Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/9/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Committee Commits to Putting EPA ‘Back on Track’
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A US House of Representatives committee has begun to investigate the extent to which politics drive decision making at the EPA, and has committed to putting the agency “back on track”. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Science Committee May Soon Try to Weaken the EPA
Feb 8, 2017 | Scientific American
By Annie Sneed
Members of a House of Representatives committee hammered the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday at a hearing titled “Making EPA Great Again,” accusing it of basing its regulations on biased, politicized science, and calling for reforms in the EPA’s rule-making process. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Comes Under the Gun in Congressional Hearing
Feb 9, 2017 | Eos
By Randy Showstack
Republicans in the new U.S. Congress unleashed on Tuesday some of their opening salvos against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which they say creates unnecessary and burdensome regulations, among other concerns. -
(ACC Mentioned) Huntsman Joins ACC
Feb 9, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Francesca Brindle
Huntsman Corporation (Huntsman) has joined the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and President and CEO Peter Huntsman has been appointed to ACC's Executive Committee and Board of Directors. ACC is the chemical industry's leading advocacy organisation. -
Inhofe Takes Over EPW's Infrastructure Panel
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Republican leadership will see a couple of changes in the 115th Congress, according to the full roster that Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) released today. -
Trump's CEQ: Powerhouse or Backwater?
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
With two top energy staffers expected to soon start work in the Trump White House, attention is now turning to another critical environmental post. -
Bill Introduced to Abolish US EPA
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A Florida congressman has introduced a bill to abolish the US EPA, arguing the agency's rules and regulations designed to protect the environment actually hurt people. The agency has, the bill says, "violated the sovereignty of the states." -
NGOs Sue Trump Administration Over Regulatory Order
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Three US non-profit organisations are suing President Donald Trump in an attempt to block his executive order slashing government regulations. -
US EPA Round-Up
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for three substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
Canada Clears NMP Under Draft Assessments
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Solvents 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) and 1-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone (NEP), as well as sulfurised lard oil, are not harmful as defined by section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa), according to draft screening assessments issued by the government of Canada. -
Flame Retardant Roulette: Swapping One Toxic Compound for Another
Feb 9, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naidenko Ph.D. and Sonya Lunder
For decades, Americans have been needlessly exposed to chemical flame retardants – which have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption and other health effects – all because of a well intentioned but ultimately misguided California regulation from 1975. -
Unilever US to Disclose Fragrance Ingredients to Consumers
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Unilever US has announced plans to provide consumers with information about specific fragrance ingredients, used in its personal care products. -
Latest Draft of EDC Criteria Raises New Concerns
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Commission’s latest revision to its proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been met with further criticism from NGOs and industry. -
Business Coalition Backs California Cleaning Product Disclosure Bill
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A coalition of businesses is backing a new cleaning product disclosure bill, introduced in California this week. -
5 Things to Know About California’s Cleaning Products Disclosure Bill
Feb 9, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller
Many of the supplies we use to clean and freshen our homes and workplaces contain ingredients that could harm our health or the environment. -
Gore and Greenpeace Target 'PFCs of Environmental Concern'
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Outdoor clothing brand, WL Gore & Associates, has promised to eliminate per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) "of environmental concern" from its consumer fabric products. -
UN Report Says Need for More Data on Microplastics in Food Fish
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
A UN report has described an "urgent need" to study the presence of microplastics, and associated chemicals, in the edible parts of fish destined for human consumption. -
Reject 'Poor' REACH Dossiers, Denmark Tells EU Commission
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa should refuse to grant a registration number to companies that are "clearly not providing relevant or sufficient information" in their REACH registration dossier, the Danish environment ministry says. -
U.S. is Stocking Up on Crude, But Markets Don't Mind
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Crude oil in storage rose strongly last week, a possible sign that U.S. shale oil producers are getting ahead of demand. -
With Trump's Blessing, Pipeline Can Go Forward
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration has formally approved the Dakota Access pipeline. -
Ga. Looks to Set Rules for Its Sliver of Shale
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Georgia has become the latest state to debate a measure to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a move that natural gas lobbyists said is too much, too soon. -
State Energy Officials Swing Focus to Hacking Threat
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A senior Department of Energy official posed a simple cyber challenge to a gathering of state policymakers yesterday. -
Trump's Last Answer to a Carbon Tax? No Way!
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Emily Holden
The number of ideas for replacing the Clean Power Plan is beginning to grow.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Committee Commits to Putting EPA ‘Back on Track’
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A US House of Representatives committee has begun to investigate the extent to which politics drive decision making at the EPA, and has committed to putting the agency “back on track”.
Apparently echoing President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hosted a hearing entitled “Making EPA Great Again” this week.
In opening remarks, committee chairman Lamar Smith (R–Texas) said that while “legitimate science should underlie all actions at the agency, from research to regulations ... over the last eight years, the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific one.”
The chairman’s statement aligns with the committee’s named priority for the current legislative session to highlight the agency’s “need to use sound science and transparent data to justify its rules and regulations.
“EPA has long been on a path of regulatory overreach, and the committee will use the tools necessary to put EPA back on track,” states the committee policy position.
Included in the hearing was discussion around reintroduction of Mr Smith’s Secret Science Reform Act.
As passed by the House in the 114th Congress, the measure would prohibit the EPA from proposing or finalising a regulation, risk assessment or guidance document, “unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
The bill is expected by many to be reintroduced this year.
Panelists call for ‘significant changes’ at EPA
Testifying at the hearing, the American Chemistry Council said that implementation of the new TSCA will require “significant changes” to the EPA’s scientific evaluation procedures.
The ACC’s Kimberly White, senior director, chemical products and technology, said at the hearing that the proposed framework rule for risk evaluation under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act suggests the EPA believes its existing practices meet the standards of the new law.
But the ACC does not agree, she said.
The trade groups says it hopes to partner with Congress and the EPA to ensure that the agency’s approach increases transparency and applies more “consistent criteria” for selecting and evaluating scientific data.
Panelist Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at law firm Bracewell, also offered criticism on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
He testified that “outside experts” believe the IRIS programme often overstates the actual risk posed by specific chemicals. And while some may believe that EPA should err on the side of being overly protective, he said, “this is an issue for policy makers, not for scientists.
"When decisions are made based on overly-conservative science, it can mislead the public and impose unnecessarily regulatory burdens on society,” he added.
Democrats denounce committee efforts
Democratic lawmakers, however, blasted the hearing’s approach.
“The EPA has achieved so much in recent years often over the misguided objections of this committee and a Congress which has tried to make things worse,” said Representative Don Beyer (D–Virginia).
“This committee should be leading the charge to protect the planet and our environment for future generations, and instead it attacks the credibility of scientists, casts doubt on accepted science, and makes life difficult for the people trying to solve urgent crises.”
Added Eddie Johnson (D–Texas): “I’m disappointed, but not really surprised, the very first hearing of this Congress will be focused on attacking the [EPA].”
Ms Johnson noted that, of the four panelists invited to testify, three comprise a lobbyist for the industry, a representative from an industry trade group, and an industry consultant.
“That is not a panel likely to produce an objective examination of EPA’s activities.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/53476/house-committee-commits-to-putting-epa-back-on-track
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Science Committee May Soon Try to Weaken the EPA
Feb 8, 2017 | Scientific American
By Annie Sneed
Members of a House of Representatives committee hammered the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday at a hearing titled “Making EPA Great Again,” accusing it of basing its regulations on biased, politicized science, and calling for reforms in the EPA’s rule-making process. But a number of scientific organizations call this an attempt to covertly strip the agency’s power—and ultimately to interfere with the scientific process itself.
In his opening statement at the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing, Chair Lamar Smith—a Republican from Texas—excoriated the EPA over what he has called its “secret science.”
In setting past environmental regulations the EPA has “routinely relied on questionable science, based on nonpublic information, that could not be reproduced…and deliberately used its regulatory power to undercut American industries and advance a misguided political agenda that has minimal environmental benefit,” Smith said. With Pres. Donald Trump’s administration newly in charge, Smith added that he now sees a chance to rein in an agency he thinks has run amok. “There is now an opportunity to right the ship at the EPA, and steer the agency in the right direction,” he said.
Many believe that means Smith plans to revive legislation called the Secret Science Reform Act, which he co-sponsored in 2014 and introduced again in 2015—but which Pres. Barack Obama vowed to veto. The bill would prohibit the EPA from creating regulations based on science that is “not transparent or reproducible.” Scientific organizations say this would make it more difficult for the EPA to create rules at all, and craft them based on the best available science.
For example, if the bill requires the EPA only use studies that can be identically reproduced, that would impose an unreasonable demand on scientists, according to Rush Holt, who testified at the hearing as CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Many studies cannot be repeated in exactly the same way—the populations have changed, those people [in the studies] have grown up or moved away or the forest you’re studying has been overtaken by an invasive [species],” Holt explained. “The Secret Science Act has been based on a misunderstanding of how science works—the gold standard is to find other approaches to come up with the same conclusions. Rarely can you repeat an experiment in exactly the same way.”
Critics also worry the legislation could keep the EPA from using important multiyear studies—say, for example, a 10-year study examining air pollution’s effect on human health—in the agency’s rule-making process. Those critical long-term studies are extremely difficult to replicate because they require so much time and money. Because of this, they may not fall under the definition of “reproducible.” Although the bill’s supporters might argue long-term studies would not be excluded, the law’s language would likely leave the term “reproducibility” open to interpretation. For instance, someone could potentially sue the EPA for using one of those long-term studies in its rule-making, leaving it to the courts to determine the definition of “reproducibility.”
All of this means the bill could limit the number of studies the EPA might consider, if either the courts decide a study is not “reproducible” or if the EPA refrains from using a multiyear study because it believes the research will not meet the bill’s “reproducibility” demand. In other words, the agency may not be able use the best available science to make its rules. “I think [the Secret Science bill] is fundamentally substituting a politically originated revision of the process for the scientific process,” Holt said in the hearing.
The Secret Science Reform Act would also require the EPA use only studies for which data is publicly available online—or the agency makes publicly available—in the name of transparency. But critics of this approach note that scientific studies often include private data, including individual health information, or industry records that cannot be made public for competitive, ethical or legal reasons. During the hearing the representative from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group, asked that confidential commercial data be protected in the bill. “That was another great illustration that the bill is not about transparency—it’s about what is politically expedient to move industry’s agenda forward,” says Yogin Kothari, a representative with the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
As for medical data, supporters of the bill say names and other private information could be scrubbed—but that would likely be expensive and time-intensive, and thus another factor limiting the number of studies the EPA could use to make its environmental protection rules. “You don’t need access to the raw data to figure out what information the EPA is relying on,” Kothari wrote in an e-mail. “The idea of secret science is based on a false premise.”
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the latest version of the Secret Science bill (the 2015 version) would cost the EPA $250 million annually over the next few years. The bill, however, allots the EPA only $1 million per fiscal year to carry out its new requirements. “The goal [of the bill] is really to throw a wrench in the rule-making process at the agency,” Kothari says. Smith’s office referred queries to the House Science Committee, whose spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.
Industry groups including the ACC have supported the latest version of the bill. “A more transparent EPA helps to foster the kind of regulatory environment that gives our members the confidence and certainty they need to continue to invest in the U.S. economy and develop transformational, innovative products,” an ACC spokesperson wrote to Scientific American in an e-mail after the hearing. Other industry groups that supported the latest version of the bill declined to commment.
The House panel also focused on reforming the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, which some committee members and industry groups say does not represent a balanced view of science. In 2015 Smith co-sponsored a bill called the “EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act,” which never became law—it is widely believed Smith will revive that legislation this year, along with the Secret Science bill. Opponents say the Advisory Board act would make it possible to stack the board with members who favor industry. “[The board] will not function better by having fewer scientists on it,” Holt said at the hearing.
Committee members also devoted a significant portion of the hearing to a recent controversial article about climate change research, recently published in the Daily Mail, a London tabloid newspaper. A whistleblower at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reportedly told the newspaper the agency violated scientific integrity and rushed to publish a landmark scientific paper, which showed no pause in global warming, for political reasons. Smith referenced the story in his opening statement at Tuesday’s hearing, saying, “Recent news stories report that NOAA tried to deceive the American people by falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.”
The whistleblower, John Bates, told another publication on Tuesday, however, that the agency had broken protocol when it rushed to publication—but that the data had not been manipulated. The points Bates complained about made no difference in the scientific paper’s overall conclusions, according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and an energy systems analyst at the University of California, Berkeley. Hausfather noted other studies, including one of his own, have independently verified the NOAA paper’s results. “I would strongly recommend,” he adds, “that if Congress wants to assess matters of science, they should rely on peer-reviewed publications rather than tabloid articles.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-science-committee-may-soon-try-to-weaken-the-epa/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Comes Under the Gun in Congressional Hearing
Feb 9, 2017 | Eos
By Randy Showstack
Republicans in the new U.S. Congress unleashed on Tuesday some of their opening salvos against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which they say creates unnecessary and burdensome regulations, among other concerns. They also discussed a claim that a former scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated data in a paper disputing that there was a recent pause in global warming.
During the past 8 years, under the Obama administration, “the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific one,” according to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which convened a hearing on “Making EPA Great Again.” The hearing, whose title is a play on President Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again,” came just days after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to eliminate EPA.
Despite the protests of Democrats on the science committee, Smith and other Republicans faulted on multiple counts the sorts of regulations the EPA has issued and how those rules were developed. The critics said the agency’s regulations lack scientific transparency and place a heavy burden on taxpayers. The rules also undergo inadequate peer review and are evaluated in cost-benefit analyses that improperly support the agency’s positions, said House members who derided the agency.
According to Smith, the agency’s proposed regulations under the Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan, “would have no significant impact” on the environment. Yet “the EPA has proposed some of the most expensive and expansive and ineffective regulations in history,” Smith claimed.
Suggested Reforms for EPA
Several witnesses at the hearing urged legislative and administrative reforms at EPA. “The change in administration creates an opportune moment for refining the mission of EPA,” said Jeff Holmstead, a Washington D. C.–based partner at the law firm Bracewell and head of the firm’s environmental strategies group.
He was previously assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation from 2001 to 2005, where he led the office charged with implementing the Clean Air Act. “If we focus on sound science and good regulatory design, we could have the environmental protection we all want at a much lower cost than we have today,” he said.
Another witness, Kimberly White, senior director for chemical products and technology for the American Chemical Council, spoke in support of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act introduced by committee member Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) during the last Congress. The act would help to ensure that agency decisions include feedback from experts from a variety of relevant fields and backgrounds, she said. Lucas told the hearing that he is “concerned that the [SAB] has become an echo chamber for EPA.”
With regard to other possible legislation, Holmstead encouraged the committee to consider the Secret Science Reform Act, which Smith introduced during the last Congress. “When regulations impose billions of dollars [of costs] on consumers and businesses, it is surely appropriate for the government to spend a tiny fraction of this amount to ensure that the scientific information used to support those regulations can be made public,” he said.
Neither bill has yet been reintroduced in the current congressional session.
Holmstead also called for the committee to scrutinize EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). He said that outside experts say that IRIS often overstates the actual risk posed by specific chemicals.
Democrats Urge Caution in Tinkering with EPA
However, Democrats on the committee defended EPA for its history of cleaning up the environment, and they urged Congress to be cautious in tinkering with the agency and with science.
“The efforts by some to undermine how the EPA, and other federal agencies, uses science threaten our economy, threaten public health, threaten the environment, and threaten public confidence in our government, said committee ranking member Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas). “This is especially true when efforts rely on biased, incomplete, and misleading information, ‘alternate facts,’ if you will, in an attempt to advance a provably false narrative against the EPA.”
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who donned a red baseball cap reading “Keep the EPA Great,” said that the committee should be leading the charge to protect the planet from climate change and other threats. “Instead, it attacks the credibility of scientists, casts doubt on accepted science, and makes life difficult for people trying to solve urgent crises.”
One witness, Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of Science, wryly noted that the title of the hearing “acknowledges that the EPA has been great.” He said that the agency’s success is owed to environmental regulations such as the Clean Air Act that have been based on science.
Holt, a former member of Congress, expressed concern about any legislative or administrative reforms that could undermine the integrity of the scientific process or the ability of federal agencies to use rigorous science in establishing polices. He acknowledged criticisms about the cost of environmental regulations and of addressing climate change but said that “most of the debate pays insufficient attention to the cost of not addressing” those concerns.
He added that “we urge caution in setting laws that would make science a combat zone.”
Tipping the Scale at NOAA?
During the hearing, Smith castigated NOAA for a paper published in Science by former agency scientist Tom Karl and others that stated that there was no pause in global warming from 1998 to 2013. In a 4 February blog post, John Bates, former principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., wrote that Karl placed “his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of data sets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
However, E&E News reported on 7 February that Bates said that “the issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”
In a heated exchange with Smith, Holt said, “This is not a making of a big scandal. This is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency. There is nothing in the Karl paper that in our current analysis suggests a retraction.”
Holt said that other studies have since come up with the same conclusion that there was no pause in global warming. “If the inspector general at NOAA wants to look at [the Karl paper], that’s fine,” he said, but the concern raised by Bates “does not change the policy-relevant conclusions about climate change.”
https://eos.org/articles/epa-comes-under-the-gun-in-congressional-hearing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Huntsman Joins ACC
Feb 9, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Francesca Brindle
Huntsman Corporation (Huntsman) has joined the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and President and CEO Peter Huntsman has been appointed to ACC's Executive Committee and Board of Directors. ACC is the chemical industry's leading advocacy organisation.
As a global leader developing some of the world's most innovative products, Huntsman's membership in the ACC is consistent with the company's values, including stakeholder engagement, sustainability, sound science and technology leadership.
Peter Huntsman said, "We are enthusiastic about joining the ACC and look forward to working with them to address many of the challenges facing our industry. Under the leadership of ACC President & CEO Cal Dooley, the organisation has a proven track record of success and has been an effective industry advocate for the critical role we play in the lives of people around the world."
Cal Dooley added, "Huntsman Corporation is an iconic American company and we are thrilled to welcome them to the ACC family. ACC has achieved great success and I look forward to working alongside Peter and his team as we build on our momentum in 2017 and beyond."
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/petrochemicals/09022017/huntsman-joins-acc/
-
Inhofe Takes Over EPW's Infrastructure Panel
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Republican leadership will see a couple of changes in the 115th Congress, according to the full roster that Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) released today.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who stepped down at chairman because of term limits, will lead the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Infrastructure has long been a priority for Inhofe, and sources predicted that he would lead a relevant panel, particularly with President Trump pushing for major spending (Greenwire, Oct. 6, 2016).
Former Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman David Vitter of Louisiana retired this year. He recently landed a new job on K Street with lobbying and public affairs shop Mercury LLC (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas will replace Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska as chairman of the Fisheries, Water and Wildlife Subcommittee.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia will retain her leadership of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety panel. And Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota remains atop the Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee.
Senate Democrats have yet to announce their ranking members or subcommittee lineup. The GOP roster includes the following, with chairmen listed at the top of each section:
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
Inhofe
Capito
Boozman
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi
Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska
Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa
Sullivan
Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
Capito
Inhofe
Boozman
Wicker
Fischer
Moran
Ernst
Fisheries, Water and Wildlife Subcommittee
Boozman
Inhofe
Capito
Wicker
Fischer
Rounds
Sullivan
Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee
Rounds
Moran
Ernst
Sullivan
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049824
-
Trump's CEQ: Powerhouse or Backwater?
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
With two top energy staffers expected to soon start work in the Trump White House, attention is now turning to another critical environmental post.
President Trump hasn't yet announced a nominee to take the helm of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a job that could be among the most powerful environmental jobs in government. It remains to be seen whom the administration will name for the job, or whether the role will be influential or take a back seat to powerful voices in the West Wing. Energy experts and those close to the administration are watching carefully to see how the Trump team handles the White House environmental shop.
"I'm just hoping they'll make full use of it," said Jim Connaughton, who was CEQ chairman during the George W. Bush administration and is known for having elevated the profile of that office.
"The new president has a very ambitious and a very aggressive agenda on infrastructure of all stripes, and ... the CEQ engine is a very important tool the White House has to advance that agenda," Connaughton said. "Getting someone confirmed in as soon as possible is an imperative."
President George W. Bush formally nominated Connaughton to lead CEQ in April 2001, and he wasn't confirmed until June of that year. The delay caused critics to infer that the environment would be a low priority for that administration. President Obama's nominee to lead CEQ, Nancy Sutley, was nominated in December of 2008 and confirmed two days after Obama's inauguration.
The CEQ boss is charged with implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and has traditionally coordinated environmental efforts across the federal government. But the responsibilities and profile of the job have varied throughout administrations.
While Connaughton was viewed as a central force behind the Bush administration's environmental efforts, CEQ was seen as a less powerful agency during the Obama years in part due to the appointment of a climate and energy policy "czar" in the White House.
The Trump White House isn't expected to have a similar energy and climate czar on staff, but experts predict that two White House slots will play a leading role on energy policy.
Trump is expected to soon hire energy policy experts Mike Catanzaro and Dave Banks to lead the White House's domestic and international energy efforts, respectively (Greenwire, Feb. 8). They both have extensive experience working on energy policy on Capitol Hill and in the George W. Bush administration. Both worked under Connaughton at CEQ.
"My sense is that when they name these two guys — if they do — they're going to play the key roles on the domestic and international side, respectively, pending a decision about the role of CEQ," said Paul Bodnar, who was the director for environment and climate change on the National Security Council during the Obama administration. Banks is expected to soon fill that job in the White House.
Other White House offices, like the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Domestic Policy Council, could also play important roles in energy policy, Bodnar said. "You think the White House is like the White House, but it's a Russian doll of bureaucracies just like anywhere else," Bodnar said. "It's a little bit of a Venn diagram. There are overlaps."
Bob McNally, who served as both international and domestic energy adviser in the George W. Bush White House, said the status of CEQ is an "open question" at this point.
He said he expects the National Economic Council — led by Gary Cohn — to play a leading role in setting energy policy, but said, "I think it's a question about whether CEQ will, and that would be a big difference from the Bush administration. When Jim Connaughton came in, CEQ played a very powerful role."
Kathleen Hartnett White, a former Texas regulator who was passed over as U.S. EPA chief under Trump, was rumored to be in the running to be CEQ chairwoman. Her name was being advocated by coal industry executives and members of conservative think tanks, but it's unclear whether she's currently in the mix (Greenwire, Feb. 2).
Tight reins on energy policy?
Beyond the fate of CEQ, questions have arisen about how much energy policy will be dictated by the White House versus farmed out to agencies like EPA and the Interior and Energy departments.
"On the broad question of what policy choices will be made, I still think anyone who's representing clients in Washington is going to have to keep an eye on the White House itself," said an energy lobbyist with knowledge of the transition process.
That lobbyist expects the White House to keep tight reins on issues like stepping away from the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule and streamlining permitting projects.
"The president has never wavered on CPP, on WOTUS, on a desire to do things that are generally restorative to the coal sector, on his support for hydraulic fracturing and for shale development," the lobbyist said. On some other policies, "I think there's more running room."
Whether energy policy will be tightly controlled or delegated by the White House is an "open question," said McNally. While the White House has already been charging ahead on immigration and other issues, he said, "I wouldn't automatically assume that's going to happen with energy or environment."
He said the White House will likely be working closely with EPA on plans to roll back some of the Obama administration's policies, and he expects that officials have a game plan they will implement together. "It'll be hard to tell who's running who. I think it'll be kind of more balanced," he said.
The decision process will be more clear if problems arise, said McNally, who was among those grappling with the California energy crisis immediately upon entering the White House in 2001.
When "there's panic, meaning gasoline prices are rising, there's a problem in the Middle East," he said, "that's when I think we're going to find out. We almost have to wait to see when energy sort of bursts on the screen, and there have to be quick decisions, how decisions will be made and whose advice will be taken into account."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049830
-
Bill Introduced to Abolish US EPA
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A Florida congressman has introduced a bill to abolish the US EPA, arguing the agency's rules and regulations designed to protect the environment actually hurt people. The agency has, the bill says, "violated the sovereignty of the states."
Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) introduced the HR 861 on 3 February. Its co-sponsors were representatives Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Steven Palazzo (R-Mississippi) and Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia).
Although not expected to be passed, the bill comes at a time with the new Trump administration has talked about reducing the EPA's authority. In a move that directly impacts the agency, Mr Trump recently issued an executive order slashing regulations. And he has nominated Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to be the EPA's next administrator. Mr Pruitt has argued for reining in the EPA’s power as well.
The Library of Congress has not yet published the bill text. But the measure reportedly calls for returning power to states and local governments, on the theory that these will be more educated on issues important to local citizens and can more effectively manage resources than the federal government.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53502/bill-introduced-to-abolish-us-epa
-
NGOs Sue Trump Administration Over Regulatory Order
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Three US non-profit organisations are suing President Donald Trump in an attempt to block his executive order slashing government regulations.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Public Citizen and the Communications Workers of America filed their suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on 8 February.
Naming several high-ranking members of the Trump administration, they ask the court to issue a declaration that the order cannot be lawfully implemented and to bar federal agencies from implementing it.
The president's order, issued 30 January, requires covered federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one passed. And they may not introduce any new net costs to the federal government with new regulations, unless given written permission from the Trump administration.
But the complaint says the order "exceeds President Trump's constitutional authority, violates his duty under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and directs federal agencies to engage in unlawful actions that will harm countless Americans, including plaintiffs' members."
The complaint adds that to "repeal two regulations for the purpose of adopting one new one, based solely on a directive to impose zero net costs and without any consideration of benefits, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law".
"If implemented, the order would result in lasting damage to our government's ability to save lives [and] protect our environment," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "By irrationally directing agencies to consider costs but not benefits of new rules, it would fundamentally change our government's role from one of protecting the public to protecting corporate profits."
The plaintiffs also claim the order will make it almost impossible for agencies to adopt new regulations, citing the executive order’s mandate to balance costs. "With these requirements, agencies may just give up on rulemaking," the plaintiffs said in an online Q&A posted to Public Citizen's website.
Proponents of the order, however, say that it will help address the US's "regulatory juggernaut" that stifles economic growth and harms small businesses.
The Trump administration must next reply to the complaint. The parties will make legal arguments before a judge, who is likely to decide the case on motion papers, as opposed to a trail, according to the plaintiffs. The losing party may choose to further appeal the decision.
"When presidents overreach, it is up to the courts to remind them no one is above the law and hold them to the US Constitution," said Patti Goldman, an attorney for Earthjustice, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs. "This is one of those times."
https://chemicalwatch.com/53495/ngos-sue-trump-administration-over-regulatory-order
-
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations
The US EPA has issued section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for three substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These are:
generic polyester-amide polymer of 'isophthalic acid' with diamino-alkane, cyclohexane-dialcohol,alkanetriol, di-isocyanate and acrylic acid-ethylene copolymer intended for use as a paint or coating additive;
generic diamine substituted arylimidazole intended for use as a catalyst and coating additive; and
generic substituted siloxane polymer intended for use as an adhesive and sealant chemical, crosslinking agent, coating and reinforcing agent.
In each case, the substance was determined not likely to present an unreasonable risk, based on low human health and environmental hazard.
Receipt of information under TSCA
The agency has announced receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a rule, order or consent order under TSCA for:
octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); and
ethanedioic acid.
For D4, these were benthic organism sampling summaries in West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Colorado and Kansas.
The agency received an exemption request for ethanedioic acid. The substance is subject to testing requirements for a group of high production volume (HPV) substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53474/us-epa-round-up
-
Canada Clears NMP Under Draft Assessments
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Solvents 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) and 1-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone (NEP), as well as sulfurised lard oil, are not harmful as defined by section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa), according to draft screening assessments issued by the government of Canada.
The proposed conclusion on NMP contrasts with a 2015 TSCA workplan assessment, conducted by the US EPA. The latter identified the substance as a risk to pregnant women and women of childbearing age, with high exposure through paint or coating removal. In January, the agency proposed risk management action to address these concerns.
If upheld, it would lead Canadian authorities to propose taking no further immediate action under the Chemical Management Plan (CMP). But owing to the human health concerns, it is considering “follow-up activities” for NMP and NEP to track changes in exposure or patterns of commercial use.
Both are used in industrial applications and in consumer products, including paint strippers, cosmetics - such as nail polish removers and body lotions - and certain food packaging materials. NMP, in particular, is commonly used as an alternative to dichloromethane (DCM), also known as methylene chloride.
The risk assessment authors used US and EU work as its basis, namely:
the 2015 TSCA workplan assessment of NMP, conducted by the US EPA; and
the 2011 Echa Risk Assessment Committee hazard classification opinion for NEP.
In May 2016, the EPA work was challenged by the NMP Producers Group, which complained during a public consultation relating to the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) that the assessment contained “highly problematic issues”. In particular, the exposure scenarios used by the EPA were inconsistent with the safety instructions on the safety data sheet (SDS), the group said.
Nevertheless, the EPA has proposed action to prohibit or restrict the use of NMP in paint removal applications under section 6 of TSCA. Together with proposed bans on certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), the proposed rule represent EPA's first attempt to regulate existing substances via this mechanism in close to 30 years.
In contrast, the Environment Canada assessment - using the same data and analysis based on ‘margin of exposure’ - concludes that “exposure of the general population to NMP and NEP are not of concern at current levels”.
But it adds “these substances are considered to have a health effect of concern, based on their potential developmental effects. Therefore, there may be a concern for human health if exposure were to increase.”
The Canadian assessment hinges on section 64 of Cepa, which states that “substances are considered harmful if they are entering, or could enter, the environment in quantities or concentrations or under conditions that:
"have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;
"constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or
"constitute or may constitute a danger to human life or health in Canada."
Sulfurised lard oil
Sulfurised lard oil is mainly used in lubricants and greases. The assessment did not identify consumer uses for lubricant products containing it. Furthermore, it found that the general population being exposed to the substance via the environment was not expected.
Consultation
Environment Canada has initiated a 60-day public comment period. Interested parties have until 5 April to submit comments.
The final assessments are expected in January 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53494/canada-clears-nmp-under-draft-assessments
-
Flame Retardant Roulette: Swapping One Toxic Compound for Another
Feb 9, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naidenko Ph.D. and Sonya Lunder
For decades, Americans have been needlessly exposed to chemical flame retardants – which have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption and other health effects – all because of a well intentioned but ultimately misguided California regulation from 1975.
This regulation on furniture flammability led manufacturers to add large amounts of flame retardant chemicals to polyurethane foam cushioning. The size of the California market prompted manufacturers to add flame retardants to foam products sold nationwide, including furniture, carpet padding, baby car seats and other baby products.
As research found flame retardant chemicals building up in people’s bodies, a pernicious circle began: scientists and public health officials sounded the alarm and initiated phaseouts of flame retardants known to harm human health and the environment, and manufacturers quietly replaced those chemicals with new ones that had not yet been scrutinized.
But subsequent investigations by EWG and other researchers showed that these replacement chemicals are often as problematic as the original flame retardants that were removed. The extent of this trend was not clear until scientists examined biomonitoring studies conducted over time and found a major increase in Americans’ exposure to a cancer-causing flame retardant, called TDCIPP, or chlorinated Tris, over the past decade.
A newly published study led by Duke University scientists, with key contributions from researchers at EWG and six other universities, found a dramatic increase in Americans’ exposures to chlorinated Tris. This chemical, which causes liver, kidney and testicular tumors in laboratory animals, was removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s following an outcry from public health advocates. But manufacturers added it to many household products without informing consumers.
According to the new study, between 2010 and 2015, Tris concentrations in children increased nearly fourfold. Duke and EWG previously reported that children also have chlorinated Tris and other flame retardants in their bodies at levels three to five times greater than those in their mothers.
In 2003, EWG analyzed breast milk samples from 20 first-time mothers to measure concentrations of brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs. We detected these chemicals in every study participant. This and other studies pushed the Environmental Protection Agency and manufacturers to phase out use of PBDEs. But chemical companies substituted Tris for PBDEs, and Americans’ exposures to these replacement chemicals has increased dramatically.
Like PBDEs, Tris has been added to many types of foam furniture to slow the spread of fire, despite extensive research showing it is toxic. California state scientists now classify TDCIPP as a chemical known to cause cancer, and data suggest it also damages the human nervous system. Adding insult to injury, the state of California examined fire data and concluded that adding flame retardants to foam does very little, if anything, to prevent furniture fires from spreading.
Over the past decade the California rules have changed and many manufacturers have voluntarily removed all flame retardants from foam in couches, easy chairs, office furniture and baby products. But they are still common in older foam furniture, automobile seats and baby items. They can also be found in new baby car seats, automobile seats and foam used in gymnastics pits.
The key finding of the new study is that Tris concentrations in American adults increased 15-fold between 2002 and 2015. In effect, all Americans today are at risk of exposure to this flame retardant. The study also found a significant increase in exposures to a second hormone-disrupting flame retardant, triphenyl phosphate, or TPHP.
TPHP shows up in an array of products, from furniture containing foam to nail polish. In 2015 a Duke-EWG study showed TPHP exposures went up sevenfold when volunteers painted their fingernails with nail polish containing TPHP. The chemical is a relatively new ingredient in nail products, introduced as a regrettable replacement for phthalates, chemicals that affect the reproductive system.
Again and again, research about the toxicity of chemicals in everyday products shows that scientists and shoppers need to view ingredients in everyday items with suspicion until we have a better understanding of how they may impact our health.
Advocates are working to change the flammability standards, which require the use of chemicals instead of relying on safer ways to reduce fire risks. At EWG, we are educating manufacturers and pushing for product labeling to help people avoid potentially toxic products. But it is clear a broad strategy is needed to protect the public from the unchecked use of poorly studied chemicals in consumer products.
What you can do
Avoid flame retardants in new products. Buy products that don’t include flame retardants – this is easiest when shopping for couches, easy chairs and kids’ products. It is more difficult for car seats and nearly impossible when you buy a car.
Test your furniture. Most older couches and easy chairs contain Tris or other worrisome flame retardants. Duke University will test foam from your furniture for free. You can buy new, flame retardant-free foam if you choose to reupholster older furniture.
Work to ban bad chemicals. The good news is that once banned, chemicals slowly get out of our homes and our bodies. Ten years after PBDEs were taken off the market, scientists found that we have fewer of them in our bodies. States are leading the charge to protect citizens from the risks of Tris in consumer products. Five states have already banned Tris in children’s products or furniture, and 15 states are considering bills or policy actions to address the problems posed by flame retardant chemicals.
Work to make new products safer. Many uses of chemical flame retardants are ineffective and unnecessary. Adding them to consumer products doesn’t save us from fires, but poses unknown risks to our health. It isn’t enough to simply ban individual chemicals like Tris and wait for the next disaster. Instead, the federal government should safeguard our health by requiring that new chemicals are fully screened for safety and only used when necessary.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/02/flame-retardant-roulette-swapping-one-toxic-compound-another
-
Unilever US to Disclose Fragrance Ingredients to Consumers
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Unilever US has announced plans to provide consumers with information about specific fragrance ingredients, used in its personal care products.
The new disclosure initiative will cover such brands as Dove, Pond’s, Nexxus, Toni & Guy, TRESemme, St Ives, Axe and Vaseline.
Unilever says it will expand its current product ingredient lists, available through its SmartLabel website and app, to include fragrance ingredients present in a product’s formulation above 0.01% (100 parts per million). Existing information provided by SmartLabel – under which consumers can view ingredient details for about 1,800 Unilever food and personal care products – lists "fragrance" but does not provide specific ingredient details.
The information expansion is aimed to be completed by the end of 2018.
The company has also announced plans to launch a webpage called What’s In Our Products. This will provide additional information, including its approach to developing safe products, explanation of ingredient types and answers to common questions on SmartLabel.
Several of Unilever’s US personal care products are voluntarily labelled to meet the EU’s fragrance allergen labeling Regulation. This will be expanded to the full US personal care portfolio, it said.
Regarding the announcement, Unilever North America president, Kees Kruythoff, said that transparency "is fundamental to running a sustainable business.
"Through SmartLabel and What’s in our Products, we are meeting the needs of our consumers who are increasingly mobile, online, and actively searching for products that are made responsibly and sustainably.”
Changing personal care market
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) said that Unilever’s initiative “could dramatically alter the personal care and fragrance markets”.
EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook called it “a game-changer” and said the NGO expects other major companies to follow suit.
“It may not happen overnight, but Unilever’s watershed actions will place enormous pressure on the rest of the market to respond and make it very difficult for other companies to shield their fragrance from consumers,” he added.
US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) called the plans “a victory for consumer product transparency”. In a press release, it called on other personal care manufacturers, like Procter & Gamble and L’Oréal, to follow Unilever’s lead.
But the NGO criticised its policy of only listing fragrance ingredients in a product’s formulation above 0.01%, saying that it should provide full fragrance disclosure to consumers.
“For certain chemicals like endocrine-disrupting compounds, low level exposures have been associated with serious health effects," it said.
A Unilever spokesperson told Chemical Watch that the company had worked with fragrance suppliers to establish the threshold level. “To give some perspective, 0.01% is also the threshold level the EU set for fragrance allergen labelling for rinse-off cosmetic products," they said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53498/unilever-us-to-disclose-fragrance-ingredients-to-consumers
-
Latest Draft of EDC Criteria Raises New Concerns
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Commission’s latest revision to its proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been met with further criticism from NGOs and industry.
The newest version of the controversial paper was published on 8 February. It will be discussed, and possibly voted on, at a meeting of the Commission’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) on 28 February.
NGOs are disgruntled that the Commission has included an exemption for substances, whose intended mode of action is to target harmful organisms via their endocrine system. The paper says these shall not be considered for the identification of EDCs “with respect to non-target organisms of the same taxonomic phylum that is targeted to be controlled”.
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said it is “difficult to see how a substance which is intended to be an endocrine disruptor can fail to be classified as such”. The exemption could be putting the environment and human health at risk, senior policy officer Tatiana Santos said.
Echoing these concerns, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) called it “scientifically unjustifiable”. Lisette van Vliet, senior chemicals policy adviser at HEAL, said if the Commission feels that a certain group of EDCs needs to be exempted from the authorisation ban that applies to endocrine disrupting pesticides or biocides, it should “make a legal proposal to Parliament and Council to democratically and legitimately change the laws, instead of messing with scientific identification criteria”.
The update expands a paragraph that was included in the previous revision in December and which would exempt substances designed to act on their target organism’s hormonal system to block their moulting or growth, from being identified as EDCs.
Member states were torn on this addition – some wanted it removed, while others asked for the scope to be widened to cover other modes of action.
Other sticking points in the proposal have remained in the text. The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) said it “still [sees] no reason to ignore hazard characterisation elements”.
Shift back to 'exposure' from 'risk'
The Commission has removed text from an earlier version that proposed changing the (PPP) Regulation wording from “negligible exposure” to “negligible risk”, concerning an exemption for active substances with ED properties.
The ECPA said abandoning this exemption is “another nail in the coffin of science-based decision making in the EU".
PAN Europe, on the other hand, called it “a major step forward”. It says losing the amendment means the Commission “has stopped attacking the hazard principle of the Regulation”.
But it said the text is still not clear on whether “presumed” EDCs will be identified. In a recent letter to the NGO, DG Sante claimed the concept was "fully integrated” in the criteria.
PAN Europe says they require “an unbelievably high level of proof”. “Endocrine action has to be proven with solid evidence, adverse effects also and the link between them. Not many pesticides will be identified as an endocrine this way,” said chemicals coordinator, Hans Muilerman.
Cefic was contacted for comment but did not respond before the publication deadline.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53481/latest-draft-of-edc-criteria-raises-new-concerns
-
Business Coalition Backs California Cleaning Product Disclosure Bill
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A coalition of businesses is backing a new cleaning product disclosure bill, introduced in California this week.
Companies for Safer Chemicals has endorsed and called for the expedited consideration of the Cleaning Products Right to Know Act 2017 (SB 258). The bill, introduced by Senator Ricardo Lara, would require cleaning products to list ingredients on labels and online.
Last year, a similar California bill that would have required cleaning products companies to disclose on their websites all chemical ingredients failed to pass the California Assembly. Several industry trade groups had opposed the bill, citing concerns over protection of trade secrets.
But Companies for Safer Chemicals says that ingredient disclosure would be good for business, as it would “build consumer confidence and drive the industry to make cleaner and safer products”.
“Clear, transparent labelling is good for consumers, and it’s also good for business," said American Sustainable Business Council CEO and co-founder David Levine. "Senator Lara’s bill creates a uniform way for all companies to communicate what’s in their products – with just a simple addition to their labels.”
The coalition believes the law is needed because existing California chemicals laws, such as Proposition 65 and the Green Chemistry Law, do not cover ingredient disclosure.
Proposition 65 requires that product manufacturers provide warning for exposure to state-listed carcinogens and reproductive toxicants, but does not require full ingredient transparency.
Companies supporting the bill include Beautycounter, Dr Bronner’s, Earth Friendly Products, The Honest Company, Makes 3 and Seventh Generation – all of which already disclose their ingredients.
John Replogle, CEO of Seventh Generation, said: “If the food and personal care industries can disclose ingredients on pack, so can the cleaning industry. Seventh Generation has been doing so for nearly ten years and not only have we built consumer trust and loyalty, we’ve grown the bottom line.”
NGO support
The bill is being sponsored by a number of NGOs, including the Breast Cancer Fund, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Women’s Voices for the Earth.
Bill Allayaud, California director of government affairs for the EWG, said: “Senator Lara’s legislation acknowledges that consumer demand to know what is in their products continues to skyrocket, and while some manufacturers are voluntarily disclosing more and more of their ingredients, full disclosure is needed.”
The move is part of an increasing push for cleaning products manufacturers to disclose their ingredients. As many as 14 states are expected to introduce measures this year.
Last month, the State of New York announced plans to require cleaning products brands to disclose their ingredients in a central database, under the Environmental Conservation Law.
The cleaning product industry has also been making voluntary efforts towards increasing transparency about ingredients. Procter & Gamble recently published an online preservatives tracker for consumer products and, last year, SC Johnson introduced a product line that discloses all of its fragrance ingredients down to substance level.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53482/business-coalition-backs-california-cleaning-product-disclosure-bill
-
5 Things to Know About California’s Cleaning Products Disclosure Bill
Feb 9, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller
Many of the supplies we use to clean and freshen our homes and workplaces contain ingredients that could harm our health or the environment. Some products use ingredients that have been linked to accidental poisonings, asthma, skin allergies, reproductive impacts, birth defects and cancer.
California State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, introduced a bill on Wednesday to lift the veil of secrecy over potentially hazardous ingredients in cleaning products. It would require manufacturers of household and professional cleaning products – either sold or made in California – to disclose all ingredients on labels and online.
Here are five things you should know about the bill.
1. It would give Californians the right to know about potentially harmful ingredients in cleaning products, helping them make informed decisions about the products they use in their homes and businesses. But its effect could reach well beyond California. Because the state’s market is so big, it’s likely that manufacturers would choose to label their products nationally, rather than incur the cost and bother of making one package for California and another for the rest of the U.S.
2. If passed in its current form, this would be the first state or national law known to require full ingredient disclosures for cleaning products. A federal cleaning products disclosure bill was introduced in Congress last year but didn’t make it out of committee for a full vote. No implemented regulations require manufacturers to completely reveal to consumers or workers what’s in their cleaning products. New York state passed a law, expected to go into effect sometime this year, to increase disclosure of ingredients in cleaning products. But instead of requiring ingredients to be listed on the label, the state will collect some information – the degree of which remains unannounced – in a central, searchable database.
3. Although some companies are beginning to voluntarily disclose many ingredients, the bill will unify a patchwork of disclosure initiatives by manufacturers. Some companies, such as Seventh Generation and Dr. Bronner’s are models of transparency. But only about one in seven products EWG reviewed last year fully disclosed ingredients on the company website. Most still used vague terms like “fragrance” or “preservative.”
4. Manufacturers would not be able to hide ingredients behind “trade secret” claims. Manufacturers have protections to keep “trade secrets,” but these exemptions from disclosure don’t cover simple lists of ingredients. Thanks to modern analytical methods, companies can easily figure out what’s in a competitor’s product. Innovation can continue to flourish in tandem with ingredient disclosure, despite disingenuous industry arguments to the contrary.
5. Labeling could be a critical first step toward reformulating products to be safer.Some product makers will likely choose to reformulate their products, rather than disclose ingredients and contaminants that raise health concerns. Reformulations prompted in California may also impact products sold throughout the country.
Until the bill becomes law, EWG’s interactive Guide to Healthy Cleaning provides real-time hazard and ingredient information on more than 2,500 products to fill the transparency void, drive the market toward healthier products and empower consumers through education.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/02/5-things-know-about-california-s-cleaning-products-disclosure-bill
-
Gore and Greenpeace Target 'PFCs of Environmental Concern'
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Outdoor clothing brand, WL Gore & Associates, has promised to eliminate per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) "of environmental concern" from its consumer fabric products.
The term covers compounds which are persistent, highly fluorinated and small enough to be bioavailable - regardless of whether they are long- or short-chain PFCs. Although long-chain PFCs have been largely phased out in developed countries, short-chain compounds have been promoted by chemical companies like Solvay, Arkema and Chemours as suitable alternatives.
Gore Fabrics - which makes Gore-Tex products, and supplies membranes and coatings to outdoor brands including The North Face and Mammut - says it will seek both fluorinated and non-fluorinated alternatives.
It aims to remove PFCs of environmental concern from 85% of its product units, including jackets, gloves and accessories, by the end of 2020, and from remaining consumer fabrics by 2023.
Greenpeace, which worked with Gore on the definition of PFCs of environmental concern, had been calling for the elimination of all PFCs.
But Mirjam Kopp, global project leader of Detox Outdoor, told Chemical Watch that provided a PFC does not meet the definition, the NGO does not object to its use - although very few PFCs fall outside it. Gore's latest commitment, she said, was "a great response to the demands from customers and brands”.
Big implications for sector
As Gore is “the main supplier of weatherproofing technologies for the outdoor industry”, its commitment to eliminate the PFCs will “transform the sector in the longer term so that, ultimately, hazardous PFCs in outdoor products could be a thing of the past.”
Gore uses the fluoropolymer PTFE - sometimes sold under the well-known brand name Teflon - in its membrane products. Although this is free of PFCs of environmental concern, PFC-based processing aides are used in its manufacture.
Amy Calhoun, public affairs communicator at Gore, told Chemical Watch: “Where PFCs come into play is in the manufacture of the materials that we purchase from our suppliers. The goal is to work with our suppliers to remove the PFCs of environmental concern upstream.”
Gore announced in 2015 that it was investing $15m in research to find alternative durable water repellent (DWR) materials, but found that the non-fluorinated treatment alternative had "clear shortcomings".
But Ms Calhoun told Chemical Watch Gore was now confident it could meet its latest goals. The first products, with a DWR treatment free of PFCs, are planned to be available by the end of 2018.
Beth Jenson, senior director of sustainable business innovation for the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), applauded Gore’s commitment.
She said: “Coming from a major supplier of waterproof breathable solutions to the outdoor industry, we are excited about the innovation and leadership these commitments will spur for the entire industry toward its goal of using the most responsible chemicals management practices possible, while maintaining the product performance outdoor consumers require.”
UK brand Páramo Directional Clothing was the first outdoor apparel company to join the Greenpeace Detox campaign last year and pledged to remove 11 chemical classes of concern from its supply chain, including PFCs.
Also, US company Columbia Sportswear claims to have developed the industry’s “first high-performance, environmentally friendly” rain jacket made without intentionally added PFCs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53475/gore-and-greenpeace-target-pfcs-of-environmental-concern
-
UN Report Says Need for More Data on Microplastics in Food Fish
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
A UN report has described an "urgent need" to study the presence of microplastics, and associated chemicals, in the edible parts of fish destined for human consumption.
Microplastics have been found in a variety of fish and shellfish consumed by humans, although data are "rather scarce", according to the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (Gesamp) report for the UN environment assembly.
Despite the paucity of data on impacts to human health, this has "raised concern about food safety and security". Eating filter feeding invertebrates, such as mussels and oysters, appears to be the most likely route of human exposure, the authors say.
A limited number of studies have suggested that microplastics can transfer to tissues in fish. This is particularly important because the plastics, and chemicals adsorbed to them, could end up in parts of fish consumed by humans, the report says.
For example, a 2014 paper by Chelsea Rochman, co-chair of the working group, suggested a link between polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish tissue and plastic contamination in marine habitats. Her team at the University of California, Davis, found that fish from areas with more plastic had higher tissue concentrations of PBDEs, which are used in plastics as flame retardants. (Professor Rochman has since moved to the University of Toronto, Canada.)
It is now important to focus lab research on how long the microplastics are retained by fish - the exposure time - and how associated contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and PBDEs, accumulate in tissue, says the report.
It outlines three possible health effects of plastic particles:
toxicity caused by nano-size plastic particles (nanoplastics);
chemical toxicity from substances added to plastics or pollutants that have been adsorbed and accumulated by them; and
disease risks due to microbial contamination of microplastics.
Nanoplastics are difficult to detect in the marine environment, largely because of the limitations of analytical techniques. Those commonly used only detect plastic particles well above the nano range. However, it is "plausible" that smaller particles pose a greater risk than larger ones, say the experts. For example, a larger surface area means that chemical pollutants are more likely to adsorb to them.
The report points to limited studies suggesting that farmed fish and shellfish may have higher microplastic concentrations than wild, collected seafood. This could result from plastic tanks, cages and nets wearing and releasing particles and fibres.
The report lists ten research priorities, including assessing chemical contaminant transfer to seafood, and determining whether seafood microplastic concentration is indeed higher in farmed organisms than wild.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53486/un-report-says-need-for-more-data-on-microplastics-in-food-fish
-
Reject 'Poor' REACH Dossiers, Denmark Tells EU Commission
Feb 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa should refuse to grant a registration number to companies that are "clearly not providing relevant or sufficient information" in their REACH registration dossier, the Danish environment ministry says.
Responding to the European Commission's consultation on the REACH Review, it says the current practice of leaving enforcement in such cases to the member states is "inefficient".
Other member state submissions to the consultation also highlight poor dossier quality.
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) says improving them "is the single most important factor that can positively impact the whole performance of REACH".
Dossiers with insufficient or bad quality data or poor chemicals safety assessment will, it says, "undermine all REACH objectives". To combat this, Echa could do more compliance checks and extend its support, alongside member state competent authorities, to registrants.
The Danish EPA says registrants submitting high quality data should be rewarded for fulfilling their obligations, instead of being "targeted more frequently by regulatory measures" because their dossiers rely on solid evidence based on high quality data. "'No data – no market' has become 'No data – no regulation", it says.
Echoing Echa's proposal last year that firms should take "active ownership" of dossiers and that registrant obligations should be reinforced, the Danish agency calls for an implementing act to oblige registrants to update their dossier every five years, as a minimum.
In its submission, the German Environment Agency (UBA) also says improvements within REACH are needed to assure data quality in registrations, and that the regulatory process in general needs to speed up.
Meanwhile, the Dutch government says although REACH moved the burden of proof to industry to demonstrate the safety of chemicals, because of deficiencies in registration dossiers, there is pressure to pass this to public authorities.
What might help, it says, is if the Commission analyses the degree to which problems with limited data can be solved with additional clarifications or implementing legislation.
Substitution pressure
The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have also called for a review of the REACH authorisation process. "The fact that all applications for authorisation have been granted so far suggests that pressure for substitution could be greater," the Netherlands says.
"Generous authorisations of broad and unspecific uses" of substances risk the "positive effect" of the candidate list, Kemi says. And to avoid 'regrettable substitution', grouping approaches should be used, the Netherlands and Denmark say.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53483/reject-poor-reach-dossiers-denmark-tells-eu-commission
-
U.S. is Stocking Up on Crude, But Markets Don't Mind
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Crude oil in storage rose strongly last week, a possible sign that U.S. shale oil producers are getting ahead of demand.
The markets didn't care. Oil prices rose again yesterday after briefly falling in reaction to the inventory news by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Apparent slight recovery in gasoline demand impressed traders, who shrugged off earlier signs of weakness and concerns over oil demand in China.
In its latest Weekly Petroleum Status Report, EIA shows a build of 13.8 million barrels of crude in storage during last week, not including the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Gasoline stocks fell by 900,000 barrels, enough to convince the markets to keep international oil prices north of $55 per barrel, even as rigs rush back to the shale oil fields and U.S. production appears to be on the upswing again.
Rising oil in storage may be partly a consequence of slightly lower refinery capacity as facilities undergo seasonal maintenance. Still, analysts are beginning to call a mini shale oil boom currently underway.
"U.S. shale is coming back, and it's coming back strong," declared analysts at Société Générale SA.
They see pressure on oil prices to the downside if over-exuberance in the U.S. shale oil patch overtakes planned production cuts by OPEC and non-OPEC participants. Those parties vowed to cut output by at least 1.2 million barrels a day, and OPEC insists that the deal will hold. The organization says it will first report on levels of compliance with the agreement on Feb. 17.
The rapid increase in the active land rig count, particularly in West Texas, is "in itself ... a strong leading indicator of a rebound in U.S. shale production," SocGen analysts note in a monthly report to clients posted yesterday. They see the rush back to drilling accelerating, and "this means that a rising rig count is now more bullish for production and potentially more bearish for prices than it was in the past."
Past slight increases to U.S. domestic oil production reflected rising output from offshore Gulf of Mexico projects coming online or ramping up, with some contribution added from Alaskan producers. In December 2016, EIA registered a net increase in onshore shale oil output. Production figures may be revised downward at a later date.
Given improvements in technology translating into better well productivity, rising oil output from new shale oil wells could eclipse decline curves at older, longer-producing wells. And operators have shown great skill in the recent past at keeping up production at older wells for longer than initially expected.
Potential cheating on the OPEC deal, rising U.S. shale oil production, and insufficient demand growth domestically and globally would portend great oil price volatility ahead for 2017.
EIA said yesterday that U.S. oil inventories are still high, as are gasoline inventories, despite the reported weekly drawdown. Oil imports also grew, continuing a trend.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049778
-
With Trump's Blessing, Pipeline Can Go Forward
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration has formally approved the Dakota Access pipeline.
The Army Corps of Engineers last night issued the final easement needed for the oil line to cross Lake Oahe, a section of the Missouri River just north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
Opponents of the project have already challenged the decision, and new construction activity is expected to trigger a mass of protests and other activism from tribes, environmentalists and allies.
With the easement in hand, pipeline workers are reportedly already moving forward with construction beneath the river — where tribes are concerned about potential risks to drinking water. Once complete, the project will deliver oil some 1,200 miles from North Dakota to Illinois.
Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based company backing the pipeline, said it plans to "proceed expeditiously" to finish construction. Company lawyers have said the pipeline could begin commercial service within 83 days of easement issuance.
Several industry associations, labor groups and mostly Republican members of Congress praised the news as a testament to the Trump administration's promise to streamline energy and infrastructure projects. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) also noted a commitment to improving the pipeline permitting process.
"Going forward, we are committed to reviewing the permitting process to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be heard, and that a fair, certain, and legal process has been followed when approving new infrastructure," he said in a statement. "We all need to work together to ensure people and communities rebuilt trust and peacefully resolve their differences."
The approval comes almost five months to the day that the Obama administration first intervened to stall Dakota Access, citing a need to review its impact on tribes. Obama appointees ultimately decided in December that an in-depth environmental impact statement was needed.
The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it would scrap the EIS plans and instead rely on an earlier assessment that found no significant impact. Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II was on a flight to Washington to discuss the project with administration officials when he heard the news.
Now the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, along with the Cheyenne River Sioux, are expected to battle the easement in federal court, where they've been litigating the pipeline since July 2016.
The Cheyenne River Sioux filed its opposition last night, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction blocking construction. The tribe's argument focuses on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, alleging that construction across Lake Oahe will desecrate sacred grounds.
"The granting of the easement and resulting construction activity violates the Tribe's and its members' Constitutional rights, and will result in immediate and irreparable harm to the Tribe and its members," the tribe said in its request.
Archambault, of the Standing Rock Sioux, noted earlier this week that his tribe will challenge the Trump administration's decision to nix the EIS (Energywire, Feb. 8).
Army Corps officials, meanwhile, said in a statement that they are now focused on restoring land that has been the site of unprecedented protests from tribes, environmentalists and other pipeline opponents.
"The safety of those located on Corps-managed land remains our top priority, in addition to preventing contaminants from entering the waterway," said Omaha District Commander Col. John Henderson. "We appreciate the proactive efforts of the Tribes to help clean the protest site ahead of potential flooding along the river, typical during the runoff season."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049795
-
Ga. Looks to Set Rules for Its Sliver of Shale
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Georgia has become the latest state to debate a measure to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a move that natural gas lobbyists said is too much, too soon.
But those industry lobbyists also made it clear they want to keep the door wide open for drilling in the Peach State should the industry ever move out of its nascent stages.
"We want to make sure that we're supporting our industries, supporting our jobs," said Scott Tolleson with the Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia. "We know we can do this and keep our water sources clean."
MGAG represents 66 municipal gas systems in Georgia, six of which are in the state's northwest corner. While most of Georgia, like the Southeast, is far removed from the shale fields that launched the natural gas boom, the northwest area sits atop a shale field that some say could be lucrative in the future.
This means while MGAG supports the legislation, Tolleson said those municipal gas systems in northwest Georgia have concerns.
"They know they have a tremendous resource under their feet, and they want to make sure we do nothing to prohibit them from getting to that if the economics ever work," he said.
The bill would update the state's Oil and Gas and Deep Drilling Act, enacted in 1975. Broadly, it would give more muscle to the state's Environmental Protection Division when it comes to wells and drilling permits. It also would create a separate oil and gas board to review permits should more than 12 come in during any given year.
The state has received two permits for natural gas wells since 2006, according to the bill's sponsor, state Rep. John Meadows (R), whose district is in northwest Georgia. Meadows made it clear from the start of the hearing that he supports fracking but also wants to protect water resources.
"I'd be shirking my duty if we don't put in some kind of a safeguard," he said at a meeting of the Georgia House Energy subcommittee. Meadows stressed protecting the state's water throughout the meeting.
He also brought up the Dakota Access pipeline, saying that it and other major natural gas projects could pre-empt any need for drilling exploration in Georgia.
"This might all be a futility fight," he said. "We're supposed to have enough oil and gas to take care of ourselves, but this is an abundance of caution."
Hunter Hopkins, executive director of the Georgia Petroleum Council, said Georgia can look to other states that have oil and gas boards for more direction. The industry also has best practices that can be adopted here.
"I would ask that you consider some of those standards that are already in place."
MGAG is also working with Southern Co. Gas on some wording changes, Tolleson said.
"We aren't against what's going on, we just think there's some words here and there to change the way we think about this," he said.
Southern's infrastructure push
Southern Co. Gas is the natural gas infrastructure unit formed when Southern Co. bought AGL Resources, the largest natural gas distributor in the United States. Southern executives have made it clear they are focused on developing more natural gas infrastructure, not the commodity itself.
But the more natural gas development, the greater the need to move it from one place to another.
Tolleson told E&E News that he is not representing Southern Co. Gas on this bill.
"We're just working with them. They support oil and gas development here in Georgia. That's where we all are," he said.
AGL and Southern Co. Gas are committed to working with Meadows and other parties on the bill, Southern Co. Gas spokeswoman Kristie Benson said.
The company's goal is "to find environmentally balanced public policy that does not hinder the long-term prospects of natural gas exploration in our state," Benson said. "We believe exploration could benefit our customers and the economic prospects of these communities, while maintaining a safe, clean environment. The two are not mutually exclusive."
The subcommittee did not vote on the bill, but its chairman, state Rep. Chuck Martin (R), made it clear that it could meet again as early as this week. Martin stressed to committee members the importance of the bill to Meadows, who is also chairman of the powerful Rules Committee, and said it is a measure that the panel will work on.
Meadows said the bill was in its third or fourth version. He's open to some changes, but there are "one or two things" that must stay as is. If the bill dies because of that, he will accept responsibility.
"I think you know what you need to know; you want to protect the folks in north Georgia and their clean water," Martin said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049774
-
State Energy Officials Swing Focus to Hacking Threat
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A senior Department of Energy official posed a simple cyber challenge to a gathering of state policymakers yesterday.
"Can you answer the question, 'how secure are we'?" Patricia Hoffman, acting undersecretary for science and energy at DOE, asked attendees at the National Association of State Energy Officials' (NASEOs) annual policy outlook conference in Washington.
If the response is still "no," it's not from lack of interest. Energy officials from Michigan to New Jersey said they're keeping a finger on the pulse of how energy companies in their regions fend off online threats. Experts hope the newfound focus on cybersecurity can fill a major blind spot in the power grid, where "bulk" assets face binding federal standards but distribution-level systems can get little oversight.
"It's important to recognize that one utility may have strong cybersecurity capabilities, but if the utilities surrounding it are not going to invest in those capabilities, we're still going to have gaps in our networks," said Hoffman, who has made cybersecurity one of her core priorities in her second role at DOE, leading its Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
The bulk of the attendees at this week's conference come from state-level energy offices, often housed within environmental or agricultural agencies. Unlike the regulators at state public utility commissions who handle rate cases and can directly review utilities' cybersecurity practices, NASEO members typically shape cyber policy at a high level and often have the ears of their respective governors.
"We have a better posture now than we have had before" on cybersecurity, said Jeffrey Pillon, director of energy assurance programs at NASEO, on the sidelines of the conference yesterday.
He noted that the group has worked to "elevate" the cybersecurity issue alongside the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which will host its own winter meeting in Washington next week. The focus reflects the constantly changing nature of hacking technology, he said.
"Hurricane threats — we know about those. We know what happens," Pillon said. "[Cybersecurity] is an evolving threat. As we become more and more reliant on our smart phones and our WiFi access, it creates new risks and new dynamics."
He cited a series of crippling online attacks late last year that came from an army of hacked webcams, routers and other devices. The cyberattacks temporarily disabled several popular websites and elicited a rare warning from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which oversees bulk grid reliability across the United States.
"The 'internet of things' — who would have thought that would be a vector for attack?" Pillon said.
If the speakers yesterday could agree that cybersecurity was an issue worthy of states' attention, they didn't settle on a preferred approach to the dilemma.
"There's really no easy solution," said Lynn Costantini, cybersecurity specialist in the reliability division of New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities. "[The] landscape is getting more complicated, not less ... the expansion of smart grid and the explosion of the whole idea of 'internet of things' devices on our networks is only heightening the risk."
Costantini called on state officials to keep a "direct communication path" with both private-sector leaders and federal agencies like DOE and the Department of Homeland Security.
"We need to know what the threats are, we need to know how an incident is evolving before it actually affects our critical infrastructure," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049794
-
Trump's Last Answer to a Carbon Tax? No Way!
Feb 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Emily Holden
The number of ideas for replacing the Clean Power Plan is beginning to grow.
The proposal yesterday by former Secretary of State James Baker and other distinguished Republicans to tax carbon dioxide and return the revenue to Americans in quarterly dividend checks is an ambitious plan that could outperform Obama-era regulations in terms of reducing greenhouse gases.
Another potential replacement could do the opposite: One idea being discussed by the Trump administration could scale back the Clean Power Plan to an efficiency standard for power plants, in an attempt to minimally satisfy likely legal challenges requiring U.S. EPA to do something about carbon emissions, according to sources. Right now, the rule is written to also achieve energy reductions from customers, not just from the operation of the plants themselves.
Those two ideas occupy opposite ends of a long spectrum. And they raise questions about other possible replacements that might be offered, months after President Trump promised to cancel the Clean Power Plan altogether.
"Repealing the Obama-era climate agenda, if that is the sole intention of this administration, that will be wildly unpopular," said Ted Halstead, who helped develop the carbon tax plan released yesterday as founder of the Climate Leadership Council.
"It is not enough to repeal the current programs," he added. "You must also replace those current programs with something better."
That was the message that Baker, Halstead and two respected Republican economists — Greg Mankiw and Martin Feldstein — carried into their White House meeting with Gary Cohn, Trump's top economic adviser.
The outcome is unclear. White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to comment on the carbon tax meeting during yesterday's press briefing.
But Republicans on Capitol Hill and one source close to the administration described the odds of Trump or Congress supporting such a tax as preposterous.
Rep. Kevin Cramer, the North Dakota Republican who has advised Trump on energy policy, said he doesn't see Congress approving a carbon tax "in a million years."
Cramer said previously that he could potentially support a carbon tax with revenues going toward fossil fuel research, but Trump quickly condemned the idea last spring.
"You remember when I talked about it in a different context, it took Donald Trump all of about 30 minutes to tweet 'no way,'" Cramer said.
A 'Trump check'?
Cramer said a House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act has discussed trying to eliminate a finding by U.S. EPA that says carbon dioxide is a danger to public health. That would "have a hard time" succeeding, he acknowledged.
"It'll be a high priority for us to tackle," Cramer said, referring to a rollback of the agency's endangerment finding, which is used to justify current and future rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He added that "not everybody feels the same way I do."
A carbon tax could theoretically be attractive to Republicans who are looking for a large pot of money for infrastructure projects.
"We need lots of money right now, but driving the cost of everything up is not the way Republicans are going to generate more money," Cramer said.
Baker and the other authors of the tax plan proposed yesterday cautioned lawmakers to keep their hands off the revenue raised from limiting carbon. It calls for returning all the revenue to Americans in quarterly dividend payments. That's the only way it would be politically viable, they said.
Paul Bledsoe, a Democratic energy consultant and former staffer on the Senate Finance Committee, suggested that the political capital gained by giving Americans $500 quarterly could be more attractive to Trump than tackling climate change.
"They could call it a Trump check," he said.
Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance who worked on Trump's transition team, said it will never fly.
"He made it clear that he already wants to get rid of the Clean Power Plan. So why the swap? That would be negotiating against himself if he embraces this proposal," Pyle said.
Pyle agreed that the revenue could be appealing, but he said, "The very folks who would be hurt by this proposal are the ones that sent Donald Trump to the White House."
"I don't think it has any chance of being reasonably considered," he said.
Pyle also noted that the proposal is similar to one that Hillary Clinton's team reviewed, according to unverified leaks of emails (Climatewire, Oct. 21, 2016).
The plan's authors disagree. They said two-thirds of Americans — including many who struggle financially — would make more money off the carbon tax than they pay.
"This is the closest thing I know to a panacea. It solves lots and lots of problems all at once," said Mankiw, the top economic adviser to President George W. Bush. "The only thing that's standing in our way is to convince our leaders, and in particular the American public."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/09/stories/1060049798
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested