauzzi: So let's start off by talking about the third and final debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Energy and climate were only obliquely mentioned, though the mentions were interesting I thought. What did you think about Clinton's remarks on building a grid that crosses borders? How feasible is that? Are we on that track?
Jon Sohn: We're definitely on that track. I think it was interesting because the energy issues came up in the context of an attack by candidate Trump on immigration, and he's citing WikiLeaks. So I went back and looked at the quote, and it actually was about energy and the free flow of energy across transmission lines. And there's a lot of momentum already going on in that space. Every day, for instance, we get clean energy from Canada through transmission lines that complements our wind industry, our domestic wind industry in Minnesota, for instance. And the recent North American Energy Summit with all the leaders from Canada, Mexico and the United States set a really ambitious target of getting 50 percent of our continental energy from clean power by 2025. So those are pretty ambitious goals, and to do that on a continental basis you're going to have to have that sort of cross-border collaboration, so I think that's what candidate Clinton was talking about.
Monica Trauzzi: And Clinton also mentioned clean energy and highlighted that it's not just for climate mitigation, but also for economic growth.
Jon Sohn: Right.
Monica Trauzzi: It seems like the economic story was one that we heard a lot more and that played a little more in the debates. Why do you think that is and why do you think we didn't hear more about climate?
Jon Sohn: Well, I'm not exactly sure why we didn't hear more about climate. I know a lot of folks who care about climate changes issues from one perspective or another were expecting it to be a bigger part of the debate. I think the tenor of the debates overall made it difficult to get substantive on anything, and if you think about it, you know, what would the climate change debate in and of itself really have been about? One candidate doesn't believe in the science of man-made climate change; the other candidate believes the overwhelming majority of scientists, that it's a real and present danger, and would not that the Supreme Court has already found that carbon is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. So I'm not sure how much further the debate could've gone than those two points of view in the amount of time they had.
In terms of the economic argument, I think Hillary Clinton does see her foreign policy and her economic policy in parts through a climate change lens. And so for her to talk about creating more jobs through large-scale national initiatives for solar panels and things like that makes a lot of sense.
Monica Trauzzi: But considering that climate is one of President Obama's chief legacies, is it strange that Clinton didn't at least attempt to bring up the Paris deal or any type of discussion on the policy tools that are in place right now?
Jon Sohn: Yeah. So, I mean, if you think back a few years back when it was early Obama days, cap and trade failed in the Senate, died in the Senate, and the Copenhagen United Nations negotiations collapsed, and a lot of folks around here thought climate change policy was dead. And then, you know, it sort of rose like a phoenix from the ashes under the Obama administration on the international level, on the domestic regulatory level, through executive orders, legal wrangling, across all sorts of sectors — solar, natural gas, carbon itself, HFCs. There was just a recent HFC agreement in Kigali. So it is a cornerstone of the Obama legacy, and I'm not exactly sure why Clinton didn't bring it up more, but there were only a few opportunities to do so. The one main opportunity came through our friend Ken Bone, right, the social media star, when he asked his question about energy transitions and saving jobs as well. And she tried to get into it there, but it's difficult when you've got — the tenor of that conversation was difficult overall.
Monica Trauzzi: Right. Oil and gas will continue to play a major role in the U.S.'s energy mix. What do you think the future of oil markets looks like under each potential administration?
Jon Sohn: Sure. So I think candidate Trump has been very clear in his support for the oil and gas industry, and his — I believe it's called "Make America First" energy plan. And I think what we'd likely see under a Trump plan would be sort of a reverse course on a number of the EPA regulations that impact the industry, particularly the methane emissions regulations that are emerging under the Clean Air Act. That would likely go by the wayside, and I think likely he'd be inclined to see a devolution of oversight of the industry to the state level as opposed to the federal level in a fundamental way, and probably more interested in opening up public lands and offshore opportunities as well.
Mrs. Clinton has talked quite a bit about natural gas as a bridge to future sustainable energy, and I don't see her walking away from the oil and gas industry by any stretch. I do think she'll have a tougher approach at the federal level than Trump would have, using the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Environmental Policy Act as key tools to make sure that the full range of considerations occur on oil before projects go forward.
Monica Trauzzi: So they're both considering all options it sounds like in terms of energy, some a little more than others. Which industries do you think stand to gain the most under either administration?
Jon Sohn: Yeah. I mean, I'm not a big fan of picking the winners and losers, but I'll give you my best guess. The — I'd say first of all, for a President Trump, he would — certainly if you were in the oil and gas industry and you believe that your best approach to a sustainable industry over time is a devolution of regulations to the state level, then that would be a winning strategy for you. He also talks about coal, and I think he has, to his credit, done a decent job highlighting the plight of people in coal country and the struggles they face. But I'm reticent to say that that would be a winner just because I think natural market forces of gas versus coal are really what's hurting the coal industry more than any particular regulation right now.
For Mrs. Clinton or President Clinton, I really think solar is out front and center as a big winner for her. She wants to put up half a billion solar panels across the country in her time in office. She's talking about a $60 billion clean energy challenge. And I think energy storage and also existing energy that helps intermittent resources like existing hydro or natural gas will both be winners in her administration.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, about two weeks to go — it'll be interesting to watch.
Jon Sohn: Yeah, hold on tight.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for coming on the show.
Jon Sohn: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2174/transcript
-
Policy Prescriptions: Trump and Clinton on Energy
Oct 24, 2016 | Washington Post
By Matthew Daly
Energy independence has been a goal of every president since Richard Nixon, but it remains elusive.
Still, an ongoing drilling boom has lowered dependence on imports of fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. In 2015, the U.S. relied on net imports for about 24 percent of petroleum use, the lowest level since 1970.
Domestic production of all types of energy except coal has boomed in recent years, thanks to improved drilling techniques and discoveries of vast oil supplies in North Dakota and Montana and natural gas in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Hydraulic fracturing — a drilling technique better known as fracking — has also increased production in traditional energy states such as Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana.
After President Barack Obama’s two terms, business and environmental groups see a game-changing election on energy. Donald Trump has vowed to ramp up oil and gas production even further, while rolling back Obama policies aimed at slowing climate change and boosting renewable energy.
Hillary Clinton says she will expand Obama’s climate policies and push even harder for renewable energy such as wind and solar power that have gained under Obama. Meanwhile, Clinton’s comment that she is going to “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” has become a rallying cry for the GOP.
Natural gas, cleaner than coal, has been embraced by politicians from both parties, including Clinton and Trump. Still, critics worry that fracking and other techniques such as horizontal drilling could be harming our air, water and health and even causing earthquakes.
Wind and solar power have grown in recent years, thanks in part to support from Obama, but renewable energy sources accounted for just 10 percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2015. Renewable energy is generally more expensive to produce and use than fossil fuels. Clouds impair solar energy, and calm skies slow wind farms.
Here’s a summary of their proposals:
___
OIL AND GAS
CLINTON: She generally supports oil and gas drilling on federal lands, but would bar drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. While Clinton would cut subsidies currently given to oil companies, she has said natural gas serves as an important “bridge” to more renewable fuels. She says fracking should not take place where states and local communities oppose it and pledges to reduce methane emissions from all oil and gas production and protect local water supplies. She also would require energy companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking.
TRUMP: He complains that “energy is under siege by the Obama administration” and vows to “unleash” an American energy revolution, allowing unfettered production of oil, coal and natural gas. He would sharply increase oil and gas drilling on federal lands and open up offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean and other areas where it is blocked.
Trump says restrictions supported by Clinton would hurt energy-producing states such as Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia — battleground states in the election.
___
RENEWABLE ENERGY
CLINTON: Pledges that under her leadership, the U.S. will be able to generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years, with 500 million solar panels installed by the end of her first term. She also vows to reduce U.S. oil consumption by one-third through cleaner fuels such as biodiesel and natural gas and more fuel-efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks.
Clinton vows to use tax incentives and other steps to bolster wind and solar power, as well hydroelectricity, geothermal power and other forms of renewable electricity.
TRUMP: Argues that tax credits and other subsidies for wind and solar power “distort” the market, but says the U.S. should “encourage all facets of the energy industry,” including wind and solar power, as a way to achieve energy independence. He has characterized solar energy as an “unproven technology” with a low return on investment and says wind energy has killed birds and is a “very, very poor source of energy.”
___
COAL
CLINTON: After running as a champion of coal in 2008, Clinton has faced a backlash from coal communities after she declared earlier this year that she was going to “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Clinton has said she misspoke as she tried to reassure voters that her policies would benefit out-of-work miners and other poor people in Appalachia affected by the coal industry’s downturn.
Clinton says she will protect health and pension benefits for coal miners and fight efforts by coal companies to use bankruptcy proceedings to deny benefits to thousands of retired miners and their families. She supports sweeping reforms to the federal black lung benefits program and will adjust black lung benefits to reflect cost-of-living increases.
TRUMP: Vows to revive the struggling U.S coal industry and says the U.S. has enough coal reserves to “last for 1,000 years.” He vows to end “all job-destroying Obama executive actions as well as reduce and eliminate all barriers to responsible energy production.” He says his plan “will end the war on the American worker, putting our coal miners and steel workers back to work.”
___
CLIMATE CHANGE
CLINTON: Calls climate change a real and urgent problem and says the U.S. can take the global lead in addressing it. She vows to meet Obama’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent by 2025 and says America “can rally the world to cut carbon pollution” while fulfilling “our moral obligation to protect this planet for our children and our grandchildren.”
TRUMP: Calls climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by China and others and says he will rescind Obama’s Clean Power Plan rules to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the utility sector. The plan, a lynchpin of Obama’s climate strategy, has been delayed by the Supreme Court while legal challenges are heard. Trump also would cancel the 2015 Paris climate agreement and stop U.S. money going to U.N. global warming programs.
___
NUCLEAR POWER
CLINTON: Offers cautious support for nuclear power, calling it a tool to address climate change.
TRUMP: Says he will ensure the U.S. remains the world’s leader in nuclear energy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/policy-prescriptions-trump-and-clinton-on-energy/2016/10/24/1e319cfc-99b8-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_story.html
-
N.J. Refinery Mirrors Texas Safety Issues
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
The Phillips 66 Bayway Refinery is the second largest on the East Coast. The Linden, N.J., facility is 12 miles from the 9/11 memorial in Manhattan, and a disaster there could disrupt energy supplies for millions in the Northeast.
Yet the city of Linden will not disclose its emergency response plan, according to New Jersey advocacy group the Work Environment Council and the local Teamsters union, which said it intends to sue the city.
A worst-case scenario for Linden could mean the explosion of 5.2 million pounds of flammable material. The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act mandates that cities release their emergency plans.
The public's right to know has been undermined by sweeping anti-terrorism laws enacted by states across the country. A Houston Chronicle investigation found that the current administration's plan to prepare for and prevent chemical disasters is flawed because it's rooted in public knowledge.
The investigation found that local emergency planning committees in Texas mostly don't exist. The government fails to inspect most plants, and regulations ignore many risk categories. Chemical accidents repeat at an alarming rate, it found (Greenwire, Sept. 19).
In Houston over the last two years, explosions and chemical releases were significant enough or hurt enough people that the public took notice. But preventable accidents happen every day without making news, the investigation found.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/24/stories/1060044718
-
Spill at Kan. Vodka Plant Leads to Respiratory Complaints
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A chemical spill at a plant in Kansas on Friday sent a toxic plume over the city of Atchison and led doctors to treat over 100 people for respiratory problems.
An MGP Ingredients Inc. facility leaked sulfuric acid and sodium hypochlorite, prompting authorities to evacuate schoolchildren, encourage locals to stay indoors and recommend that people not enter the city. Officials later said the toxic cloud had dissipated and was no longer a threat.
"The cloud was massive," said Ted Graf, Atchison's fire department chief. "I'm not even sure how to describe it."
Atchison, a community of 11,000, is located around 50 miles northwest of Kansas City, Kan. The MGP facility manufactures alcoholic beverages including gin, vodka, rye whiskey and bourbon.
Trey Cocking, city manager for Atchison, said the effects of the plume were similar to those from the chemical weapon mustard gas. Injuries, Cocking said, were minor.
U.S. EPA declared the region safe after testing for air quality Friday evening, Cocking added.
"MGP Ingredients has reported the event to the EPA and Kansas and local authorities, and is cooperating fully to investigate and ensure that all appropriate response actions are taken. MGP has also engaged outside experts to assist the investigation and response," the company said in a statement.
By Friday evening, officials were working on cleanup at the plant, said Cocking.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/24/stories/1060044702
-
1,300-Barrel Leak Hits Susquehanna River
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A pipeline in Pennsylvania spilled about 1,300 barrels of gasoline into the Susquehanna River on Friday.
The Sunoco Logistics Partners LP pipeline breach was reportedly caused by heavy flooding in a neighboring county in the north-central region of the state.
The leak started around 3 a.m. Friday morning. The 8-inch pipeline, which began leaking in Lycoming County, was shut down after officials noticed a drop in pressure, according to a Sunoco Logistics statement (Reuters, Oct. 21).
The spill comes as hundreds of protesters gathered in Los Angeles this weekend to speak out against climate change and show support for activists in North Dakota opposing the construction of a 1,100-mile pipeline they say threatens water supplies and sacred Native American sites.
The pipeline is being built by Energy Transfer Partners LP to transfer crude from the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota directly to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental activists have been protesting for several months. Celebrities, including Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon, were among the more than 800 people yesterday who rallied around the cause in Los Angeles.
"Not only is it an environmental, but it's a problem in terms of social justice," Sarandon told the rally. "We can do it. We can stop fracking. We can stop the pipeline. But really it's only because of great numbers of people."
Rallygoers carried signs that read "shut it all down now" and chanted lines like "water is life".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/24/stories/1060044703
-
HFC Deal an 'Empty Promise' without Senate — Inhofe
Oct 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The global agreement on curbing heat-trapping pollutants used in air conditioning and refrigeration will be an "empty promise" from the Obama administration without Senate approval, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).
It remains unclear whether the lawmakers will be asked to review the agreement to reduce global levels of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) reached at a summit in the Rwandan capital of Kigali (ClimateWire, Oct. 17). The agreement is set to take effect in 2019 if enough countries formally agree to the plan.
A State Department official said today that the agency still needs to examine the content and form of the amendment to the Montreal Protocol, "as well as relevant practice, in order to determine the appropriate approval process."
At the moment, the agency is still awaiting the final text, the official said in an email.
Republicans have also argued the historic climate change agreement struck in Paris last year is not binding without congressional approval. But the Obama administration considered the deal an executive agreement that does not require Senate ratification.
"Their argument for why the Paris climate treaty is not a treaty — because it does not include mandatory targets and timetables and has no enforcement mechanism — and therefore does not require ratification, does not apply to Kigali," Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said last week.
Inhofe agreed, noting the Montreal Protocol has been formally amended four times since it entered into force in 1989 with each one going through the advice-and-consent process in the Senate. The limitations of Senate authority have not changed, Inhofe said.
"Further, hydrofluorocarbons do not deplete the ozone layer, which begs the question of why the Montreal Protocol is the starting point for these actions. Without the Senate, this will be yet another empty promise from the Obama administration that will fail to materialize in the manner invested parties seek," Inhofe said.
Democratic senators who sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this month pressing for the phase-down of HFCs through the ozone-pollution treaty praised the final agreement as though it was a done deal.
"I am thrilled to see the international community use the Montreal Protocol to address another environmental challenge — climate change," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.
"If left unchecked, HFCs could account for a tremendous portion of climate pollution in the decades to come. Fortunately, however, through an amended Montreal Protocol, we have an international framework that will guide countries around the world as they transition the materials we use to cool our homes and chill our food to safer alternatives that have a lower global warming impact," Carper said.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) applauded the deal and called on Congress to pass S. 2076, a bill he introduced last year with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to further address pollution (E&ENews PM, Sept. 23).
The legislation would endorse the HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol, would direct the administration to create an interagency task force to oversee the federal government's short-lived climate pollutant mitigation activities and would target resources toward them.
"Senator Murphy is pleased with the deal to phase out harmful HFCs, and continues to believe Congress must pass the bipartisan Super Pollutants Act because it takes additional steps to reduce other dangerous super-pollutants such as methane and black carbon," a spokeswoman told E&E News.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/24/stories/1060044728
-
Washington State’s Ambitious Carbon Tax Proposal
Oct 24, 2016 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
Anybody hoping for a robust national discussion about climate change this election year has been sorely disappointed. But one state, Washington, has been having just such a debate, thanks to an ambitious ballot proposal that would impose a tax on carbon emissions.
The proposal, Initiative 732, started as a long-shot campaign by an economist and standup comedian, Yoram Bauman, but it has gained public support and become a viable effort. It would impose a tax on greenhouse gas emissions generated by fossil fuels like petroleum, gas and coal. The tax would start at $15 per metric ton next year, increase to $25 a ton in 2018 and then rise gradually over a few decades until it hits $100 a ton in 2016 dollars. (A typical passenger car emits about five metric tons of carbon dioxide in a year.) The money raised by the tax would go to lowering the state sales tax, effectively eliminating a business tax on manufacturers and giving up to $1,500 in tax credits to low-income residents.
Climate scientists and economists have long said that one of the best ways to fight climate change is to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and raise that price over time, which would encourage the switch to cleaner energy sources, like solar and wind. The initiative’s approach is based on a carbon tax that British Columbia put in place in 2008. Ireland and Sweden also have such taxes.
The Washington proposal would be the first in the country and could well set an example for other states. California is moving down a different track with a cap-and-trade system that started in 2012. That state is projected to meet its goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But recent auctions for emission permits were relatively weak, generating less money for renewable energy and high-speed rail projects than expected.
At $25 per ton, the proposed Washington tax would increase the price of gasoline by about 25 cents a gallon and increase the cost of coal-fired power by 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Most of Washington’s electricity comes from hydroelectric dams and other renewable sources, which would not be taxed.
Carbon Washington, the initiative campaign, maintains that Initiative 732 would be revenue neutral and that, by reducing the state sales tax, the proposal would make taxation in Washington less regressive. (Washington does not have an income tax, so it relies heavily on state and local sales taxes, which can reach as high as 9.5 percent in some communities.) The state’s Office of Financial Management, however, says the proposal wouldreduce tax revenue overall.
Initiative 732 faces opposition from the usual sources, like the fossil fuel industry and manufacturers. What is more surprising is that many environmental, labor and minority groups have opposed or declined to support the proposal. The Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council and other groups have said that they support the aims of the initiative, but argue that it falls short because it won’t directly invest money in renewable energy, mass transit and other projects they argue are more important than cutting the sales tax. These criticisms have some merit, and a better-designed proposal would dedicate some money for programs designed to ease the adjustment to a low-carbon economy.
A recent poll showed that 42 percent of voters in Washington support Initiative 732, 37 percent oppose it and 21 percent are undecided. Most state lawmakers are opposed to the ballot measure, including Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat who is seeking re-election and previously proposed a cap-and-trade system. The Audubon Society’s Washington chapter and many climate scientists, however, are backing the proposal. Even if voters reject this particular initiative, the idea of putting a price on carbon is still one of the most straightforward, economy-friendly ways to deal with climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/washington-states-ambitious-carbon-tax-proposal.html?_r=0
-
Coffman’s Stance on Climate Change Disingenuous, Irresponsible
Oct 24, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Samantha Lichtin
When asked by the Aurora Sentinel whether global warming is caused by human activity and what Congress should do to prevent it, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) replied by expressing doubt in the role we humans play in climate change, repeating platitudes of U.S. energy independence, and disparaging those who seek a future beyond fossil fuels. As a published and internationally presented climate scientist – and as a constituent of Colorado's 6 District – I find Coffman's statement utterly disingenuous and irresponsible.
Climate research is held to the highest standards of scientific study and scrutiny; as NASA reports, 97% of my fellow actively publishing climate scientist agree that climate change is caused by human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. While that level of concordance would be considered a miracle, not just the law of the land, in today's Congress, the figure shouldn’t be surprising. Especially when you know the first published work on the impact of carbon dioxide, the main chemical byproduct of combustion, on our Earth was published in 1896. For over 120 years, we scientists have known that fossil fuels pose a serious risk to this world, and it’s time our nation’s leaders take action.
Given the thoroughly proven fact of anthropogenic climate change, I take issue with Coffman's stance on energy policy and characterization of people like me as “extreme environmentalists”. Continued dependence on fossil fuels like natural gas or always-dirty coal is not just a risk to environmental and ecological factors like ocean acidification or temperature increases that could completely restructure the world's ecosystems, but is also a real threat to our local and global community and economy. We've already seen increased frequency of floods, fires, and droughts here in Colorado and the West. Rising sea levels pose great danger to many of America's coastal cities and towns, and those like them around the world. And that’s just the beginning.
As an American who appreciates Coffman's devotion to our National Security, I see climate change not just as physically endangering our Naval bases and the ultimate object of our armed forces’ protection — our citizens — but as a massive security risk. Climate change has the very real potential to uproot our fellow humans around the globe who can no longer survive in their homes, whether because they are literally under water like the Marshall Islands or dying of heat stroke in places like Pakistan or escaping starvation because it is too dry or too hot for crops even to grow as we are seeing in parts of Iran.
Therein lies the capability to foster and exacerbate civil and international strife in ways Mike Coffman the Marine could never ignore. It is also the potential for a humanitarian crisis like none we have ever seen, something Mike Coffman the Representative of the United States should never support.
I believe Coffman is disingenuous for failing to acknowledge the fully established science of climate change. But he is irresponsible for being willing to expose my neighbors in the 6th District, our fellow Coloradans, Americans, and inhabitants of this earth to such an unimaginable and detrimental future. Initiatives like Democratic candidate Morgan Carroll’s call for energy independence via renewable sources, Colorado's $5,000 tax refund for purchasing an electric car, Obama's Clean Power Plan, and the Paris Agreement are but the first steps towards mitigating what many of my fellow climate scientists (and a fair delegation from the Pentagon) view as the greatest threat we face, as Americans and as humanity, in the 21st century. I find climate change and the willingness of Republicans like you, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump to ignore and even oppose this issue — dooming our children and planet to a future much worse than the present — much more concerning than the national debt, Mr. Coffman. And I promise it isn't just climate scientists who agree with me.
I think Morgan, the generals, and Coloradans might just agree too.
Samantha Lichtin is a graduate of Yale University Department of Geology & Geophysics and is a resident of Highlands Ranch, Colo.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/302467-coffmans-stance-on-climate-change-disingenuous
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