Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/25/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Germany's Plastics Industry Slams Threat to Free Trade
Nov 25, 2016 | Plastics & Rubber Weekly
By Steve Toloken
Germany’s large and export-oriented plastics machinery industry has decried any suggestion of protectionism that might result from plans announced by US President-elect Donald Trump to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). -
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Economy
Nov 24, 2016 | Chico News & Review
By Brian Bienkowski
Exposure to chemicals in pesticides, toys, makeup, food packaging and detergents costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually due to health care costs and lost wages, according to a new analysis. -
(ACC Mentioned) PolitiFact: Did Bag Ban Cause Disease? Evidence is Shaky.
Nov 24, 2016 | Austin American Statesman
By W. Gardner Selby
Reused grocery bags made Californians sick, a conservative Texas analyst suggested. -
U.S. Military Plans to Dump 20,000 Tons of Heavy Metals and Explosives Into the Oceans
Nov 24, 2016 | Alternet
By Dahr Jamail
The U.S. Navy has been conducting war-game exercises in US waters for decades, and in the process, it has left behind tons of bombs, heavy metals, missiles, sonar buoys, high explosives and depleted uranium munitions that are extremely harmful to both humans and marine life. -
'Toys Containing Lead Still Sold in the US'
Nov 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Toys containing lead are still being sold in the US, according to the US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). -
More Company Climate Votes Ahead, As Trump May Loosen Energy Rules
Nov 25, 2016 | Reuters
By Ross Kerber
Activist shareholders plan a record number of resolutions focused on climate change at U.S. company annual meetings in 2017, even as President-elect Donald Trump looks set to loosen environmental regulations. -
A Trump U.S. Energy Boom
Nov 25, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Donald Trump this week released a video detailing the plans for his Administration’s first 100 days, and one bright spot is his agenda for American energy. -
EIA Expects Nearly 17 Bcf/d of Utica Pipeline Capacity Online by 2018
Nov 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A spate of natural gas pipeline projects that are nearly through the regulatory process and close to starting construction could dramatically increase the Utica Shale's takeaway capacity over the next two years, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said. -
Pipelines Are Safe
Nov 25, 2016 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
By Keith J. Coyle
In a recent op-ed published in the Post-Gazette, “Gas Pipelines Represent Prosperity” (Sept. 5 Perspectives), David Spigelmyer and James Kunz described the many benefits that Pennsylvanians could see from the expansion of natural-gas pipelines and related energy... -
A Dakota Pipeline’s Last Stand
Nov 25, 2016 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
In the Dakota language, the word “oahe” signifies “a place to stand on.” And that’s what the Standing Rock Sioux and its allies in the environmental and activist movements say they are doing: using Lake Oahe in North Dakota as a place to take a stand by setting up camps and blocking... -
Donald Trump’s Environmental Reset
Nov 24, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Anti-Trump protests continue to swell across the country, but what best sums up the president-elect’s challenge was a Monday night tantrum barely noticed by the press. -
Marrakesh Climate Talks Inch Forward on Rules for Paris Deal
Nov 24, 2016 | Platts
By Frank Watson
The United Nations COP22 climate talks in Marrakesh which ran from November 7-18 saw some incremental forward movement on setting out the rules for how the Paris Agreement on climate change will work, the International Emissions Trading Association said Thursday.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Germany's Plastics Industry Slams Threat to Free Trade
Nov 25, 2016 | Plastics & Rubber Weekly
By Steve Toloken
Germany’s large and export-oriented plastics machinery industry has decried any suggestion of protectionism that might result from plans announced by US President-elect Donald Trump to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).
In a statement issued earlier this week the VDMA trade body noted that the US was Germany’s largest export market in 2015 for plastics and rubber machinery, at €719m (£610m), surpassing China, while German plastics and rubber machinery exports to Mexico rose 50% last year to €168m (£142m), making it its fourth-largest market.
The VDMA said it expected German machinery exports to remain strong to those two countries.
“Existing free trade agreements are of fundamental importance for this,” said Thorsten Kühmann, the VDMA’s managing director. “Any form of protectionism on the other hand will be damaging to the business activities of all concerned.”
Kühmann confirmed that the statement, while it did not mention Trump directly, was timed around the President-elect’s comments.
The association said that in the case of Mexico, the “strong rate of growth may also be explained by Nafta which has dismantled trade barriers in the region”.
None of the statistics in the VDMA’s statement were new: the association had presented the details of its exports to both the US and Mexico in extensive comments earlier this year.
“We are concerned as we believe that global trade needs open markets,” Kühmann said in an email to PRW’s sister publication Plastics News. “Trade agreements will have a positive effect on [global] trade!”
In his campaign statements, Trump said his administration would “tell Nafta partners that we intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers”.
In a 22 November interview with editors and reporters at The New York Times, his most extensive with journalists since winning the election, he repeated those themes.
“We can’t beat anybody, we don’t win anymore. At anything,” he said, according to a transcript the newspaper posted on its website. “We don’t win on the border, we don’t win with trade.”
In a video released the day before, outlining his first 100 days in office, Trump did not mention Nafta but said he would withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks.
He said his core principle would be “putting America first” and he said that he would “want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here on our great homeland, America.”
Since the election, other plastics associations have defended trade.
The Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC), in a post-election statement, called for “sound trade frameworks” to help realise the potential of shale gas-related investments.
“As one of our nation’s largest exporting industries, robust trade in raw materials and finished products helps fuel the growth of our sector here at home,” ACC said.
“The $175bn (£141bn) in investment in new factories and expanded production capacity by chemical producers, thanks to domestic shale gas, has positioned the US to substantially grow its role as a premier supplier of essential materials for markets around the world,” it said, “but reaching that potential will require sound trade frameworks.
“We agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home,” ACC said.
ACC officials have previously said both TTP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks underway with Europe were important first steps in its trade agenda. The VDMA said it would still support TTIP.
A 9 November statement from the Society of the Plastics Industry in Washington did not mention trade, instead discussing natural resources, chemical health laws, tax policy and state and local restrictions on plastic products.
Some Trump administration transition officials have suggested that renegotiating NAFTA could involve much less dramatic sounding steps, such as stepping up annual reviews, or in the case of other countries, targeted tariffs less likely to draw major retaliation and prompt bigger trade conflicts. But the incoming administration’s plans remain unclear, leading to uncertainty in business circles.
http://www.prw.com/article/20161125/PRW/161129899/germanys-plastics-industry-slams-threat-to-free-trade
-
Nov 24, 2016 | Chico News & Review
By Brian Bienkowski
Exposure to chemicals in pesticides, toys, makeup, food packaging and detergents costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually due to health care costs and lost wages, according to a new analysis.
The chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, impact how human hormones function and have been linked to a variety of health problems such as impaired brain development, lower IQs, behavior problems, infertility, birth defects, obesity and diabetes. The estimated economic toll is more than 2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).
The findings, researchers say, “document the urgent public threat posed by endocrine disrupting chemicals.”
Published last month in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal, the study was co-authored by Pete Myers—founder of Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate.
Costs were estimated by looking at exposures, then projecting 15 medical conditions linked to the chemicals and the associated health costs and lost wages. The findings are built upon calculations made by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. A similar study conducted in Europe found about $217 billion in annual costs due to exposure to these compounds.
The much higher cost in the U.S. “is due to a major difference in policy and regulation,” said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine and senior author of the study.
The U.S. public has greater exposure to flame-retardant chemicals, due in part to stringent fire-safety rules. These compounds are added to furniture foam and electronics to slow the spread of flames. In Europe, pesticides are the main cost driver. Both flame retardants and certain pesticides can impact brain development when unborn babies are exposed.
Trasande noted the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires consideration of children’s safety before a pesticide is approved for use in farming. No such policy exists in Europe. Conversely, Europe has been much more proactive in tackling a particularly concerning group of flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
PBDEs are the worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for nearly two-thirds of the estimated health problems, including annually causing about 11 million lost IQ points and 43,000 additional cases of intellectual disability, all to the tune of $268 billion.
Pesticide exposure—the second most costly chemical group in the U.S.—causes an estimated 1.8 million lost IQ points and another 7,500 intellectual disability cases annually, with an estimated cost of $44.7 billion.
The researchers also looked at common chemicals such as bisphenol-A (BPA), used in polycarbonate plastics, food tin cans and receipts; and phthalates, found in food containers and cosmetics.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, slammed the new report, alleging that Trasande and co-authors “demonstrate a casual indifference toward scientific principles, yet a dogged pursuit of headlines.” The council said the research was speculative and the conclusions are drawn from “cherry-picked” data.
Trasande countered that estimates are on the conservative side. Researchers calculated the health-related costs from just a fraction—less than 5 percent—of known endocrine-disrupting chemicals, he said.
“We also didn’t focus on chemicals already banned, such as persistent organic pollutants,” he said. Those compounds, which include DDT and PCBs, remain common in the environment and in human blood despite being off the market for years, even decades.
“Given that [persistent organic pollutants] are known to also contribute to diabetes, obesity and adverse neurological outcomes, that’s another source of underestimating,” Trasande said.
Trasande added that the researchers “significantly discounted” the disease numbers, wanting to reflect those people where chemicals played a role rather than total people with the disease.
Philippe Grandjean, a renowned environmental health researcher and professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, said the study doesn’t confirm whether the health effects are due to endocrine disruption or if other toxics play a role. However, he said in an emailed comment, “we must seriously take into regard adverse health effects and not just ignore them while calling for more evidence.”
“Of course it would be great to know more, but my prediction is that the calculated costs to society will increase substantially once we get better documentation on … additional substances and additional adverse effects,” said Grandjean, who was not involved in the study.
Trasande said the study highlights the need to address endocrine disruptor exposure in the United States, especially as the country updates the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
The 2016 updates to the act, which regulates both existing and new chemicals, contain no mention of endocrine disruption, Trasande said. Chemicals should be screened for any potential impacts to human hormones before they hit the marketplace, he added.
“The cost of required testing is likely to be small when weighed against the $340 billion in costs we have identified as being related to exposure to [endocrine disrupting compounds],” the authors wrote.
While many of these toxics linger in the body for a long time, people can take steps to avoid exposure.
“We can ask questions about flame retardants and perfluorinated compounds when we buy rugs and furniture, and choose products without these substances,” Grandjean said. “We can choose to avoid tuna and other large predatory species of fish, and we can choose organic fruits and leafy vegetables.”
https://www.newsreview.com/chico/toxic-economy/content?oid=22845916
-
(ACC Mentioned) PolitiFact: Did Bag Ban Cause Disease? Evidence is Shaky.
Nov 24, 2016 | Austin American Statesman
By W. Gardner Selby
Reused grocery bags made Californians sick, a conservative Texas analyst suggested.
James Quintero, director of the Center for Local Governance at the Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation, brought up health implications of shoppers reusing bags during a discussion at SXSW Eco.
“There are health consequences in that,” Quintero said. “I believe this is in San Francisco: When they enacted their bag ban, you saw the number of instances of people going to the ER with things like salmonella and other related illnesses — you saw that number spike.”
Someone on the panel responded: “Wait, that’s curious. I never heard that before.”
When we asked about Quintero’s statement, the foundation pointed us to a November 2012 paper, “Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness,” by Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright, law professors at the University of Pennsylvania and George Mason University, respectively.
The authors noted that San Francisco County barred large supermarkets and pharmacies from using “non-compostable plastic checkout bags,” effective Oct. 20, 2007. In 2012, the county’s board of supervisors expanded the bag ban to cover all retail and food establishments.
The law professors used state data to analyze the change in emergency room visits before and after the ban. They concluded that the San Francisco bag ban is “associated with a statistically significant and particularly large increase in ER visits for E. Coli infections. We find increases between one fourth and two thirds, suggesting an increase in visits between 72 and 191 annually,” the paper said.
We emailed and telephoned each professor and didn’t hear back.
We found, though, that the study’s methodology and conclusions have been questioned.
A 2013 memo from a San Francisco County health officer, Tomás Aragon, said the county Department of Public Health had reviewed the professors’ paper which, the officer noted, “has not been submitted for rigorous scientific peer review and publication.”
Generally, the memo states, “Klick & Wright’s conclusion that San Francisco’s policy of banning of plastic bags has caused a significant increase in gastrointestinal bacterial infections and a 46 percent increase in the deaths from foodborne illnesses is not warranted.”
One weakness, the memo says, was that the professors presumed a link between reusable bags and a seeming spike in gastrointestinal bacterial infections, but they failed to establish the link. “Drawing causal conclusions from this type of study is called an ‘ecological fallacy,’” the memo states. “The basic study flaw is that persons that use reusable bags frequently may not be the same persons that were diagnosed with gastrointestinal bacterial infections in their study.”
The memo continues: “In testing causal hypotheses, it is necessary to measure the outcome (gastrointestinal infections) and exposure to the putative cause (reusable bags) in the same persons. Because of their study design, this was not possible.”
The health department memo said the study also failed to consider other factors besides the bag ban that might contribute to a change in illness rates.
Separately, we asked Dr. Philip Huang, the medical director for the Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department, to take a look at the study and the San Francisco County memo.
Huang said the study, limited to emergency room admissions, missed the fact that individuals who get sick from food are treated by private doctors or don’t even seek health care.
“I mean, who knows? You can get a spike (in illness) and there could have been something else going on in the community that is totally unrelated,” Huang said. “I think the people who are closest to the data in their own community would have the best perspective.” From ER admissions alone, Huang said, “certainly the data is not there to make any conclusions about this.”
Regardless, it’s a good idea to wash those grocery bags.
A 2011 peer-reviewed study, partly supported by the American Chemistry Council, found that among reusable bags randomly collected from consumers entering grocery stores in the San Francisco area, Los Angeles and Tucson, E. coli were identified in 8 percent of bags.
“When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours, the number of bacteria increased 10-fold, indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags,” the authors wrote. “Hand or machine washing was found to reduce the bacteria in bags by > 99.9%. These results indicate that reusable bags, if not properly washed on a regular basis, can play a role in the cross-contamination of foods. “
Our ruling:
Quintero said that when San Francisco banned plastic grocery bags, “you saw the number of instances of people going to the ER with things like salmonella and other related illnesses” spike.
This declaration relied on a study that has numerous questions about its methodology and conclusions.
We rate this statement Mostly False.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/politifact-did-bag-ban-cause-disease-evidence-is-s/ntDD5/
-
U.S. Military Plans to Dump 20,000 Tons of Heavy Metals and Explosives Into the Oceans
Nov 24, 2016 | Alternet
By Dahr Jamail
The U.S. Navy has been conducting war-game exercises in US waters for decades, and in the process, it has left behind tons of bombs, heavy metals, missiles, sonar buoys, high explosives and depleted uranium munitions that are extremely harmful to both humans and marine life.
Truthout recently reported that the Navy has admitted to releasing chemicals into the oceans that are known to injure infants' brains, as well as having left large amounts of depleted uranium in US coastal waters. Now, the Navy's own documents reveal that it also plans to use 20,000 tons of heavy metals, plastics and other highly toxic compounds over the next two decades in the oceans where it conducts its war games.
According to the Navy's 2015 Northwest Training and Testing environmental impact statement (EIS), in the thousands of warfare "testing and training events" it conducts each year, 200,000 "stressors" from the use of missiles, torpedoes, guns and other explosive firings in U.S. waters happen biennially. These "stressors," along with drones, vessels, aircraft, shells, batteries, electronic components and anti-corrosion compounds that coat external metal surfaces are the vehicles by which the Navy will be introducing heavy metals and highly toxic compounds into the environment.
Just some of the dangerous compounds the Navy will be injecting into the environment during their exercises are: ammonium perchlorate, picric acid, nitrobenzene, lithium from sonobuoy batteries, lead, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, copper, nickel, tungsten, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, trinitrotoluene (TNT), RDX [Royal Demolition eXplosive] and HMX [High Melting eXplosive], among many others.
"None of these belong in the ocean's food web, upon which we all depend," Karen Sullivan, a retired endangered species biologist who cofounded West Coast Action Alliance, which acts as a watchdog of Naval activities in the Pacific Northwest, told Truthout. "Nor will the Navy be willing to clean it up, or even contribute to medical tests for people whose health may suffer."
To see more stories like this, visit "Planet or Profit?"
A worrying example of that fact: In August of this year, a lawmaker in Pennsylvania urged 70,000 residents across three counties whose drinking water was contaminated by the Navy to sue them, just to get funding to pay for blood tests to see how sick they had become.
Other examples of U.S. citizens being treated as collateral damage abound. Just this October, the BBC reported on an Air Force Base leaking toxic chemicals into the sewer system, and the port of San Diego filed a federal lawsuit against the Navy for injecting an underground plume of toxic chemicals that threatens to contaminate the entire bay.
But stories like these are only the tip of an impending iceberg.
Experts Truthout spoke with warn that if the Navy gets its way, the next 20 years will see them causing far more environmental degradation and destruction up and down US coastal areas by way of widespread chemical and toxic contamination.
Insidious Contamination
The Navy is, like all the other branches of the US military, ridiculously well-funded. Recent history shows that US military spending dwarfs the rest of the planet's military spending.
"For the last half-century, U.S. military spending has purchased the annihilation of millions throughout Southeast Asia, the Arab world, and Central Asia," Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, an environmental toxicologist and winner of the 2015 Rachel Carson prize for her work on depleted uranium (DU) and heavy metal contamination, told Truthout. "Accompanying that human annihilation has been environmental devastation and birth defects, from Vietnam to Iraq."
Her strong words are backed by clear, cold facts that come from even mainstream media sources in the U.S., like Newsweek magazine, which in a 2014 article titled "The US Department of Defense Is One of the World's Biggest Polluters" stated:
The U.S. Department of Defence [sic] is one of the world's worst polluters. Its footprint dwarfs that of any corporation: 4,127 installations spread across 19 million acres of American soil. Maureen Sullivan, who heads the Pentagon's environmental programs, says her office contends with 39,000 contaminated sites.
Even as far back as 1990, the U.S. Department of Defense had already admitted to creating more than 14,000 suspected contamination sites across the planet.
The U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act defines "contaminant" as: " ... any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter in water. Drinking water may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. Some contaminants may be harmful if consumed at certain levels in drinking water. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk."
Thus, contamination being a matter of scale, the government creates a "not-to-exceed" level based on what it knows about each contaminant, in order to minimize human exposure to each item on its massive list of contaminants.
However, the contamination guidelines don't account for the kind of pollution perpetrated by the U.S. Navy.
"What do you do when it's massive quantities of contaminants in the ocean, and not your drinking water?" asked Sullivan, who worked at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more than 15 years and is an expert in the bureaucratic procedures the Navy is supposed to be following.
She pointed out how "contamination," or water pollution, is defined as "environmental degradation that occurs when pollutants are directly or indirectly discharged into water bodies without adequate treatment to remove harmful compounds."
On that point she said, "None of the dangerous compounds being dumped into our waters by the Navy have ever been treated or removed, which leads to hearing this false choice: The cost of cleanup or removal would be exorbitant. Therefore, we should continue dumping as always, in perpetuity."
Navy spokesperson Sheila Murray told Truthout that depleted uranium on the seafloor was no more harmful than any other metal, a statement that flies in the face of numerous scientific studies that have proven otherwise. Sullivan believes that, by making that statement, the Navy "has disavowed responsibility for all of this toxic ocean pollution."
Savabieasfahani said that while the Navy may be content to add depleted uranium to the environment that already has high levels of man-made pollutants, we should not share its complacency.
"A cluster of worsening environmental phenomena go hand-in-hand with that accumulation of pollutants," she told Truthout. "Global warming, mass extinctions, ecosystem collapse, food-web modification, physical and biological changes in organisms, endocrine disruption, and a pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders in children accompany those rising background pollution levels. Peer-reviewed research is already showing steep declines in the biodiversity of ecosystems."
How Much Contamination?
According to Sullivan, who studied the EIS, the Navy plans to introduce 20,000 tons of contaminants into the environment, which is the equivalent of dumping a load of toxins the size of a Yorktown-class aircraft carrier scattered throughout the seas and sounds of coastal Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
As staggering as that amount is, it does not even include contaminants that have been released over the last six decades of Naval exercises in oceans around the globe (the plans mentioned in these documents are limited to Pacific Northwest waters).
The aforementioned list of toxic compounds the Navy has, is and is planning to release into the environment via its exercises are documented in EPA Superfund site lists as known hazards and all of them are highly toxic at both acute and chronic levels.
For example, perchlorates are highly soluble in water and according to the EPA, "generally have high mobility in soils." They have been found in breast milk, target the thyroid gland and affect children and fetuses more than they affect adults.
Lithium causes behavioral changes that, in large animals and humans, can be fatal. Ingestion of merely one to two grams of picric acid would cause severe poisoning. TNT remains active underwater, can bioaccumulate in fish, including salmon, and can cause developmental and physiological problems, according to scientific studies. HMX and RDX explosives are both well documented to be extremely toxic and dangerous.
Sullivan says all of this raises questions about why there are no regulations preventing the creation of Superfund sites (polluted locations that require intensive clean-up) in the ocean. "We depend on salmon, yet the Navy is creating massive ecosystem-wide pollution right under our noses," Sullivan said. "How can they not see that it will be generations from now who reap the bitter harvest?"
Savabieasfahani agreed and took it a step further, issuing a dire warning.
http://ftp.alternet.org/environment/us-military-plans-dump-20000-tons-heavy-metals-and-explosives-oceans
-
'Toys Containing Lead Still Sold in the US'
Nov 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Toys containing lead are still being sold in the US, according to the US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG).
Its annual Trouble in Toyland report examines toys recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) between January 2015 and October 2016.
During that period, the NGO found 11 toys had been recalled by for violations of the Consumer Safety Product Improvement Act (CSPIA) toxic heavy metal standard. This requires that all accessible components of children's products meet the lead content requirement of no more than 100ppm.
Items recalled for excessive levels of lead included push-along vehicles, water bottles, chairs, swings, purses, glockenspiels and various items of jewellery aimed at children.
The report warns that recalled products may still be in consumers’ homes, or for sale online. It says: “Despite recent progress in making toys safer, toys are still being recalled for hazards such as lead, choking hazards, and overheating. To keep children safe from potentially hazardous toys, there is still more to do.”
It calls on the CPSC to continue to "vigorously enforce" the CSPIA mandatory standards for toys including strict limits on lead and lead paint in toys, jewellery and other articles for children under 12-years-old.
Also it recommends the CPSC should continue to enforce the permanent ban on the use of the phthalate plasticisers DEHP, DBP, and BBP in PVC toys and children's products.
No recalls were made for excessive levels of phthalates between January 2015 and October 2016, according to the report, but it says some retailers, such as Target, are eliminating PVC from store-brand children’s products, and this shows it is aware of the phthalates issue.
The report also highlights the recommendation of the commission's Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel in 2014 that four phthalates - DBP, DnPP, DnHP and DCHP - be permanently banned from use in children’s toys and childcare articles at levels greater than 0.1%.
The panel also recommended the interim ban on the use of DINP be made permanent. The CPSC proposedto permanently ban use of these five phthalates in children's products in 2015, but the rule is still pending.
In a statement, the Toy Industry Association (TIA) president and CEO Steve Pasierb said all toys sold in the US are “highly regulated 365 days a year by the federal government and must meet more than 100 safety requirements.”
He added that the TIA was a “vigorous supporter” of the CSPIA and worked with medical experts, consumer groups and government regulators “to ensure the safety of children and maintain US toy safety standards, which are among the strictest in the world.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/51244/toys-containing-lead-still-sold-in-the-us
-
More Company Climate Votes Ahead, As Trump May Loosen Energy Rules
Nov 25, 2016 | Reuters
By Ross Kerber
Activist shareholders plan a record number of resolutions focused on climate change at U.S. company annual meetings in 2017, even as President-elect Donald Trump looks set to loosen environmental regulations.
Based on filings so far, U.S. companies are on track to face roughly 200 resolutions on climate matters at their shareholder meetings next year, according to Rob Berridge, who follows the subject for Ceres, a sustainability advocacy group.
There were 174 such resolutions this year, Berridge said, compared with 167 in 2015 and 148 in 2014. Many have been directed at big oil and gas companies, though other sectors have also been targeted, including technology and retail.
Activist shareholders broadly aim to curb companies' carbon emissions and make energy usage more efficient, or at the very least, to draw the attention of companies and investors to climate change as an urgent problem.
They have had some limited success. Investors at Exxon Mobil Corp the world's largest publicly traded oil producer, passed a measure this year that could lead to an environmental activist joining its board. "Our position is that the risk of climate change is clear and warrants action," said Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers.
The rising number of shareholder votes reflects a growing concern among big investors about the environment, encouraged by steps by some boards to embrace reforms.
Deadlines are fast approaching to get resolutions on the ballot for shareholder meetings to be held in the spring.
The election victory of Trump, who is set to take over as U.S. president on Jan. 20, only seems to have added impetus.
On the campaign trail, Trump dismissed human-caused climate change as a "hoax" and pledged to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. He also threatened to withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement to combat climate change, although he appeared to step back from that position on Tuesday.
He vowed instead to revive the U.S. coal industry, encourage oil drilling and to scale back regulation of the energy sector.
"Despite what the administration may or may not do, I really believe that corporations understand the risks posed by climate change," said Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow, a California nonprofit campaign group. It sponsored 18 climate-related shareholder resolutions in 2016 and expects to file a bigger number next year.
One resolution for 2017 calls on Anadarko Petroleum Corp to report on how it would address the risk of so-called stranded assets, such as high-cost deepwater project investments, that might be caused by a drop in demand for oil and gas. The idea won support from 42 percent of shares voted at the company's 2016 meeting, up from 29 percent in 2015.
Anadarko's board last year called the idea "unnecessary and unproductive." Spokesman John Christiansen said it is reviewing the proposal.
To be sure, among S&P 500 companies, investor support for climate resolutions has been relatively weak, holding steady around 22 percent since 2014, according to research firm Fund Votes.
But activists often won more backing for ideas such as urging companies to report on their strategy for dealing with climate change, according to the Sustainable Investments Institute, a research firm specializing in shareholder votes, supported by universities, pension funds and other institutional investors.
Anne Simpson, director of sustainability for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Calpers), which manages about $300 billion, said it plans to file or back resolutions at U.S. oil and gas companies for 2017, though she declined to discuss specifics.
Last year the boards of mining companies including Rio Tinto Plc and Glencore Plc endorsed resolutions Calpers submitted calling for reports on climate risk, and the measures passed by wide margins.
More companies will likely embrace shareholder proposals to head off disruption caused by climate change, Simpson said.
"Economics is driving this, not politics," she said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-shareholders-idUSKBN13K18F
-
Nov 25, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Donald Trump this week released a video detailing the plans for his Administration’s first 100 days, and one bright spot is his agenda for American energy. The President-elect promised to peel away government obstacles, and he will have plenty of work after President Obama’s eight-year regulatory onslaught.
“I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-paying jobs,” Mr. Trump said in his two-minute clip. “That’s what we want, that’s what we’ve been waiting for.”
Here’s one place to look: Last week the Obama Administration finished a five-year plan for offshore drilling contracts and canceled planned leases in the Arctic through 2022. That retreat is a reaction to protests from environmental groups, which melted down after a March Bureau of Ocean Energy Management draft included a sliver of drilling in the frozen North.
Leases off the Atlantic Coast were already excluded, and green groups hope Mr. Obama will make these diktats permanent under an arcane clause of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. But that executive overreach is unlikely to stand up in court.
Mr. Obama says there’s no reason to drill in the Arctic because oil prices are so low, as if the government can predict energy prices five or 10 years from now. The Arctic region is thought to hold 90 billion barrels of oil, and up to 30% of the world’s untapped natural gas. Exploration and drilling would create thousands of jobs, and most resources lie in relatively shallow waters fewer than 100 meters deep.
Regulation is already crushing: A report last year by the National Petroleum Council noted that a company needs permits from some 12 federal and state agencies merely to dig an exploration well in the Arctic. Recall that Shell spent seven years and $7 billion trying to exploit leases it had already paid for off Alaska’s Arctic coast before giving up. Russia is already exploring in the Arctic and won’t be deterred by American moralizing.
The Trump Administration may be tempted to cancel the Obama plan, but that would blow up leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet included in the outline. This means the new Administration would have to put out a new plan, say, for 2019 through 2024, that would supersede earlier orders. That will probably take at minimum 18 months, though both the Atlantic and Arctic regions have recently undergone environmental-impact evaluations, which should expedite the process.
The Obama Administration intends to make these drilling regulations as calcified as possible, and the Arctic is the tip of the iceberg. But more than 85% of area offshore controlled by the federal government is closed to exploration. Mr. Trump can unlock this potential, which would be a gusher for global consumers and American economic growth.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-trump-u-s-energy-boom-1480021460
-
EIA Expects Nearly 17 Bcf/d of Utica Pipeline Capacity Online by 2018
Nov 23, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A spate of natural gas pipeline projects that are nearly through the regulatory process and close to starting construction could dramatically increase the Utica Shale's takeaway capacity over the next two years, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said.
Commercial production from the Ohio portion of the Utica was first reported in 2011 and development of the play has accelerated. Currently, about 10 Bcf/d of takeaway serves the Utica’s Ohio market, but four pipeline projects nearing the regulatory finish line could ultimately boost capacity to nearly 17 Bcf/d by 2018.
Energy Transfer Partners LP's 3.25 Bcf/d Rover pipeline received its final environmental impact statement (EIS) in July and is awaiting a certificate from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. TransCanada Corp.'s 1.5 Bcf/d Leach Xpress project to expand the Columbia Gas Transmission system, and the Rayne Xpress project, which would add about 600 MMcf/d to the Columbia Gulf system both recently received a draft EIS. Spectra Energy Corp.'s 1.5 Bcf/d Nexus Gas Transmission project to move volumes from Ohio to the Midwest and Canada, also received a DEIS in July.
Utica production has grown rapidly, with dry gas output increasing to 74.1 Bcf/d last year, or by 4.5% from 2014 levels. Production in Ohio increased the most by percentage, up more than 99% from 1.31 Bcf/d in 2014 to 2.62 Bcf/d in 2015, and it has continued posting gains this year, according to EIA data. However, pipeline infrastructure has failed to keep pace, pushing local prices lower. In 2011, there was only 8 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity available.
Producers have taken note. Appalachian pure-play Ascent Resources LLC recentlycompleted an equity raise that netted it $787 million. Ascent is the largest firm capacity holder on Rover with 1.1 Bcf/d and it needed the cash to accelerate drilling to fulfill that commitment in November 2017 when part of Rover is expected to come online.
After Rice Energy Inc. agreed to acquire Vantage Energy for $2.7 billion in September, management said the company wouldn't alter its firm transportation portfolio given capacity coming online in Appalachia that it expects will lift prices.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108539-eia-expects-nearly-17-bcfd-of-utica-pipeline-capacity-online-by-2018
-
Nov 25, 2016 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
By Keith J. Coyle
In a recent op-ed published in the Post-Gazette, “Gas Pipelines Represent Prosperity” (Sept. 5 Perspectives), David Spigelmyer and James Kunz described the many benefits that Pennsylvanians could see from the expansion of natural-gas pipelines and related energy infrastructure in the commonwealth. That op-ed prompted a response from Art Wegweiser (Oct. 3), who wrote that Mr. Spigelmyer and Mr. Kunz “seem[ed] to deftly dance around the issue of safety, with only a passing reference to this vitally important aspect” of natural-gas development.
Mr. Wegweiser is right to draw attention to pipeline safety. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in Pennsylvania, and the people of the commonwealth expect these lines to operate safely. He also is right to remind the industry about the effect that significant pipeline accidents can have on people, property and the environment. These events, while extremely rare, demonstrate the importance of continuing to pursue the industry’s goal of zero incidents.
The good news, according to a 2015 report from the American Gas Foundation, “Natural Gas Pipeline Safety and Reliability: An Assessment of Progress,” is that pipelines are safe — and getting safer. As the AGF observes:
• Pipelines are the safest means of transporting energy products. Data compiled by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics show that pipelines have been the cause of fewer fatalities and injuries than the trucking and rail industries over the past decade. Data compiled by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show a significant reduction in the number of pipeline incidents involving fatalities or injuries over the past two decades. Reports from the U.S. Government Accountability Office and nongovernmental entities reach similar conclusions.
• The natural-gas industry invests more than $19 billion annually in pipeline safety and reliability. The industry is pursuing a number of pipeline-safety research and development initiatives, and a number of states, including Pennsylvania, have special programs in place to accelerate the repair and replacement of higher-risk pipeline infrastructure. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently launched a similar initiative to modernize the nation’s interstate gas transmission lines.
• Industry has played a leading role in the development of pipeline-safety standards for more than six decades. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers released the first set of comprehensive safety standards for gas pipelines in the early 1950s, establishing the framework that state and federal pipeline-safety regulators adopted in the years that followed. Today, PHMSA and its state partners incorporate dozens of industry codes and standards for pipeline design, construction, operation and integrity management.
• PHMSA has made significant changes to the nation’s pipeline-safety regulations in the past 15 years, and Congress recently increased the amount of funding available for the federal pipeline-safety program, including for grants awarded to state pipeline-safety regulators such as the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. PHMSA also is pursuing new regulatory initiatives, and the pipeline industry is participating in the rulemaking process.
Mr. Spigelmyer and Mr. Kunz made a strong case in presenting the benefits of gas-pipeline and energy-infrastructure development, and Mr. Wegweiser added an important cautionary note about pipeline safety. My hope is that your readers will review the AGF report and other available sources of information to learn more about the industry’s efforts to improve pipeline safety.
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2016/11/25/Pipelines-are-safe/stories/201611250041
Keith J. Coyle, an attorney with the law firm of Babst Calland and a shareholder in the firm’s Energy and Natural Resources Group, recently served on Gov. Tom Wolf’s Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force. He leads the Marcellus Shale Coalition’s Pipeline Safety Workgroup and is a former PHMSA adviser. He also participated in the development of the AGF report.
-
A Dakota Pipeline’s Last Stand
Nov 25, 2016 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
In the Dakota language, the word “oahe” signifies “a place to stand on.”
And that’s what the Standing Rock Sioux and its allies in the environmental and activist movements say they are doing: using Lake Oahe in North Dakota as a place to take a stand by setting up camps and blocking roads in order to block the controversial $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline.
Their confrontations with police — who have responded with water cannons, pepper spray and rubber bullets — have steered attention to the 1,170-mile long oil pipeline project and its owner, Energy Transfer Partners. But the real source of Native Americans’ grievance stretches back more than a century, to the original government incursions on their tribal lands. And those earlier disputes over their rights to the land, like the one over the Dakota Access pipeline, pitted the tribes against a persistent force, the Army Corps of Engineers.
The federal government has been taking land from Lakota and Dakota people for 150 years, tribal leaders say, from the seizure of land in the Black Hills of South Dakota after the discovery of gold in the 1870s to the construction of dams in the Missouri River that flooded villages, timber land and farmland in the Dakotas in the 1950s.
Through the ages, the warring tribes of the Northern Plains lived, hunted and fought across a sprawling expanse of land. Many were migratory, moving with the seasons. Each treaty with the U.S. government, most notably the 1851 and 1868 treaties of Fort Laramie, restricted their movement further though left them large areas west of the Missouri River and recognized them as sovereign nations.
Much of this was contested, leading to Gen. George A. Custer’s ill-fated military campaign to protect miners. Later land was taken to make way for homesteading.
In 1889, Congress passed legislation that created the modern reservation system, pushing the Sioux, also known as Lakota, into smaller areas. And later in the 1900s a series of dams across the Missouri River rolled back the scope of those reservations too.
“This government honors international treaties like they are the Holy Grail, but within our own homeland they find ways to break them,” said Standing Rock Sioux chairman David Archambault, who under the treaties and American law is the head of a domestic sovereign nation.
Lake Oahe illustrates his point. The lake, the site of the current dispute, exists because of a dam project built by the Army Corps of Engineers, the same agency that has been weighing whether and where the Dakota Access pipeline could be built.
Empowered by the flood control act of 1944, the Army Corps erected the Oahe Dam in central South Dakota, forming a reservoir that extends about 250 miles upstream to within a short distance of Bismarck, N.D. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy dedicated the dam, hailing it as a symbol of a free society tapping its natural resources.
But for the Lakota tribes, the dam didn’t exploit natural resources. It buried them.
The project inundated and destroyed the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s “most fertile bottom lands,” home to medicinal plants, wildlife and timber, said Everett J. Iron Eyes, Sr., former water and natural resource director for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and now a water consultant. In the process, he said, the Army Corps acquired 56,000 acres of land and destroyed 90 percent of the tribe’s timber land.
The Army Corps simply condemned the land and paid little to no compensation. The Standing Rock Sioux sued and won compensation — $90.5 million in a trust fund from which it can draw only from the interest on the account to spend on social welfare and economic development.
Iron Eyes said that the government also changed the tribe’s water boundaries. Originally, according to the act of Congress in 1889, the tribe’s territorial boundary stopped at the low water level mark on the east bank, giving it ownership of the water and river bed. After building the dam, the Army Corps seized strips of land on either side of the river. Those strips are the areas in dispute now, giving the Army Corps a central role in letting Energy Transfer Partners complete the line, or not.
“When they dammed the Missouri River they did it specifically and purposely so that it would flood the Standing Rock reservation,” said Harry Sachse, a partner at the Washingtonfirm of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry and who has represented other Native American tribes. “So the Standing Rock tribe still feels very abused. The government drowned all of the towns the tribe built along the river.”
Under the Fort Laramie treaties, the Standing Rock Sioux’s northern border was recognized as the Heart River, which winds up to Bismarck, about 25 miles north of the Cannonball River that was declared the northern border by an act of Congress in 1889. The pipeline battles of the past three months have taken place near the Cannonball.
“They violated every treaty ever made with the tribe,” Iron Eyes said.
“It’s important not to lose sight of the greater sovereignty issue,” said Jennifer Baker, a senior associate at the law firm Fredericks Peebles & Morgan who has represented tribes. “That’s what the DAPL fight and all the fights against these ticking environmental bombs really boil down to. To overlook that would be to not do justice to such an important cause.”
The Standing Rock Sioux are not alone in harboring old grievances, many involving the Army Corps and its dams, Sachse says.
The Kinzua dam on the Alleghany River built in the 1960s forced more than 600 Seneca families to leave their homes and submerged 10,000 acres of ancestral land. Indians say the project, built by the Army Corps, broke a 1794 treaty signed by President George Washington.
The Colville tribe sued the government over the Grand Cooley Dam, which blocked salmon fishing sites the tribe had used for centuries. The tribe was eventually awarded $52 million and a percentage of the dam’s electricity that turned out to be worth about $25 million a year, said Sachse, who represented the Colville tribe.
In Minnesota earlier this year, the Prairie Island Indian Community bought 112 acres of agricultural land near St. Paul to secure a future home. On its reservation, about 30 miles southeast of the Twin Cities, the tribe has wrestled with flooding from the Mississippi and Vermillion Rivers. The reservation has approximately 3,100 acres of land held in trust by the U.S. government. Located in the 100-year floodplain, the land is unusable for development.
In addition, an increase in rail traffic, including trains carrying crude oil, often blocks the only access point to Prairie Island, according to the tribe’s Web site.
Native American disputes are not just history; they are still alive.
In 1980, the Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Claims ruling and awarded $106 million to the Sioux tribes for the illegal seizure of the Black Hills. “A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history,” the court said. But the Sioux rejected the money and continue to seek the return of the land.
Will the Dakota Access pipeline take a place in a bitter history? The pipeline would carry as much as 570,000 barrels a day of shale oil from North Dakota’s Bakken field to the pipeline networks in Patoka, Ill. Along the way it crosses more than 200 waterways, including the Missouri upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux’s facilities for siphoning off drinking water.
The company did not advance its cause when its chief executive Kelcy Warren said in an interview on PBS that he wished the tribe had consulted with Energy Transfer Partners earlier. Nor did the North Dakota Public Service Commission chair Julie Fedorchak, who told National Public Radio that the Standing Rock Sioux failed to take part in the 11-month permit process or in 30 hours of open hearings, and that their efforts to reach chairman Archambault were futile.
Archambault said in an interview with The Post that the tribal council had in fact met with Energy Transfer executives at the tribal headquarters in September 2014 and that the tribal leaders had clearly stated their opposition to the pipeline.
The tribe had passed a resolution in 2012 opposing new pipelines and declared a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking within its borders “because we see the destruction done to mother earth,” Archambault added. Shale oil produced by fracking in western North Dakota is the main source of crude for the Dakota Access pipeline project.
Last week the tribe posted on its Facebook page a recording of the 2014 meeting, in which Archambault warned the pipeline company representatives that the tribe still recognizes the Fort Laramie borders, and therefore the pipeline that the company considered 1,500 feet north of the reservation was, in fact, part of the tribe’s territory.
“So just that you know this is something that the tribe is not supporting,” he said on the recording.
Archambault, in his interview with The Post this year, said Energy Transfer Partners and the PUC members fundamentally didn’t understand the issue around the pipeline.
“They would consider us a stakeholder, but we’re a nation,” he said. “We would hope and pray they would understand that and consider a more formal government to government relationshp with the tribe rather than treat us as a stakeholder.”
Energy Transfer Partners, which on Monday announced a merger with Sunoco in an exchange of shares, had once hoped to keep the Dakota Access pipeline out of the limelight. It has argued that this pipeline isn’t unusual. A natural gas pipeline lies along a similar route. And railroads pose similar hazards. This pipeline, the company says, is just one of hundreds of pipelines that carry crude oil, natural gas and refined petroleum products across the country.
The Standing Rock Sioux have raised concerns about a possible pipeline leak in the Missouri River; other pipelines have leaked into rivers over the past five years, including some relatively new ones. Warren, the chief executive, says the pipeline’s foes need not worry about leaks or accidents. The pipeline, he says, is made of extra thick steel and will run 90 to 115 feet below the bottom of Lake Oahe.
But the Native American opposition to the pipeline project runs much deeper than that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-dakota-pipelines-last-stand/2016/11/25/35a5dd32-b02c-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html
-
Donald Trump’s Environmental Reset
Nov 24, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Anti-Trump protests continue to swell across the country, but what best sums up the president-elect’s challenge was a Monday night tantrum barely noticed by the press. Climate activists in Washington, D.C., waited until dark, then beamed huge images onto the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency. Their demand? That Donald Trump pick someone other than Myron Ebell to lead the EPA.
Mr. Ebell is a whip-smart policy wonk at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has spent years at the epicenter of conservative efforts to combat backward environmental regulations. His appointment to manage Mr. Trump’s EPA transition team was an inspired and encouraging surprise.
On the left it provoked a complete meltdown. Environmental groups whipped up tens of thousands of petition signatures demanding Mr. Trump ditch the “climate denier.” Students at Georgetown and Harvard demonstrated against the appointment. There’s even an online hashtag: #RebelAgainstEbell.
The political class is obsessed with whom Mr. Trump will pick for plum cabinet posts: the future secretaries of state, defense, Treasury. Inside activist groups and corporate boardrooms, the preoccupation is who will occupy the positions with the greatest bearing on the economic bottom line: the secretaries of labor, health and human services, energy.
The biggest battle lines will be drawn over the dismantling of Mr. Obama’s environmental regime. This is where the president’s crushing rules have arguably done the most broad-based damage to the economy. It is also where the progressive left is most organized—and most emotional.
Lifting environmental burdens is (along with tax reform) where conservatives see the most sweeping upside for growth. Talk to Mr. Trump’s economic advisers: They understand that the advent of fracking and new drilling techniques—the ability to tap untold reserves of oil and gas—represents a global paradigm shift that can reset America’s economy and foreign dealings. President Obama’s willful decision to ignore this was as if Bill Clinton had opted the country out of the internet revolution.
Mr. Trump gets that. The early audacity of his thinking, as represented by Mr. Ebell, has inspired the right, even as it has incensed the left. For years Republicans have been running scared on the environment, cringing under attacks from activists, constantly seeking to look “green” and play down their energy ambitions.
Not so Mr. Trump, the first Republican president in the modern era who seems willing to turn the formula on its head and adopt a position in keeping with other energy-rich nations. The Norways and Canadas of the world embrace their energy abundance and make it an economic priority, even as they also take steps to protect air and water quality. That appears to be the Trump approach.
This is a man who reportedly has put Forrest Lucas, co-founder of Lucas Oil, on his short list to lead the Interior Department. Or, if not Mr. Lucas, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.Or Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm. Mr. Hamm is also potentially up for secretary of energy, as is venture capitalist Robert Grady. Then there is Mr. Ebell, who could be in line to run the EPA.
The left is so dumbfounded, it can barely formulate a reply. Asked in a Nov. 9 article how he would respond to the Trump administration, 350.org founder Bill McKibben told the Washington Post, he didn’t know: “The path forward is not all that clear to me.” The president of Friends of the Earth, Erich Pica, was more forthcoming, saying that the movement would go back to the anti-Bush playbook of utilizing “the courts, the Senate filibuster,” hounding appointees and galvanizing “the public to take action.”
That pressure seems to be having some effect. During the campaign Mr. Trump vowed to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords, but this week he backtracked and said he would keep an “open mind” about staying in.
All the more reason why Mr. Trump needs to appoint bold and unconventional advisers, who will reset baseline thinking and won’t back down under unrelenting pressure. The president-elect’s promise to “cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy” will require sweeping action: Ending involvement in the Paris accord. Squashing the Clean Power Plan. Zeroing out clean-energy subsidies. Reopening federal drilling areas. Killing regulations on flaring and fracking. Opening up exports. Approving vital infrastructure like pipelines and liquid natural gas terminals.
All of this is eminently possible. Mr. Obama knew the public wasn’t behind his expensive regulations, so he went around Congress to implement most of his agenda by executive fiat. That makes it easier to undo. At the same time, the sort of dramatic reset that Mr. Trump contemplates will require the cooperation of Congress and the backing of the public, both of which will be nervous. The new administration will need to intellectually engage the activists and unabashedly sell reform.
Mr. Trump’s choices for the Energy Department, the Interior Department and the EPA will show whether he is serious about busting up Washington’s liberal mind-set and jump-starting the economy. These are the picks—and the confirmation fights—to watch.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-environmental-reset-1480023333
-
Marrakesh Climate Talks Inch Forward on Rules for Paris Deal
Nov 24, 2016 | Platts
By Frank Watson
The United Nations COP22 climate talks in Marrakesh which ran from November 7-18 saw some incremental forward movement on setting out the rules for how the Paris Agreement on climate change will work, the International Emissions Trading Association said Thursday.
While the outcome of the US election on November 8 caused much speculation over the impact on the Paris Agreement, attendees said the deal's legal entry into force on November 4 helped to focus minds on setting out the detailed rules for operationalizing the agreement.
Donald Trump's victory in the US election "cast a deep pall over the tent city COP site on the first Wednesday," Geneva-based IETA said in a report, noting Trump's well-publicized previous threats to tear up the Paris Agreement."The future of the US' participation in Paris was a common source of speculation, but it should be pointed out that whether or not the US is involved, Paris will continue as it is now legally in force," IETA said.
The summit in Marrakesh was the 22nd Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which 195 countries agreed on a global deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions at last year's meeting in Paris.
"Regardless of the distractions from beyond Marrakesh, it became obvious very quickly that the speed with which Paris was ratified had taken most Parties to the UNFCCC by surprise and many Parties were not ready at this COP to move towards making decisions on the implementation of the Paris Agreement," IETA said.
"When discussions over the market mechanisms of the Paris Agreement got under way, Parties reverted to traditional positions -- underlining common but differentiated responsibilities, linking finance to [emissions] mitigation commitments -- rather than admit they were not yet ready to put on the table concrete and detailed suggestions on how the structures of Paris should operate," it said.
"Nonetheless, Parties made a start -- just a start -- on developing the guidelines and institutions that will operate the entire Paris Agreement. They identified key issues and started to exchange ideas on how best to address them," IETA said.
INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement set out the principle of sovereign emissions trading, allowing countries to meet their national emissions reduction commitments through the trade of emissions units across borders -- forming the bedrock of a system of international emissions trading for countries that want it.
The Marrakesh summit came too soon after ratification of the Paris Agreement for material progress to be made on agreeing its operational rules, IETA said, meaning most of the work remains outstanding between now and late 2018, when decisions are due to be adopted on Article 6.
"So much technical work on Article 6 needs to be completed in two years -- compared with the four it took to craft the architecture of the Kyoto Protocol -- that the scale of the task seems intimidating," IETA said.
The framework for international emissions trading needs to include work on accounting rules, emissions registries and criteria to establish additionality (verifying that emissions reductions are additional to business as usual), IETA said.
"And with very relevant legacy issues such as the destinies of the CDM and JI overhanging this and future meetings, the process may not be straightforward," it said, citing the UN's Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation -- the UN systems that create credits from emissions reduction projects in developing and industrialized countries, respectively.
"Yet many remain optimistic, pointing out that much of the intellectual property created under Kyoto can be usefully 'ported' into the Paris Agreement," IETA said.
"The Parties are not starting from scratch when it comes to design of the 'emissions mitigation mechanism' described in Article 6.4. The question is how to take the best from the past and upgrade the mechanism to the structure of the Paris Agreement, where every Party makes its own national contribution," IETA said.
"In the end, COP 22 can be seen as a meeting that managed to gather Parties' forces together, point them in the right direction and set a program and deadlines for the work ahead," it said.
IETA is a non-profit business organization representing the interests of a broad cross-section of industries seeking a functional international framework for trading in greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Its members include banks and exchanges, brokers and trading companies, major energy providers, heavy industrials, law firms, consulting groups and verification and certification companies.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/marrakesh-climate-talks-inch-forward-on-rules-26605255
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested