Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/28/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) ASID Opens Material ConneXion Library at DC Headquarters
Oct 28, 2016 | Interior Design
By Ryan Waddoups
The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) has launched a Material ConneXion Library at the Society’s new corporate headquarters in Washington, DC, designed by Perkins+Will. The library, launched in partnership with the American Chemistry Council, features more than 300 samples to aid design professionals in specifying healthy materials in the built environment. -
Does Baby Powder Cause Cancer? Another Jury Says Yes.
Oct 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Linda A. Johnson (AP)
For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene. -
International Regulators Back Viability Of Non-Animal Skin Toxicity Testing
Oct 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Participants in an international workshop for regulators on using alternative toxicity tests to supplement or replace traditional animal toxicology testing methods agreed that non-animal skin sensitization tests are ready to replace animal testing for many chemicals -- an important breakthrough in acceptance of the tests that EPA is supporting. -
API Natural Gas Push Meets Resistance
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
America's oil and gas lobby is ramping up its campaign for states to use natural gas to meet federal climate standards, but environmental advocates warn that may lock the country into many decades more of fossil fuel dependence. -
Clean Power Plan 'Left Reductions on the Table' — Report
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A new report from the Center for Progressive Reform suggests U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could have been much tougher. -
Ayotte Touts Support for Clean Power Plan
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink
New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte cited her support for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to fend off charges from Democratic challenger Gov. Maggie Hassan of not doing enough to protect the environment. -
BLM Rule Backers Make Conservative Pitch to Hill Staffers
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Capitol Hill staffers yesterday heard a pitch designed to appeal to conservatives — how federal rules to limit methane emissions from oil and gas wells on federal land could result in cost savings. -
Four Gas Companies Join EPA's Voluntary Methane-Cutting Program
Oct 28, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
EPA announced today that four natural gas companies have signed onto its voluntary program to cut methane emissions. -
Standing Rock Youth Bring the Dakota Access Fight to Clinton HQ
Oct 28, 2016 | Grist (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ben Adler
The conflict over the Dakota Access oil pipeline continues to escalate, but Hillary Clinton still hasn’t taken a clear position on it. -
(ACC Mentioned) Differing Comments Prevail for STB’s Proposed Reciprocal Switching Regulations
Oct 28, 2016 | Logistics Management
By Jeff Berman
Far from unexpected, replies regarding the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) proposed reciprocal switching regulations, which the STB proposed in late July, were very mixed. -
AAR: STB's Proposed Competitive Switching Rules are 'Unlawful'
Oct 28, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The Surface Transportation Board's (STB) proposed new reciprocal or "competitive" switching rules are unlawful, theAssociation of American Railroads (AAR) said in comments submitted to the federal agency this week. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Battle Rages on as Regulatory Regime Takes Shape
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Lawsuits over the Obama administration's Clean Air Act standard for ozone are still playing out, legislative battles are still sputtering along in Congress and key regulations are still under wraps. -
2 Ways to Help Us Meet the Paris Climate Goals
Oct 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
When the world recently surpassed the Paris Agreement threshold of 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions, years earlier than planned, renowned climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe called it, “A moment of bright hope in the increasingly discouraging landscape of climate science.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ASID Opens Material ConneXion Library at DC Headquarters
Oct 28, 2016 | Interior Design
By Ryan Waddoups
The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) has launched a Material ConneXion Library at the Society’s new corporate headquarters in Washington, DC, designed by Perkins+Will. The library, launched in partnership with the American Chemistry Council, features more than 300 samples to aid design professionals in specifying healthy materials in the built environment.
The new library is segmented into eight categories including polymers, process, naturals, metals, carbon-based, ceramics, and glass. “The key aspect was offering a selection of materials beyond the standard palette for interior design that could promote a healthier interior environment,” says Andrew Dent, vice president of library and materials research at Material ConneXion.
Tour ASID’s new DC headquarters with Perkins+Will partner Ken Wilson and ASID CEO Randy Fiser.
http://www.interiordesign.net/articles/12494-asid-opens-material-connexion-library-at-dc-headquarters/
-
Does Baby Powder Cause Cancer? Another Jury Says Yes.
Oct 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Linda A. Johnson (AP)
For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.
Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson’s Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence.
Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million.
But in J&J’s home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn’t reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease.
Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don’t seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. In midday trading Friday, J&J shares dipped 65 cents to $115.27.
The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis.
Here’s what experts say about talc and cancer.
WHAT IS TALC?
Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it’s crushed into a white powder. It’s been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder was launched. But it’s mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics.
DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER?
Like many questions in science, there’s no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn’t use it.
While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it’s relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year.
Factors that are known to increase a women’s risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.
WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS
The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection — a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users.
However, that doesn’t mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there’s no proof talc, which doesn’t interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer.
One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women’s Health Initiative and the Nurses’ Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users.
WHAT EXPERTS SAY
If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women’s health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones.
“Lord knows, with the amount of powder that’s been applied to babies’ bottoms, we would’ve seen something,” if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency’s position is that there’s not a clear connection.
“It is very hard to establish causal relationships,” he said, adding, “A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer.”
Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. “The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small,” Ward said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/does-baby-powder-cause-cancer-another-jury-says-yes/2016/10/28/a2903670-9d2d-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_story.html
-
International Regulators Back Viability Of Non-Animal Skin Toxicity Testing
Oct 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Participants in an international workshop for regulators on using alternative toxicity tests to supplement or replace traditional animal toxicology testing methods agreed that non-animal skin sensitization tests are ready to replace animal testing for many chemicals -- an important breakthrough in acceptance of the tests that EPA is supporting.
Scientists from EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) attended the meeting in Italy earlier this month, along with regulators and scientists from China, Brazil, Korea, Japan, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Organisation of Economic Development (OECD), "a heavy-hitting group of regulators" according to one attendee.
"We talked about what is needed to implement these non-animal testing strategies," Nicole Kleinstreuer, deputy director of NIEHS' National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) said. "We really achieved consensus that these non-animal testing strategies [for skin sensitization] are ready to replace animal tests in the chemical sphere where they've been tested."
A source with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said the workshop, hosted by the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM), included more than 40 regulators representing some 20 countries. "It's important to show that non-animal [testing] methods are ready now," the source says.
A focus of the meeting was results from non-animal testing strategies, including a set of three in vitro skin sensitization tests validated by OECD. The data set included results from local lymph node assays (LLNA) and human data, the PETA source says, adding that the non-animal test results in the data set were equivalent or better than the traditional mouse toxicology test.
"What we did at the ICATM workshop was discuss the performance" of these testing strategies compared to traditional animal toxicity tests for 130 chemicals from cosmetics companies, Kleinstreuer said.
She wrote computer code to compare the testing results between the non-animal data, animal data and human data. "All the non-animal data were comparable, some superior, [to the animal and human data] from both hazard and potency" perspectives, she said.
An EPA spokeswoman did not respond to a request for an interview or comment on the ICATM meeting by press time.
EPA pesticides staff were involved with gathering the information used in the analysis, which required industry collaboration to gather paired sets of data on chemicals tested with both the in vitro and in vivo animal skin sensitization test methods. At a pesticides industry conference last April describing the data collection project and the regulators' conference, Anna Lowit, a senior scientist in EPA's pesticides office, called the conference "unprecedented," adding that, "My hope is that this is a jumping off point."
Lowit said that EPA and NICEATM staff are "collecting additional skin sensitization data that span our bases," explaining that "the existing data sets are broad in chemical space, but shallow in their depth." She urged industry officials attending the April conference to provide data for the effort.
The cosmetics arena has a strong data set but there is less information for pesticides, Lowit said. "The hope is that . . . we can expand the data within our sector to go into that meeting with a strong sense of where we can go, at least with conventional chemicals," she said.
Non-Animal Testing
International acceptance of non-animal testing methodologies has long been a major issue for those seeking to reduce animal toxicology tests, which are traditionally required by regulatory agencies around the world to better understand chemicals' human health risks.
One EPA research official, Tina Bahadori, recently described the situation at a National Academy of Sciences meeting as a "game of chicken" with regulators in different agencies or countries waiting for others to be the first to use information from non-animal testing to make a regulatory decision. Having such consensus among regulators could hasten the in vitro skin sensitization tests' use, and their broad international acceptance.
The regulators' conference will be followed by a pair of white papers, one summarizing all countries' toxicity testing requirements and a second recommending performance standards for replacements, says Kleinstreuer. "You don't know how to replace [the traditional tests] until you know what you're replacing," she added.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP), a branch within NIEHS, is already beginning a new in vitro testing project intended to expand that sphere of chemical space by performing in vitro testing of chemicals nominated by its scientists and scientists at other federal agencies. NTP is the home of the NICEATM and organizes the federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM).
"A lot of the testing that has been done for in vitro skin sensitization has been done with [chemicals used in] cosmetics," the PETA source says. "What NTP is doing will be really useful because they're taking pesticides [and other chemicals] and testing them in several in vitro assays. . . . It's useful because it's expanding the chemical universe."
Kleinstreuer explained that the first round of additional in vitro testing, already underway, includes 48 chemicals. "We asked our agency partners for nominations," which she said came from EPA's pesticides, toxics and research offices and from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and internally. "We tried to procure as many [of the chemicals] as we could. The 48 are the ones that we could procure in the short-term," Kleinstreuer said.
NTP will conduct testing on more chemicals in 2017. The results of the in vitro testing can then be compared to the traditional animal toxicology test results, giving researchers better understanding of the alternate tests' performance with different kinds of chemicals -- a type of analysis used for some time to validate in vitro testing methods.
Kleinstreuer said NTP "is still soliciting nominations from federal and international partners for the next round of testing and [is also] asking for help, too, from our international partners. We're trying to be smart about how we pick the chemicals, to maximize" the value of the testing, she said.
Alternative Methods
EPA's pesticides office has become active in the work of advancing alternative testing methods over the past year. EPA's pesticides chief, Jack Housenger, ramped up his office's efforts with a letter last March outlining plans to achieve the goal of replacing the traditional "6-pack" of toxicology studies required for EPA to register pesticides for use in the U.S. The tests, for skin sensitization, skin irritation, eye irritation, acute toxicity, inhalation toxicity and dermal toxicity, consume thousands of laboratory animals, Lowit said during a pesticide association's conference last spring.
Lowit and EPA are part of a group of American federal agencies trying to advance the use of in vitro testing methods for regulatory use in the U.S. called ICCVAM.
The group held one of its biannual public meetings in September, where ICCVAM Director Warren Casey outlined a strategy and road map the group is developing to advance the use of non-animal test alternatives to the 6-pack studies. "They've made a lot of movement at EPA since Jack Housenger's letter," the PETA source says.
Another step forward, the PETA source says, is a new pilot project on inhalation toxicity tests the PETA Science Consortium is supporting. It builds off a series of webinars on various aspects of inhalation toxicity that PETA cosponsored with NICEATM.
The pilot will test in the in vitro inhalation tests chemicals that have "already been tested in vivo, with chemicals shared by" EPA's pesticides office, the PETA source says. The source describes the pilot as an "integrated testing approach. We've just started a couple of companies are interested in participating, and NICEATM is organizing and managing the project. . . . It's still pretty early."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/international-regulators-back-viability-non-animal-skin-toxicity-testing
-
API Natural Gas Push Meets Resistance
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
America's oil and gas lobby is ramping up its campaign for states to use natural gas to meet federal climate standards, but environmental advocates warn that may lock the country into many decades more of fossil fuel dependence.
The American Petroleum Institute yesterday released its analysis suggesting that letting markets pick the cheapest electricity sources would lead to more natural gas use and lower costs for states complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
API opposes the Clean Power Plan even though many of its members could benefit under the rule. Natural gas use is likely to expand substantially under the regulation because the fuel emits about half as much carbon as coal when it's burned.
"This is not about advocating for the Clean Power Plan," said Marty Durbin, API's executive director for market development, who previously ran a natural gas trade group that merged with the institute last year.
"As we know, states are still having these conversations, utilities still have to make plans, and we want to make sure that the accurate information about the affordability and availability of natural gas are going into everybody's assumptions," Durbin said.
API's analysis, which was conducted by the firm ICF International, assumed optimistically low gas prices. The report found that using more gas would be cheaper than mandating certain levels of energy efficiency and renewable power. API has been presenting the results since July to state electric regulators who will write and implement state plans.
Clean energy groups, however, are challenging the data, arguing it's misleading for a number of reasons. Environmental groups are also encouraging states to think long-term about whether it makes financial sense to invest customer dollars in switching to natural gas if the United States will eventually need to limit carbon emissions and methane leaks associated with the fuel in order to meet climate goals.
API's push shows how every fuel source is clamoring for a piece of the market under the Clean Power Plan, even as the rule is frozen under a Supreme Court order. State officials will have to carefully consider the data to determine what options cost the least and achieve their policy goals.
Could the Clean Power Plan cost $0?
President Obama has argued that natural gas should serve as a bridge fuel on the way to decarbonizing the power sector, and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has echoed his stance.
API's figures suggest natural gas's share of electricity generation will grow significantly by 2030, with or without the Clean Power Plan. In a business-as-usual case, natural gas would grow to 43 percent of the U.S. fuel mix, up from about 33 percent now. Depending on how states implement the Clean Power Plan, natural gas could make up an even bigger portion of the portfolio, possibly as much as 49 percent.
Liz Perera, climate policy director for the Sierra Club, said that while the Clean Power Plan offers states flexibility in how to comply, "any state that is serious about meeting the plan's goals in an affordable, effective way that also protects the health of our communities will turn to clean energy sources like wind and solar."
Perera said state officials should look at the full costs of natural gas. That includes considering price volatility, health effects and potential lost investments in infrastructure once the United States transitions away from fossil fuels, she said.
API's study looked at what would happen if all states chose one of three different kinds of plan formats: achieving an average rate of emissions, capping emissions from existing plants, or capping emissions from existing and new plants.
Notably, API found in one of those scenarios that the Clean Power Plan would be nonbinding, or cost $0.
Other recent models have come to the same conclusion, leading some environmental advocates to question whether the rule is strong enough (see related story).
In comparing costs, API assumed the lowest of the potential natural gas prices the U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected. API argued that EIA has underestimated natural gas production and overestimated natural gas prices since 2012. That has been true in recent years, although over the last two decades, EIA has more often underestimated how high prices could rise.
API assumed gas prices would be $4.10 per million British thermal units in 2030, rather than the $6.06 per MMBtu that EPA assumed based on EIA numbers when the agency was writing the rule. If gas prices are higher, natural gas might not be as competitive a way to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
'The low-hanging fruit regrows'
Clean energy advocates yesterday poked several holes in API's analysis.
Michael Goggin, research director at the American Wind Energy Association, said the group is creating a "false dichotomy" between "market solutions" and "mandate solutions."
"Nobody's really talking about a mandate solution for efficiency or renewables," Goggin said. Most states, he noted, are looking at exactly what API explored — setting a standard carbon emissions rate or cap and letting the markets determine the fuel mix based on what's cheapest. In that kind of "market forces" scenario, wind and solar power would still be part of the picture.
Goggin also noted API used EPA's estimates for how much renewable power would cost, which he said are conservative. EPA assumed capital costs for wind power would start at $17.50 per kilowatt-hour and decline to $16.24 per kWh in 2030. More recent numbers show those levels falling to around $15 per kWh, Goggin said.
He added that API looked only at what renewable resources that states could use within their own borders, which is more expensive.
API also modeled EPA's assumptions that states could mandate 1 percent energy savings per year, calling that level "aggressive."
Lowell Ungar, a senior policy adviser for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said 1 percent is modest. Dozens of states achieve at least that much in savings each year, and several states are closer to 2 percent, he said. The national average is around a 0.7 percent reduction in energy use through efficiency efforts each year.
Ungar pointed out that EPA also predicted high costs for energy efficiency in assuming that as states increase their programs, they will get more expensive. ACEEE has reviewed actual costs in utility programs and found that doesn't typically happen, he said.
"The low-hanging fruit regrows," he said, as energy-saving technologies get cheaper.
Ungar added that ICF doesn't present energy efficiency as a market option, so it's not represented in the "market forces" model runs.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/28/stories/1060044966
-
Clean Power Plan 'Left Reductions on the Table' — Report
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A new report from the Center for Progressive Reform suggests U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could have been much tougher.
The analysis comes as recent modeling shows the country barreling toward meeting the federal climate goals early as natural gas prices stay low and renewable power technologies advance quickly.
The study suggests EPA could have achieved much bigger power-sector carbon emissions reductions under the rule with one core change. EPA determined what standards three regions could achieve but then applied the least stringent standard to all states. That means Western states got much easier goals than they might be capable of meeting, according to the report.
EPA could have cut emissions from existing plants 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, or almost 400 million tons of carbon more per year, according to the report. That compares to the 38 percent reduction in existing plant emissions the Clean Power Plan would achieve. EPA claims the rule will cut carbon levels 32 percent. That figure is lower because it includes emissions from new plants that will come online by 2030.
Alice Kaswan, a co-author of the paper and professor at University of San Francisco School of Law, said EPA might have been worried about the political or legal ramifications of applying tougher targets to some states, even if they were capable of meeting them. Kaswan said she wouldn't want to open the rule up to make standards stiffer, but she thinks federal and state policymakers should consider that further reductions were available.
Claims from Eastern and Midwestern states that the Clean Power Plan is "too onerous" are unconvincing, the authors noted.
"Not only are western states likely to generate excess reductions upon which eastern states could potentially rely, the eastern states appear to be on track to meet their targets with little difficulty," authors noted. "Ultimately, by setting targets that did not reflect actual regional opportunities, the Clean Power Plan left achievable reductions on the table."
Kaswan said additional initiatives to shift more to natural gas and renewable power could deepen emissions reductions, but states would have to make sure they aren't ceding their savings by selling carbon allowances that let companies keep emitting elsewhere.
"We need to continue to look at federal climate policy," Kaswan said. "We shouldn't rest on our heels thinking that we're done with the power sector."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/28/stories/1060044967
-
Ayotte Touts Support for Clean Power Plan
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink
New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte cited her support for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to fend off charges from Democratic challenger Gov. Maggie Hassan of not doing enough to protect the environment.
"I crossed party lines to protect New Hampshire's environment," Ayotte said during a debate here last night, the second in recent days.
Both candidates said they believe in climate change, but Hassan and Ayotte each accused the other of being tied to special interests, including fossil fuel groups linked to billionaire donors Charles and David Koch.
Hassan said of Ayotte: "The Koch family has given personally to her, after that she did a kind of feint [on the Clean Power Plan] to pretend she has a strong environmental record." Hassan also suggested Ayotte had denied climate change when she first ran for the Senate.
Hassan sent out a video last night on social media from Ayotte's 2012 Senate race in which she and other GOP candidates said "no" when asked "if man-made global warming has been proven without a doubt." Ayotte did not address the video at the debate.
She did say that it was "simply not true" that the Koch brothers were running TV ads for her, noting they disagree with her on climate change.
However, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said Ayotte's campaign had received at least $2 million from groups with some ties to the Kochs.
Outside groups have run ads for Hassan, including those that say Ayotte sided with the Koch brothers 90 percent of the time on Senate votes.
Ayotte said the attacks were funded by political action committees backed by Democratic leaders like Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Chuck Schumer of New York.
Courting independents
Ayotte and Susan Collins of Maine are the only two Republican senators to support the CPP, an administration effort aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
Observers viewed Ayotte's move to support the plan as an attempt to moderate her record and insulate herself from criticism in anticipation of a tough race against Hassan, a two-term governor.
Ayotte after the debate tweeted, "Since my time as [New Hampshire attorney general], I have stood up for our environment because NH is worth it."
Ayotte also warned that Hassan would be a "rubber stamp" for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Hassan countered that Ayotte has, until recently, backed GOP nominee Donald Trump.
On taxes, Ayotte said Hassan would support a trillion-dollar increase that Clinton would propose if elected. Both women also split over debt-free college education, how to improve gun background checks and how to achieve equal pay for women.
Beyond asking the candidates whether they believe in climate change, moderators fielded no other energy and environment questions, neither did they come up through social media.
The debate, the fifth of six scheduled, was far more heated than one earlier this week, reflecting a tight race that could determine which party controls the Senate. A RealClearPolitics average of recent polls puts Ayotte up by 1.3 percentage points, a statistical dead heat.
Both candidates see touting their independence as a way to appeal to the state's large pool of independent voters. There are more independents than Democrats or Republicans in the Granite State, and they are expected to determine the outcome of the race.
The tight contest is fueling outside spending from both Democrats and Republicans that's likely to top $100 million, which would set a record for New Hampshire.
That's an extraordinary figure for a state with just under 1 million registered voters, according to the secretary of state's office.
Amid claims of independence, Hassan did appear with Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) early in the week. The rally was an appeal to female voters who may be uncomfortable with recent comments made by Trump about groping women.
Ayotte is due to be on the other side of the state today when Trump holds a rally in Manchester. She has expressed plans to write in for president Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who will make the trip with Trump.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/28/stories/1060044983
-
BLM Rule Backers Make Conservative Pitch to Hill Staffers
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Capitol Hill staffers yesterday heard a pitch designed to appeal to conservatives — how federal rules to limit methane emissions from oil and gas wells on federal land could result in cost savings.
Existing rules have cost taxpayers $108.9 million in lost royalty payments from 2006 through 2015, Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated, based on data about venting and flaring collected by the Interior Department's Office of Natural Resources Revenue. At the average yearly price of natural gas, the lost gas has had a market value of roughly $878.1 million.
The Bureau of Land Management has proposed "several changes that could actually help taxpayers," said Autumn Hanna, director of energy and natural resources campaigns for TCS, a nonpartisan budget watchdog.
House GOP lawmakers have asked Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to withdraw a proposed rule, accusing BLM of exceeding its legal authority (Greenwire, July 28).
The rule would require well operators to use off-the-shelf technologies to reduce flaring, or burning off excess gas. It would also require companies to conduct periodic leak inspections and replace outdated equipment that vents large amounts of gas.
Republicans argue private-sector initiatives have been effective at keeping methane emissions under control.
Western Organization of Resource Councils' Sara Kendall offered perspectives from ranchers and other private property owners who are affected by federal leasing. She told the story of a mother and daughter who moved from Wyoming to South Dakota to escape a well they suspected was causing air pollution linked to asthma.
"One of the reasons why we feel so strongly that it's really important to have strong federal protections is because the state approaches have been really spotty, and so there's a lot of room for improvement," Kendall said, emphasizing most of the organization's members hold conservative views.
The crowd of about two dozen staffers also heard from Isaac Brown, with the Center for Methane Emissions Solutions, a coalition of companies that service the oil and gas industry.
"Our members want to stress we have the technology," Brown said, demonstrating cameras that can monitor for methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is often undetectable to the human eye and has no smell.
The business case can be made for eliminating methane emissions, Brown said, with studies showing the lost gas accounts for millions of dollars in lost profits. Methane mitigation also provides high-paying jobs, with an average income for highly trained technicians of $31 per hour. The industry includes large corporate companies like General Electric Co., but the majority are small businesses, he said.
"Ask oil and gas producers in their second year of compliance what their experience has been to date," Brown said. During each inspection, they find two to three leaks per site, he said, "real-time profits that are literally being lost into the air."
Leaks are often the result of human error, for instance a valve mistakenly left open, and can be corrected on the spot or within a couple of days, Brown said.
Brown said the businesses he represents also wants to make sure federal regulations are done in a way "that oil and gas exporters can continue to thrive."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/28/stories/1060044969
-
Four Gas Companies Join EPA's Voluntary Methane-Cutting Program
Oct 28, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
EPA announced today that four natural gas companies have signed onto its voluntary program to cut methane emissions.
National Grid, Kinder Morgan, Southwestern Energy, and Southern Company Gas are joining EPA's ONE Future program, which carries a goal of slicing methane emissions from natural gas production and transportation to less than 1 percent by 2025. The oil and gas industry's trade groups are fighting the Obama administration over mandatory methane rules, making the question of which companies would join the voluntary reduction program into a potentially contentious one.
"These partner companies are leading a path to cleaner energy production in the natural gas sector by agreeing to reduce methane emissions and track their progress," Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, said in a statement.
Forty-one companies earlier this year joined EPA's second program for voluntary emissions reductions, known as Best Management Practices, which involves the broader implementation of methane-cutting techniques.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy#ixzz4OOwoMC9K
-
Standing Rock Youth Bring the Dakota Access Fight to Clinton HQ
Oct 28, 2016 | Grist (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ben Adler
The conflict over the Dakota Access oil pipeline continues to escalate, but Hillary Clinton still hasn’t taken a clear position on it. That’s frustrating some Native Americans and climate change activists who feel that the Democratic nominee should stand in favor of clean water and indigenous rights.
A dozen teenagers from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation showed up at Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn on Thursday afternoon to deliver a letter to the candidate. Around the same time, North Dakota state police werebreaking up a blockade along the pipeline route and making arrests.
The Standing Rock reservation straddles the border of North Dakota and South Dakota, and many of its residents are intensely opposed to the pipeline, which would destroy some of their adjacent burial and prayer sites. It would also cross the Missouri River, the reservation’s only water source.
When Grist recently asked Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta about the nominee’s position on Dakota Access, he avoided saying anything other than that Clinton supports the Obama administration’s belated efforts to bring tribal voices into the process.
The Standing Rock teen delegation carried wooden poles and a cloth tarp into the Brooklyn high-rise office building that houses the Clinton campaign’s headquarters. They sported black T-shirts, many of which read “Straight Outta Standing Rock” in imitation of the lettering on the classic NWA album cover. In less than two minutes, they assembled a tipi bearing the slogan: “We are here to protect / Water is life!” They unfurled a large banner reading “Protectors not protesters” and assembled a drum circle.
The event’s main speaker was a 13-year-old from Standing Rock. (Organizers asked that her name not be used, due to her age.) “We just want to be heard. As the next president, she needs to represent us,” the teen said, referring to Clinton. At one point, the speaker choked up with tears as she said: “They took away our land, they took away our buffalo, and they’re trying to take our water.”
About 25 local activists showed up in support, even though no organization officially co-sponsored the event. A phalanx of reporters and police officers clustered at the perimeter. The office building is private property and, after about 15 minutes, the police ordered everyone to leave or face arrest for criminal trespassing. The demonstration continued outside in the rain.
According to Gracey Rae Claymore, an organizer from Standing Rock, the Clinton campaign refused to come downstairs to take the letter the group was trying to deliver. They tried to leave it with front desk security, who would not accept it. Eventually, the delegation left the letter sitting on the front desk, where someone from the Clinton campaign retrieved it after everyone had left the building.
Clinton has repeatedly shown she can be pushed to come out against fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure projects that face sufficient public opposition. During the primaries, under pressure from Bernie Sanders and climate activists, she took a position against new fossil fuel extraction in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coastline, and opposed the Keystone XL pipeline.
But Thursday’s demonstration had no immediate effect. “Secretary Clinton has been clear that she thinks all voices should be heard and all views considered in federal infrastructure projects,” Clinton spokesperson Tyrone Gayle said in an email to Grist after the Thursday protest.
“Now,” Gayle continued, “all of the parties involved — including the federal government, the pipeline company and contractors, the state of North Dakota, and the tribes — need to find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest.”
http://grist.org/justice/standing-rock-youth-bring-the-dakota-access-fight-to-clinton-hq/?utm_content=bufferac9fa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
(ACC Mentioned) Differing Comments Prevail for STB’s Proposed Reciprocal Switching Regulations
Oct 28, 2016 | Logistics Management
By Jeff Berman
Far from unexpected, replies regarding the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) proposed reciprocal switching regulations, which the STB proposed in late July, were very mixed.
As previously reported, the impetus for the proposed reciprocal switching regulations stems from a petition for rulemaking submitted by the National Industrial Transportation League in July 2011. The STB said the proposed regulations would augment the availability of reciprocal switching, allowing a rail shipper to gain access to another railroad if the shipper makes certain showings. And it added that these proposed regulations create an avenue for the STB to impose a reciprocal switching arrangement.
As defined by the STB, reciprocal switching is a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access. And the second railroad compensates that railroad that has physical access in the form of a per car switching charge, with the shipper facility gaining access to an additional railroad.
In order for the proposed reciprocal switching to come to fruition, the STB said that a shipper must show that the arrangement is “practicable and in the public interest” or “necessary to provide competitive rail service.” STB’s findings would be based on evidence presented by the shipper and the railroad, while the existing standard that was adopted by the STB’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1985 requires a showing that reciprocal switching is necessary to prevent an uncompetitive act. STB added that going back to 1985 nearly no requests for reciprocal switching have been filed and none have been granted.
Reciprocal switching has been viewed as a hot button topic by freight railroad industry stakeholders since its inception more than five years, something which was made very clear in comments filed to the STB that were due earlier this week.
NITL Executive Director Jennifer Hedrick said that her organization appreciates the groundwork the STB has laid out toward the development of a competitive rail marketplace, which will benefit all who utilize rail transportation.
And heads of myriad industry associations representing rail shippers were in lockstep with Hedrick, including Cal Dooley, president and CEO of The American Chemistry Council.
“Competitive switching is a commonsense reform that will finally put an end to an archaic system that has helped shield railroads from having to compete with one another and has allowed freight rail rates to nearly double in the past ten years,” Dooley noted. We urge the Board to adopt a workable policy that will at long last provide shippers with greater access to competitive rail service.”
Other factors cited by those in favor of reciprocal switching included: competition being one of the fairest and most efficient ways to promote increased service, having a rail system that is more accountable to the U.S. marketplace and lead to a more dependable, efficient, and economical rail service for retailers and distributors of agricultural commodities and the rural communities they serve, and being able to provide more consistent delivery of raw materials, among others.
Conversely, those against reciprocal switching, maintain it is a step backwards on various fronts.
Association of American Railroads President and CEO Ed Hamberger said that forced access is an ill-conceived approach that compromises the efficiency of the entire network by gumming up the system through added interchange movements, more time and increased operational complexity.
“The freight rail industry acknowledges the complexities the STB had to take into consideration in arriving at this proposed rule, but, at the end of the day, the Board should have dismissed the petition without further proceedings, as imposing new regulations like this are a step backward from the deregulatory path that has allowed railroads to make the capacity investments required to meet customer demand and further modernize a nationwide rail network that benefits shippers and consumers. The freight rail industry’s position remains unchanged: forced access is an ill-conceived approach that compromises the efficiency of the entire network by gumming up the system through added interchange movements, more time and increased operational complexity.”
Citing 2010 data from the STB, AAR officials explained that an annual revenue loss of up to $7.8 billion could result from rate reductions stemming from these proposed regulations for the benefit of a select group of shippers. And without this income, they said the freight rail industry could no longer invest the billions of private dollars needed to maintain and expand the nation’s 140,000-mile rail network. As LM has reported, since 2000, freight railroads have invested more than $110 billion in privately financed capital improvements to their networks.
In its comments filed to the STB, UPS said its “experience in other contexts leads it to conclude the implementation of a new reciprocal switching scheme will lead to decreased network velocity, diminished capital investments into the freight network, and deteriorating rail intermodal service levels.”
The STB action does somewhat broaden shippers’ theoretical access to reciprocal switching by removing the requirement that the serving railroad must be acting in a non-competitive manner in order for the reciprocal switching remedy to be made available, explained Larry Gross, senior partner at freight transportation consultancy FTR.
“While the NITL petition that triggered the rulemaking contained a number of specific requirements that could trigger an STB mandate for reciprocal switching, the board preferred to leave things a great deal more vague, proposing to deal with each application on a case-by-case basis,” said Gross. “The decision seems to leave wide open exactly what information a shipper must provide in order to justify and support a petition for reciprocal switching access. But the particulars may be clarified as a result of the comments received prior to finalization of the rule. In the absence of specific rules and criteria it would appear that the board will be taking on quite a burden in adjudicating each case on its own merits.”
http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/differing_comments_prevail_for_stbs_proposed_reciprocal_switching_regulatio
-
AAR: STB's Proposed Competitive Switching Rules are 'Unlawful'
Oct 28, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The Surface Transportation Board's (STB) proposed new reciprocal or "competitive" switching rules are unlawful, theAssociation of American Railroads (AAR) said in comments submitted to the federal agency this week.
AAR was one of a number of organizations to file comments on the proposal for reciprocal switching, which refers to a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access, according to the STB. The second railroad pays the railroad that has physical access, typically in the form of a per-car switching charge.
In its comments, the AAR said the proposed rules are "contrary to the established law dating back well before the Staggers Act and providing that a shipper must show 'actual necessity' to obtain an order of forced switching."
The rules also would ignore statutory language that requires a showing of necessity for a switching order, the AAR stated in its comments.
"The rules give no weight to provisions of the Rail Transportation Policy directing the agency to allow market forces to govern railroad commercial activity to the maximum extent possible and to minimize regulatory intervention into the market," according to the AAR filing.
Also this week, a coalition of organizations that oppose the STB's proposed reciprocal switching rules wrote to members of Congress asking that they stop the STB from enforcing them.
The rules would return the rail industry to pre-Staggers Act days of heavy regulation by the federal government, the coalition said.
"We believe that freight rail deregulation—culminating in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980—represents one of the most significant economic policy successes in the history of the United States and that these reforms must be protected,"stated the letter from the Competitive Enterprise Institute(CEI).
"The regulatory proceeding regarding revised reciprocal switching rules that was recently opened by the STB reverses three decades of precedent," CEI wrote. "Many industry observers have expressed concern that imposing forced access and reducing railroad rate freedom will come at the expense of network investment. This unprecedented action threatens railroads, shippers, and consumers with degraded service quality and higher goods prices that would naturally follow the resulting reduction in railroad investment."http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/AAR-STBs-proposed-competitive-switching-rules-are-unlawful--49933
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Battle Rages on as Regulatory Regime Takes Shape
Oct 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Lawsuits over the Obama administration's Clean Air Act standard for ozone are still playing out, legislative battles are still sputtering along in Congress and key regulations are still under wraps.
But in the year since U.S. EPA set the bitterly contested standard, the new regime is quietly being locked into place and the trickle-down repercussions are starting to surface.
This spring, regulators in Southern California formally petitioned EPA to slash emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from heavy-duty trucks, arguing in part that it will otherwise be impossible to meet the stricter 70-parts-per-billion ground-level ozone limit. Northeastern states recently went on the offensive with a lawsuit effectively aimed at forcing their counterparts in the South and Midwest to put tighter controls on NOx and other ozone "precursors." And EPA has already revamped its "exceptional events" policy, marketed in part as a means for states to get a pass on air quality violations related to naturally occurring background ozone.
Although enforcement of the stricter policy has yet to begin, "it's very much in the forefront of our minds," said Doug Flanders, director of policy and external affairs for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. He worries that his industry might be targeted for a disproportionate share of emissions reductions.
When EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed off on the new limit in October 2015, it was only the fourth time since 1971 that the agency had revisited the thresholds for ozone, a colorless, odorless gas linked to asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments. The previous change had come in 2008 when the agency cut the standard to 75 ppb; last year's revision followed years of study and was accompanied by fierce sparring over the potential economic consequences (Greenwire, Oct. 1, 2015).
Already, companies that want to build a new plant or add to an existing one have to permit to the 2015 standard, said Greg Bertelsen, senior director for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "That very aggressive standard is already impacting investment decisions," he said in an interview. "It's impacting where manufacturers are putting capital, and it's impacting what parts of the country can have the economic benefits from manufacturing investments."
Bertelsen had no specific examples of such effects, however, and there so far appears to be little evidence that the tougher regulations are getting in the way of growth. A spokesman for House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who last fall said it was "despicable" that unelected EPA regulators were keeping new manufacturing plants from being built, failed to reply to email and phone messages this week asking for information on projects that had been stymied.
By EPA's forecast, most of the nation should eventually be able to meet the 70 ppb threshold with pollution reduction measures already underway, with expected health benefits that handily outweigh compliance costs. But the intricate machinery of implementation has only begun to grind into gear.
A key kickoff step arrived within the last month, as states forwarded their attainment recommendations to EPA. At least some of those recommendations have been posted online, showing that the potential impact could be modest in some cases and more substantial in others.
Out of 254 Texas counties, for example, 18 are currently designated as being in nonattainment with the 2008 ozone standard; under the 2015 limit, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality expects that number to rise to 20. Michigan, another heavy-industry state that fully meets the 2008 standard, forecasts that up to 11 of its 83 counties will fail to make the 2015 cutoff.
While EPA officials tentatively plan to make the final attainment designations around this time next year, they have yet to release the implementation regulations that will spell out nitty-gritty details of keen interest to business and other regulators.
Among the issues that still need to be addressed is how the agency will handle requirements for pre-construction air permits in areas that meet the 2008 standard but are expected be out of compliance with the latest benchmark, said Anna Burhop, environment director for the American Chemistry Council's regulatory and technical affairs department (Greenwire, Oct. 8, 2015).
"We really are waiting on pins and needles," Burhop said.
Another complication is that EPA issued comparable regulations for the 2008 standard only last year. With major parts of the United States still out of attainment with that earlier benchmark, congressional critics object that states will have to juggle two separate compliance regimes.
Under H.R. 4775, a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) that passed the House in June, EPA would have to wait for up to eight years to pursue full compliance with the 2015 standard. With a White House veto threatened, the measure has little chance of advancing in the Senate, but Bertelsen held out hope for a possible deal in the lame-duck session set to begin next month.
"We are less concerned about the vehicle and more concerned that something gets done," he said.
Janice Nolen of the American Lung Association saw no reason for delay, saying that steps taken to meet the 2008 standard will also help drive reductions for the 2015 benchmark.
"It's not that these are operating at counterpurposes," said Nolen, the association's assistant vice president for national policy.
Lawsuits
Also still alive are clashing legal challenges to the 2015 limit.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the manufacturers association and other business groups, joined by some states, want the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to toss the standard on the grounds that it's needlessly strict; environmental and public health groups argue that the benchmark should be stricter still to fulfil the Clean Air Act mandate of protecting public health "with an adequate margin of safety." Oral arguments have yet to be scheduled on the consolidated litigation, meaning a ruling likely won't come until next year.
Elsewhere, regulators aren't waiting. In a petition filed in early June, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which covers much of the Los Angeles area, and 10 other state and local regulatory agencies asked EPA for rulemaking to slash the NOx emissions standard 90 percent for heavy-duty trucks. With some of the nation's worst air quality, the Los Angeles region cannot otherwise meet the 70 ppb limit without the rule, the petition said. While EPA has not formally responded, the agency will explore options for further cutting truck pollution, acting air chief Janet McCabe told Democratic lawmakers this summer (Greenwire, Oct. 3).
Three weeks ago, New York and five other Northeastern states sued to force EPA to make a decision on their 2013 petition to add nine Southern and Midwestern states to the Ozone Transport Region. The region, created by Congress, currently encompasses all or parts of a dozen states, most of them along the Eastern Seaboard, and requires participants to take additional steps to clamp down on releases of NOx and volatile organic compounds, the other main ingredient in ozone.
In the suit, New York, Connecticut and the other petitioners charged that out-of-state emissions are contributing "significantly" to violations of the 2008 ozone standard within their borders, and that preliminary modeling shows they will pose similar roadblocks to compliance with the 2015 standard.
"I think it all comes into play together," Ric Pirolli, director of air management planning and standards at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said in an interview.
The targeted states include Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee; the suit comes after settlement negotiations stalled earlier this year, according to Pirolli.
EPA should reject the petition, Barry Sneed, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, said in an email suggesting that the original purpose is largely moot.
With the exception of Connecticut, all Northeastern states are meeting the 2008 standard based on recent data, Sneed said. While Indiana currently has no plans to intervene in the litigation, he added, it reserves the right to do so or "otherwise protect its interests in the future if the need arises."
Alarm over the tougher ozone benchmark has been especially pronounced in the Mountain West, where research suggests that relatively high background levels could pose a compliance challenge. With that in mind, EPA last month revised its exceptional events guidance with the aim of making it easier for states to prove their case for air pollution exceedance stemming from forces outside regulators' control.
The final product, however, already has environmentalists considering a lawsuit. In the face of added pressure to cut emissions in fast-growing Colorado, Flanders said he fears that the state's booming energy sector could be targeted in a ballot initiative, despite pollution control efforts that he said are projected to cut NOx releases 27 percent by next year in comparison with a 2011 baseline.
"Of course, we're concerned about that from a political standpoint," he said. "There are folks here in the state that would love to see oil and gas out."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/28/stories/1060044997
-
2 Ways to Help Us Meet the Paris Climate Goals
Oct 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
When the world recently surpassed the Paris Agreement threshold of 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions, years earlier than planned, renowned climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe called it, “A moment of bright hope in the increasingly discouraging landscape of climate science.”
If the science is discouraging, we now have the rare opportunity to extend a moment of hope into meaningful change as the agreement enters into force on November 4.
I see two distinct ways to help us meet, and even exceed, the goals of this historic climate deal.
1. Use policy to unleash market-driven change
Economic theory and practice, to say nothing of history, illustrate how market-based policies can help us meet critical environmental goals while catalyzing new technologies and approaches.
Consider how the United States dealt with acid rain. We created markets for trading sulfur emissions, a primary cause of acid rain, and the emissions went down faster than expected at one-fourth of the projected cost.
Carbon markets, on both the local and global level, afford a similar opportunity today.
In all, 91 countries have expressed interest in using markets in their national plans to meet their emission reduction targets set in Paris, and this isn’t just wishful thinking.
Emission trading programs that cap and cut climate pollution are now underway in 50-plus jurisdictions around the world that are home to more than 1 billion people – including the European Union, China, California, Quebec and nine northeastern U.S. states.
Globally, there is a realistic path to doubling the amount of greenhouse gas emissions covered by carbon pricing mechanisms, from about 12 percent today to 25 percent of global emissions by 2020.
Most critically, China has committed to putting a national carbon emissions trading system in place by next year – making the country the global leader in carbon markets.
Done right, policies like these create incentives that align profit with public good, a recipe for durable and equitable change.
2. Grow high-impact, global partnerships
To achieve and surpass the goals of the Paris Agreement, we must engage with all sincere stakeholders in pursuit of the shared goals of a healthy, prosperous planet.
That’s not to say it’s always easy. I admit, we had pushback from some of our board members and colleagues in the environmental community when we decided 10 years ago to put a team of experts in the Bentonville, Arkansas, home of Walmart’s headquarters.
Yet, we saw in Walmart incredible potential to drive sustainability, and were determined to make the most of the company’s rare convergence of market power and environmental ambition. We began a partnership that continues to bring outsized environmental results.
Walmart cut 36.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its global supply chain in just five years – equivalent to taking nearly 7.5 million cars off the road for a year. The company also doubled the efficiency of its truck fleet, avoiding another 650,000 tons of carbon pollution.
The biggest businesses and organizations operate at societal scale, as do the solutions we need. That’s why we push our partners in business, agriculture and other areas so hard, and work with them to set and accomplish audacious goals.
It’s how we get meaningful results.
Emissions reductions on a fast track?
The next round of global climate talks is coming up in Marrakesh, Morocco, in November. “Negotiators need to roll up their sleeves and get to work on the rules and guidance that will put Paris into practice,” my colleague Nat Keohane notes.
As they hammer out logistics for helping and holding nations accountable for turning commitments into action, the rest of us have work to do as well.
The Paris Agreement going into effect well ahead of schedule is an unprecedented global recognition of the urgent need to fight climate change. With the right policies and partnerships in place, we could also see significant results from the agreement sooner than expected.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/10/28/2-ways-help-us-meet-paris-climate-goals
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested