Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/22/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned ) Plastic Makers, Retailers Partner to Increase Plastic Film Recycling
Feb 21, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
In an effort to increase recycling rates of plastic wraps and bags, plastic makers and retailers have teamed up with Connecticut public officials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Connecticut Unveils Initiative To Boost Film Plastic Recycling
Feb 22, 2017 | Recycling Today
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has introduced a new initiative that is geared toward increasing the recycling of LDPE film plastics, linear low density polyethylene and medium and high density polyethylene. -
Trump's New EPA Head Woos Skeptical Staff with a New Mission
Feb 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump's newly installed environmental chief Scott Pruitt laid out his vision for reshaping the way the federal government safeguards air and water, as he tried to convince skeptical federal employees that a refashioned agency can remain effective. -
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Details Priorities, Principles
Feb 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, sworn in Feb. 17 shortly after his Senate confirmation, has begun to detail some of his priorities and principles for his time in office. -
Pruitt Treads Softly, But Signals Big Changes At EPA
Feb 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Eric Wolff
New EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt offered a conciliatory greeting Tuesday to employees of the agency he frequently sued in his old job as Oklahoma's attorney general — while making it clear he plans a sharp departure from the Obama administration's strategy and will emphasize cooperation with industry. -
Facing Trump EPA, 'Integrity Project' Makes Political Messaging Top Priority
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
Facing President Donald Trump's deregulatory push at EPA, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) -- a group best known for its use of citizen suits and other measures to strictly enforce environmental laws -- is shifting its top priority to a broad-based communications effort to challenge longstanding anti-EPA messaging from industry and the GOP. -
States Consider 51 Bills to Restrict Chemicals in 2017
Feb 21, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Timothy M. Serie and Shengzhi Wang
So far in the 2017 legislative cycle, 16 state legislatures are considering 51 bills seeking to restrict or otherwise regulate chemicals, just 8 months after sweeping changes to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were signed into law on June 22, 2016. Many of these new state bills follow recurring themes from 2016, while others signal new trends. Download the attached chart providing details regarding active state bills in the 2017 legislative cycle. -
(ACC Mentioned) Canada Refines Approach To Nanoscale Prioritisation
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Canadian government anticipates publishing the results of its prioritisation of nanomaterials in April 2018, a spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has told Chemical Watch. -
Pruitt Urged To Fulfill PFOA Testing Pledge As State Advances Water Limit
Feb 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Community campaigners are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to fulfill a pledge he gave during his Senate confirmation to test drinking water in communities that may contain the emerging contaminant perflouorooctanoic acid (PFOA), while New Jersey pushes ahead with developing possibly the strictest PFOA limit in the country. -
Rep. Green Floats Resolution Calling On EPA To Issue Cr6 Water Standard
Feb 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Rep. Al Green (D-TX) has introduced a resolution that expresses concern over the presence of hexavalent chromium (Cr6) in drinking water and calling on EPA to complete its ongoing assessment of Cr6's human health risks and set a drinking water standard for its presence in drinking water, as well as urging states to set Cr6 limits. -
GMOs And Pesticides Versus Cigarettes: Putting Health Risks In Proper Perspective
Feb 21, 2017 | Forbes
By Matan Shelomi,
Is smoking cigarettes a greater cancer risk than eating GMO corn containing glyphosate? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. -
Ecetoc Publishes 2016 Annual Report
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology (Ecetoc) has published its 2016 annual report. It covers the industry-funded body's activities and publications during the year. -
Canada Proposes Adding Natural Gas Condensates To Toxic Substance List
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has proposed adding natural gas condensates (NGCs) to the list of toxic substances in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa). -
Canada Issues Two Snacs
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
The Canadian government has issued significant new activity notices (Snacs) for two substances. -
(ACC Mentioned) Not All Sold On Lawmaker’s Plan To Ban Fracking In Nevada
Feb 22, 2017 | Las Vegas Review-Journal
By Sean Whaley
A state lawmaker said Tuesday he wants to ban hydraulic fracturing in Nevada because new studies show that the risks outweigh any economic benefits from the controversial practice to produce oil and gas. -
Pruitt Says He Will Withdraw Clean Power Plan, WOTUS Rule; Meets EPA Employees
Feb 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
In one of his first actions as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt told a roomful of agency employees that while he rues the current “toxic” political climate, he wants EPA to follow a definitive regulatory process and the rule of law, thereby avoiding costly legal battles. He added that EPA's counterparts in state government need to see the federal agency as "partners...not adversaries." -
Okla. Removes Pruitt From Lawsuit
Feb 21, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A few hours after Scott Pruitt addressed employees in his first speech as U.S. EPA chief, the state of Oklahoma asked the federal court hearing the case over the Obama administration's landmark climate change rule to remove him from the litigation. -
House Energy and Commerce Hearing Highlights Critical Need to Invest in America’s Infrastructure
Feb 22, 2017 | The Hill -Congress Blog
By Richard Kauzlarich
Last week’s House Energy and Commerce hearing on infrastructure development explored opportunities to improve America’s economic competitiveness through infrastructure. This could begin a unique opportunity to hear voices from across the political spectrum on critical policy initiatives that will guide America’s future role as an energy producing and exporting nation. -
Freight Rail Reform Can’t Come Soon Enough
Feb 21, 2017 | The Hill- Congress Blog
By Donna Harman
Forest and paper product manufacturers rely on America’s railroads to move raw materials to mills and finished products to customers. -
Russia Won't Pick Fight with Trump on Climate, Lawmaker Says
Feb 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Tirone
Russia intends to stick to international climate commitments, though it may not argue with President Donald Trump if he decides to weaken U.S. adherence to the Paris accord, according to a senior Russian lawmaker. -
Ozone Implementation Plan Shows Major Divisions Among Stakeholders
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's proposal for how to implement its latest ozone ambient air standard is highlighting major divisions among stakeholders, with several states and industry groups faulting the agency's approach to weighing international emissions in states' compliance plans and environmentalists attacking parts of the rule as too weak to reduce ozone. -
Paris Treaty a Bad Deal Based on Flawed Logic
Feb 21, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Steven J. Allen
President Donald Trump has inherited eight years of disastrous environmental policy. He should move as far away as possible from the Obama agenda.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned ) Plastic Makers, Retailers Partner to Increase Plastic Film Recycling
Feb 21, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
In an effort to increase recycling rates of plastic wraps and bags, plastic makers and retailers have teamed up with Connecticut public officials.
The Flexible Film Recycling Group of the American Chemistry Council and the Connecticut officials launched the new campaign at a Price Chopper supermarket in Middletown, one of many grocery and retail stores that collect used plastic wraps and bags for recycling in storefront bins.
Nationwide, more than 18,000 grocery and retail stores collect plastic film for recycling — yet consumer awareness remains low. Plus, when these materials are placed in curbside recycling bins, they can cause significant problems with recycling machinery. The Connecticut campaign and other similar initiatives in the US are designed to increase awareness about these facts, and urge companies to support flexible film recycling.
The Plastic Film Recycling website includes ways companies can do this, such as consulting with plastic film recyclers when designing a new film package and providing verification that the package is 100 percent polyethylene. It also suggests using a soon-to-come special “recyclability” logo, which is being created specifically for film recycling.
The Connecticut campaign is part of WRAP (Wrap Recycling Action Program), a public-private partnership that promotes recycling of plastic film beyond bags. WRAP has set a goal to double plastic film recycling — reaching about 2 billion pounds — by 2020. The partnership includes the Flexible Film Recycling Group, GreenBlue/the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, the Association of Plastics Recyclers, brand companies, retailers, states, cities and others.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/02/plastic-makers-retailers-partner-increase-plastic-film-recycling/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Connecticut Unveils Initiative To Boost Film Plastic Recycling
Feb 22, 2017 | Recycling Today
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has introduced a new initiative that is geared toward increasing the recycling of LDPE film plastics, linear low density polyethylene and medium and high density polyethylene.
“If you collect plastic bags and plastic film separately it has value,” says Sherill Baldwin, coordinator of Connecticut’s Wrap Program, which will be launched this month. “It’s amazing how much material can be recycled.”
The state agency notes that 40 cities and towns have signed on as “municipal champions” to promote the program, Baldwin says.
Many people, she notes, have the misconception that only plastic grocery bags can be placed in the bins. Actually, grocery bags comprise only about 25 percent of all recyclable plastic film, with much of the rest of it ending up in the trash and burned in incinerators, or erroneously added to curbside recycling collections along with newspapers, glass and plastic bottles, she adds. When plastic film is added to the mixed recycling stream, it can foul the process, she says.
Assisting Connecticut with the film recycling initiative is the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG).
In announcing the partnership, the FFRG notes that while more than 18,000 grocery and retail stores in the country collect flexible plastic wraps and bags for recycling, consumer awareness remains low.
Supporting the lack of understanding about the viability of film recycling, a recent survey of Connecticut residents found that only half are aware that certain plastic items should be brought to grocery or retail stores for proper recycling. The recycling campaign that is starting in Connecticut is designed to change this perception. As part of the campaign, the state is touting the Website plasticfilmrecycling.org.
At the launch event, speakers pointed out that although plastic wraps and bags are widely collected for recycling at more than 175 grocery and retail stores in Connecticut, residents should not place these materials in curbside recycling bins because they can cause significant problems with machinery at the community recycling facility. “When plastic bags or wraps are put in curbside bins, it makes recycling more difficult, time consuming, and expensive, which winds up costing all of us more money,” says Rob Klee, Connecticut’s DEEP Commissioner.
The Connecticut campaign is part of WRAP (Wrap Recycling Action Program), a public-private partnership that promotes recycling of plastic wraps and bags. The partnership includes the FFRG, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, GreenBlue/the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, the Association of Plastics Recyclers, brand companies, retailers, states and cities.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/connecticut-film-plastic-recycling/
-
Trump's New EPA Head Woos Skeptical Staff with a New Mission
Feb 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump's newly installed environmental chief Scott Pruitt laid out his vision for reshaping the way the federal government safeguards air and water, as he tried to convince skeptical federal employees that a refashioned agency can remain effective.
Pruitt addressed the Environmental Protection Agency's workforce—including hundreds who had actively battled his confirmation—on Feb. 21, in his first speech since he was sworn in as administrator Friday.
“We as an agency and we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs and we can be pro-environment, and we don't have to choose between the two,” Pruitt said to employees at the EPA's Washington headquarters. His remarks were also streamed to EPA's 15,000-strong workforce nationwide.
Pruitt also decried a deeply politicized environment that he said creates obstacles to finding effective solutions.
“We deal with very important, monumental issues with respect to our future,” he said.
Perhaps more than any other member of Trump's cabinet, Pruitt is at odds with the agency he now leads. He built his political career fighting federal regulations he said stripped power away from states, and as Oklahoma attorney general, joined more than a dozen lawsuits challenging EPA actions by the Obama administration. He also appeared to relish his role as the agency's chief antagonist; an online biography dubbed Pruitt “a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.“
‘Cooperative Federalism’
Still, Pruitt has taken pains to emphasize that environmental regulation and economic development can go hand in hand. He has espoused a “cooperative federalism” approach that gives states a larger role in collaborating with the EPA “to achieve important environmental objectives.” Now he is trying to convince EPA employees that by focusing on core functions, the agency can do a better job keeping pollution out of the air and cleaning toxic chemicals from old industrial sites.
Pruitt also is positioned to undo some of the same agency regulations he challenged in court, including the Clean Power Plan that slashes greenhouse gas emissions from electricity and the Waters of the U.S. rule that defined which waterways are subject to federal regulation. Trump administration officials have drafted documents directing Pruitt to begin dismantling those measures, helping fulfill Trump's pledge to eviscerate rules the president has said throttle U.S. energy development.
Some conservatives also are pressing Pruitt to go further and undo the legal underpinning for many Obama-era environmental rules by questioning the scientific basis for them.
Pruitt's efforts will face internal opposition from an agency that made combating climate change its top priority over the past few years.
Scores of EPA scientists, experts and lawyers actively fought Pruitt's nomination, beseeching senators to vote against him and organizing opposition via social media. The union representing agency employees launched an online campaign against Pruitt's agenda under the headline, “Save the EPA.“Nearly 800 former EPA officials also signed a letter opposing Pruitt's nomination.
If Pruitt asks the agency's career civil servants to make 180-degree pivots on policy, he may have a hard time getting them to go along, said Kevin Book, managing director of the Washington-based research firm ClearView Energy Partners. It may take years for frustrated civil servants to walk out the door of an agency for good, but in the meantime, they can walk much slower inside it, Book said in an interview.
“You don't get an environmental scientist going to work at the EPA for the privilege of helping to drill more wells,” Book said. “They're bound by all of the professional responsibilities and limitations that are imposed by their employer, but they are a force to be reckoned with.“
Signs of that resistance have already appeared, with current and former employees setting up Twitter accounts to highlight perceived abuses.
Many agency employees are veterans of presidential transitions and know their fealty is to U.S. law, said Jeff Holmstead, a top EPA official under former President George W. Bush.
“There is a minority—and I really do think it's a relatively small number—of people at EPA who believe their mission is more important than their obligation to the law,” Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell LLP, said. That opposition can feed leaks to Congress, the press and the public, he said.
Pruitt spoke Feb. 21 in the Rachel Carson Green Room, named for a noted marine biologist whose work highlighting the dangers of widespread pesticide use helped drive a global environmental movement.
“You can't lead, unless you listen,” Pruitt said, promising to do just that as administrator.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105973910&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105973910&jd=105973910
-
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Details Priorities, Principles
Feb 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, sworn in Feb. 17 shortly after his Senate confirmation, has begun to detail some of his priorities and principles for his time in office.
During a Feb. 21 address to agency employees, Pruitt largely reiterated the principles he outlined during his Senate confirmation for how he plans to approach his new role, including considering the role of states, the need for acting with civility on contentious matters, finding solutions to difficult problems and more.
For example, he said that the agency needs to follow a set procedure when developing rules to provide certainty to industry. "Regulations ought to make things regular," Pruitt said. "They ought to give certainty to those we regulate. They ought to know what is expected of them so they can plan and allocate resources to comply."
He said he would seek to “avoid abuses” of those processes. That means ending “using the guidance process to do rulemaking or regulation through litigation.”
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Feb. 18, Pruitt added that a lack of regulatory certainty undermines economic growth. “The greatest threat we've had to economic growth has been that those in industry don't know what is expected of them. Rules come that are outside of statutes. Rules get changed midway. It creates vast uncertainty and paralysis, and re-establishing a vigorous commitment to rule of law is going to help a lot.”
During his address at EPA, Pruitt also emphasized his commitment to work with states. "Federalism matters,” he said. “Congress has been prescriptive, in many instances, in providing a robust role with the states.”
He said he talked with Catherine McCabe, who served as EPA's acting administrator pending his confirmation, about the regional offices and “how important they are in partnering with [departments of environmental quality] at the state level with respect to enforcement and other related issues.
“We engender the trust of those at the state level, they see us as partners in the mission and not as adversaries. Process is important.”
In his interview with the Journal, Pruitt also criticized the Obama administration for preempting state efforts to comply with federal requirements and suggested maintaining the portion of EPA's $8 billion budget that is directed to states, which is about half. “This is the front line of a lot of the work on air and water quality and infrastructure and it is very important that money continue,” he said.
Policy Priorities
He also told the Journal that he plans to make cleaning up Superfund sites, attaining air quality standards and improving water infrastructure as his top priorities. “Under current measurements, some 40 [percent] of the country is still in nonattainment” for criteria pollutants, he said, adding there are also “1,300 Superfund sites and some of them have been on the list for more than three decades.”
In a similar vein, he suggested that he hopes to complete cleanups of the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state and the Hudson River in New York. “Think of how tangible it would be to the citizens,” of those states, he said.
On water infrastructure, Pruitt said he plans to advance the issue with the president. “When we talk about investing in infrastructure, we need to look more broadly than bridges and roads,” he said, citing lead contamination in Flint, MI, and threats to California dams.
But even as he detailed an affirmative agenda, Pruitt also defended Trump administration plans to roll back the Obama administration's greenhouse gas rules for power plants and Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, saying both measures should be withdrawn because “the courts have seriously called into question the legality of those rules.”
He also suggested taking a broader review of whether EPA should be regulating GHGs at all. Part of the rulemaking process to withdraw the Clean Power Plan will consider whether EPA even possesses the tools, under the Clean Air Act, to address climate change.
“It's a fair question to ask if we do, or whether there in fact needs to be a congressional response to the climate issue,” he said.
But he also downplayed suggestions that he would neuter the agency. “There is no reason why EPA's role should ebb or flow based on a particular administration, or a particular administrator,” he said. “Agencies exist to administer the law. Congress passes statutes, and those statutes are very clear on the job EPA has to do. We're going to do that job.
“There is a time and place to sometimes resolve litigation. . . . But don't use the judicial process to bypass accountability,” Pruitt said, suggesting he would not use sue-and-settle tactics now that a move conservative administration will have to defend its policies: “regulation through litigation is simply wrong...we need to end this practice of issuing guidance, to get around the rule-making procedure. Or rushing things through, playing games on the timing.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-administrator-scott-pruitt-details-priorities-principles
-
Pruitt Treads Softly, But Signals Big Changes At EPA
Feb 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Eric Wolff
New EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt offered a conciliatory greeting Tuesday to employees of the agency he frequently sued in his old job as Oklahoma's attorney general — while making it clear he plans a sharp departure from the Obama administration's strategy and will emphasize cooperation with industry.
Pruitt is among the most controversial Cabinet members brought on by President Donald Trump, who promised during the campaign gut the agency and leave only "little tidbits left," but the new administrator struck a genial tone with the staff he will rely upon to carry out his changes.
"Regulators exist to give certainty to those that they regulate. Those that we regulate ought to know what we expect of them so that they can plan and allocate resources to comply,” Pruitt said in a speech that, as liberal activists were quick to note, never mentioned climate change. “That’s really the job of the regulator, and the process that we engage in in adopting regulation is very, very important because it sends a message."
In his previous job, Pruitt had sued to block Obama's EPA landmark rules on climate change and the reach of the Clean Water Act — regulations that the White House is expected to seek to gut with executive orders in the coming days.
Pruitt delivered his remarks to about 100 employees gathered at the agency's headquarters, an event that also included a conspicuous handful of security personnel. The new administrator, who is also expected to seek a 24/7 security detail according to a report Monday, promised the group he would be a good listener.
Pruitt also implicitly criticized the Obama EPA, sticking to a conservative critique that it was imperative the agency respect the “rule of law.” He said the agency had at times skirted the administrative process by using consent decrees and pressing its regulatory guidance, calling those actions "abuses that happen sometimes."
More closely following statutes like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act will reduce lawsuits against the agency, Pruitt said — like the sort he used to bring. However, environmental groups are certain to go to court over any efforts by Pruitt’s EPA to rewrite the Obama-era regulations.
Environmental groups and most Democrats had opposed Pruitt's appointment as the nation's top environmental regulator, criticizing his ties to the fossil fuel groups that were also backers of his state-level campaigns. Questions around those links could grow with the release ordered by an Oklahoma judge last week of thousands of emails Pruitt exchanged with oil and gas executives while Oklahoma attorney general. It’s not clear exactly when those will be released to the public, and several may be reviewed by the judge first.
EPA issued two unusual press releases in recent days that included praise for Pruitt from Republican lawmakers, as well as industry groups that had chafed under the previous administration's rules. "Under his leadership, we can realize the President’s America First Energy Plan, which embraces our country’s potential to be an energy superpower while simultaneously protecting the environment,” Chet Thompson, head of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers said in the release. Other statements quoted in the releases denounced “EPA’s harsh regulatory overreach,” “toxic regulatory environment” and “runaway bureaucracy.”
Pruitt appeared to try to ease nervousness around his support for EPA’s regional offices — which employ half of the agency’s 15,000 workers — after a Trump transition official had suggested the agency cut as many as two-thirds of its total workforce in order to shift more environmental regulatory power to the states.
“We talked about regional offices and how important they are in partnering with environmental quality at the state level,” Pruitt said of his initial discussions with top agency officials. “For enforcement and other issues, I seek to engender the trust of those at the state level, so those at the state level see us as partners in this important mission we have as an agency and not adversaries."
Environmental groups quickly blasted Pruitt’s speech.
Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters said Pruitt "did nothing to address our grave concerns about him."
"Pruitt has been a shill for the fossil fuel industry his entire career, and there’s no reason to believe he’s going to stop now that he’s the head of the very agency in charge of protecting human health and the environment," she added.
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, meanwhile, said Pruitt’s references to the group's founder John Muir would have the 19th century naturalist “rolling over in his grave at the notion of someone as toxic to the environment as Scott Pruitt taking over the EPA.”
Largely left unmentioned by Pruitt was already heightened tensions among EPA staff, and it remains unclear whether Pruitt’s speech has lessened that much.
A few dozen career staff in the Chicago office drew headlines with a lunchtime protest earlier this month, while union organizers had encouraged members to call their home state senators and urge them to vote against Pruitt’s confirmation. Those efforts indicate unprecedented opposition among government workers who have served administrations of both parties.
Despite Pruitt’s partial olive branch on Tuesday, many at the agency are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
One EPA employee told POLITICO that workers are waiting anxiously for Trump to issue the expected executive orders instructing EPA to repeal its Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule.
Both regulations are under judicial stays, so the immediate impact of such a presidential order likely would be minimal, but they would set a tone and indicate the agency’s direction. These come on top of long-running fears about budget cutbacks, ramping down EPA enforcement efforts and potentially politicized science.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/02/pruitt-seeks-more-business-friendly-approach-from-epa-149062
-
Facing Trump EPA, 'Integrity Project' Makes Political Messaging Top Priority
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of articles on how organizations are responding to the Trump EPA
Facing President Donald Trump's deregulatory push at EPA, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) -- a group best known for its use of citizen suits and other measures to strictly enforce environmental laws -- is shifting its top priority to a broad-based communications effort to challenge longstanding anti-EPA messaging from industry and the GOP.
Since the election of Trump, “the challenge of political rhetoric” has become the group's “job number one,” says EIP spokesman Tom Pelton.
EIP often lends its legal resources to local environmental battles, such as efforts to curb pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, oil and gas pollution from refineries in Texas, and conducting permit reviews and research at environmental justice sites.
“EIP uses legal expertise and technical analysis to challenge permits that are too lax, litigate over violations, [and] advocate for stronger regulations,” the group's website says.
The group's staff includes organizers, investigators, analysts, public interest lawyers and former EPA enforcement attorneys, including its executive director, Eric Schaeffer, a former top EPA enforcement official who resigned publicly from the agency in the face of Bush administration efforts to roll back environmental laws.
“We act as a watchdog because we have to. State and federal agencies charged with protecting the environment often are squeezed by limited resources and political interference from well-funded lobbyists hired by the industries they are required to regulate. We help level the playing field by giving communities the legal and technical resources they need to claim their rights under environmental laws,” the group's mission statement, posted on its website, says.
But now EIP is stepping up its messaging to push back against the Trump administration's expected deregulatory push.
EIP's Push-Back
Even before Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the next EPA administrator, the group began pushing back against claims by the president and others that EPA's rules hurt jobs.
Last month, the group released a report -- based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data -- that makes the case that environmental regulations can drive, rather than hinder, economic growth.
The January issue paper, “Don't Believe the Job Killer Hype: Decades of Economic Research Document That Environmental Regulations Are Good for the Economy,” found that “only two tenths of one percent of mass layoffs are caused by government intervention or regulations” and that “for every job lost due to regulations, 15 are lost due to cost cutting and 30 are lost due to changes in ownership and other organizational changes.”
The group also led the effort to circulate a letter from hundreds of former EPA employees to senators, urging them to reject Pruitt's nomination. But given Pruitt's confirmation, Pelton says that “we've at this point decided to take these big-picture questions as a top priority.”
“We have to take head-on this big lie out there that environmental regulation kills jobs,” he says, adding that for years, the oil and gas industry have used “a gigantic amount of cash” to best environmental advocates in creating “more sophisticated public relations” and messaging efforts.
“They've run such a successful misinformation campaign so we're trying to push back. Because if the Congress and the voters think that EPA is destroying jobs, then of course they want to take EPA down and it's just not true. There's no factual basis for it.”
Pelton could not currently say whether the group would devote more money or staff to its new communications focus, but a source at another environmental group also said it was ramping up its “communications initiatives and coalition work” in addition to its usual environmental advocacy portfolio of issues: “It's sort of an all-hands on deck,” the source said of the Trump era environment.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-trump-epa-integrity-project-makes-political-messaging-top-priority
-
States Consider 51 Bills to Restrict Chemicals in 2017
Feb 21, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Timothy M. Serie and Shengzhi Wang
So far in the 2017 legislative cycle, 16 state legislatures are considering 51 bills seeking to restrict or otherwise regulate chemicals, just 8 months after sweeping changes to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were signed into law on June 22, 2016. Many of these new state bills follow recurring themes from 2016, while others signal new trends. Download the attached chart providing details regarding active state bills in the 2017 legislative cycle.
Restricting or prohibiting the use of certain flame retardants is still a hot topic; 11 states are thus far considering or have considered flame retardant bills. Like similar bills proposed in 2016, many of these proposals target upholstered furniture and children’s products.
In Mississippi, New York, and New Jersey, legislators have proposed a range of bills that would prohibit certain uses of bisphenol A, phthalates, and mercury and other heavy metals in children’s items, demonstrating continued interest in restricting chemicals of concern in children’s products. In all, 13 states are considering or have considered bills that target children’s products in some form. Among other trends, bills in 6 states are targeting personal care and consumer products, and bills in 4 states focus on mercury and other heavy metals.
States continue to consider a wide range of approaches and tools to address chemicals at the state level, from outright prohibitions and phase-outs to mandatory disclosure, labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, and compulsory product stewardship take-back programs. A few states are even considering more comprehensive chemicals management programs that mirror certain aspects of the amended TSCA. For example, a bill in Massachusetts would require state authorities to publish a list of commonly used chemical substances, designate certain chemicals from the list as priority substances every year, prepare assessment reports for these substances, and promulgate action plans to manage such chemicals and identify safer alternatives. This process resembles the new section 6 prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management process under TSCA.
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency implements TSCA reform, state legislatures continue to consider state-level actions to regulate chemicals. Therefore, industry should continue to monitor the latest development of state chemical regulation proposals.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/states-consider-51-bills-to-restrict-chemicals-2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canada Refines Approach To Nanoscale Prioritisation
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Canadian government anticipates publishing the results of its prioritisation of nanomaterials in April 2018, a spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has told Chemical Watch.
Under phase 3 of the country's Chemicals Management Plan (CMP), the ECCC and Health Canada have undertaken an approach to address nanoscale forms of substances on the country’s Domestic Substances List (DSL).
The overall approach to nanoscale forms of substances was first described in a March 2015 consultation document. This called for a three-step process, which comprised:establishing a list of existing nanoscale materials;prioritising existing nanomaterials for action; andtaking action on substances identified for further work.
The ECCC began a consultation last summer on a proposed approach for prioritisation. The government recently refined this following comments from a stakeholder workshop and consultation, said Pierre Manoni of ECCC.
Mr Manoni did not disclose further details as to how the approach has been refined. But as part of the finalised approach, expected in September, Canada will include a summary of the comments received during the consultation process.
"This initiative will ensure that the potential risks of nanomaterials to human health and the environment will be adequately addressed," Mr Manoni said. "It will also serve to identify important data gaps, and is expected to prove a useful mechanism for prioritising research activities in the area of nanomaterial safety."Support for risk-based approach
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) submitted comments last September offering support for the risk-based approach Canada had proposed to take with respect to prioritisation. It offered further suggestions, including that:Canada should set aside data-rich substances for which there are no critical hazard concerns so they do not "dilute" their parent group and obscure materials for which less information is available;all nanoscale materials should not be treated equally, as some substances have already been used in nanoscale form in commerce for long periods of time. If those substances have not been known to cause adverse outcomes in sensitive populations, the priority level should be reduced;the ECCC and Health Canada should consult information on non-nanoscale forms of substance to contextualise environmental exposure potential.
The ECCC has not yet made comment letters available to the public. Mr Manoni said those comments will be included as part of a summary when later documents are published.
Stakeholder consultations on the approach to nanomaterial prioritisation and risk assessment are slated to continue this year and beyond, he added.
Nanomaterials have been a major subject for regulators in recent years. The US recently issued a one-time nano reporting rule, while the EU has also wrestled with nanomaterial regulations, including those found in cosmetics.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53731/canada-refines-approach-to-nanoscale-prioritisation
-
Pruitt Urged To Fulfill PFOA Testing Pledge As State Advances Water Limit
Feb 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Community campaigners are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to fulfill a pledge he gave during his Senate confirmation to test drinking water in communities that may contain the emerging contaminant perflouorooctanoic acid (PFOA), while New Jersey pushes ahead with developing possibly the strictest PFOA limit in the country.
PFOA, a persistent, toxic non-stick perfluorinated chemical (PFC) used in a host of consumer and industry applications, has been linked by an independent science panel to various adverse health effects, including testicular and kidney cancers. The Obama administration last year issued a health advisory for PFOA, also known as C-8, but has not announced any plans to develop a maximum contaminant level (MCL) that would set mandatory limits on the substance.
The community campaigners, under the name Keep Your Promises DuPont, launched their effort just before Pruitt's Feb. 17 Senate confirmation and installation as administrator. The group has sent EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water more than 2,500 letters asking that Pruitt keep his promise to test for PFOA water contamination in communities likely exposed to the chemical in their drinking water, a spokesman for the group says.
They cite a commitment Pruitt made during his Jan. 18 Senate confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in response to queries from panel member Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
Gillibrand “asked you about the health and economic effects of C-8 water contamination," the letter says. "We demand that you keep your promise to test the water in all communities likely affected by C-8," they add.
At the hearing, Gillibrand told Pruitt "PFOA is an example of a chemical that needs to be tested." She continued, "I need you to put it number one on your list to test it, and if it is a carcinogen, that many scientists have said it is, it needs to be banned.”
The then-nominee said he would commit to that work, referencing both Toxic Substances Control Act authority and addressing it under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Keep Your Promises DuPont is now calling on Pruitt to follow through on his pledge. "Recent reports suggest C-8 contamination from the DuPont Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, WV may have spread to many more communities -- communities without C-8 filters, " the group says in the letter -- which the group has linked to on the Action Network website as part of its letter-writing campaign.
Keep Your Promises DuPont is a community-based organization representing people who work or live in the Greater Mid-Ohio Valley seeking to hold DuPont responsible for impacts on the community from the company's Washington Works Plant. The plant has been at the center of multi-district litigation (MDL) involving more than 3,500 personal injury cases against DuPont over adverse health effects allegedly stemming from PFOA drinking water contamination.
The group in the letter to Pruitt argues, however, that PFOA-contaminated drinking water is not limited to the Mid-Ohio Valley -- Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. "[I]t's everywhere: New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and beyond," they say.
State Action
PFOA is also the focus of recent state action, with an advisory board to New Jersey's Department of Environment Protection (DEP) on Feb. 16 recommending that the state move forward with what would be the strictest enforceable drinking water standard in the nation for the chemical.
The state panel advises a level much more stringent than EPA's non-enforceable advisory level for drinking water following criticisms of the federal agency's work.
The standard, if adopted, could affect Superfund sites in New Jersey as state standards are often applicable at Superfund sites when determining cleanup levels. New Jersey has a higher incidence of PFOA in its drinking water than the nation as a whole.
New Jersey's Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) on Feb. 16 recommended that New Jersey regulators adopt a MCL of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA in drinking water, according to a DEP spokesman. A DWQI support document for the level says that an MCL of 14 ppt would correlate with a 1 in 1 million lifetime cancer risk.
The department "will review and determine whether to adopt this as the MCL," the spokesman says of the PFOA MCL recommendation.
It is unclear, however, how quickly DEP might move on the issue, as it has not adopted MCL recommendations from DWQI in recent years.
While DEP Commissioner Bob Martin in 2014 asked DWQI to recommend an MCL for PFOA and two other perfluorinated chemicals, DEP nonetheless has discretion on whether to adopt the standard. DEP has not promulgated an MCL recommended by DWQI since 2003 when it issued an MCL for arsenic.
The department under Gov. Chris Christie (R) dropped a plan by the previous administration to set an MCL for perchlorate, although the DEP has publicly stated it will propose an MCL for another PFC: perfluorononanoic acid, also known as PFNA. The state senate is also weighing a bill that would set deadlines for DEP to propose or deny with explanation MCLs recommended by DWQI.
PFOA Contamination
Advocates for communities facing PFOA contamination have sought a federal MCL but EPA has not announced any plans for such action.
The agency last May set its non-enforceable drinking water health advisory for PFOA at 70 ppt for chronic PFOA exposure, but also recommended that the combined concentrations of PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate, if found together in drinking water, not exceed 70 ppt.
But DWQI in an appendix it released last September when proposing that an MCL be developed criticized various scientific aspects of EPA's PFOA advisory. In the appendix's side-by-side comparison between the New Jersey DWQI's proposed MCL and EPA's health advisory for PFOA, the state advisory panel doubts EPA's level would achieve a 1 in 1 million lifetime cancer risk, instead suggesting risk would be 40-fold higher.
When EPA commented on the DWQI's draft recommendations for PFOA, it defended its health advisory and the approach it used against the panel's criticisms.
In related news, DuPont announced on Feb. 13 that it has agreed to a settlement-in-principle of the MDL covering 3,550 personal injury lawsuits over PFOA releases from the Washington Works plant. The proposed settlement amount is $670.7 million, to be split among DuPont and Chemours, a spinoff of its specialty chemicals business, DuPont says in its Feb. 13 press release.
Under the proposed settlement, potential PFOA liabilities that may arise in the future would be addressed under a scheme in which each company would share a portion of any such costs. For a period of five years, Chemours would annually pay such liabilities beyond the settlement up to $25 million, DuPont says in the release. If that amount is exceeded, DuPont would pay up to another $25 million in liabilities. Beyond that, Chemours would annually pay any additional liabilities, it says.
Following the five-year period, "Chemours indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement continue unchanged and DuPont has no commitment to fund PFOA costs," the release says.
The proposed agreement comes after Chemours in 2016 signaled it might fight against indemnifying DuPont for liability-related costs linked to PFOA. Chemours' reference to a potential push-back last year came despite a separation agreement that DuPont, in 2016 financial filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission, says provides the company with indemnification from Chemours for DuPont's PFOA liabilities.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-urged-fulfill-pfoa-testing-pledge-state-advances-water-limit
-
Rep. Green Floats Resolution Calling On EPA To Issue Cr6 Water Standard
Feb 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Rep. Al Green (D-TX) has introduced a resolution that expresses concern over the presence of hexavalent chromium (Cr6) in drinking water and calling on EPA to complete its ongoing assessment of Cr6's human health risks and set a drinking water standard for its presence in drinking water, as well as urging states to set Cr6 limits.
The resolution, H. Res. 147, introduced on Feb. 17, currently has no co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Energy & Commerce Committee and also the House Ways & Means Committee.
It “encourages State and local governments to collaborate and set reasonable standards for hexavalent chromium in drinking water to ensure the safety of their constituents; encourages [EPA] to complete their health review and establish standards for [Cr6] found in drinking water,” according to the text.
It also encourages a tax break to compensate individuals in areas that exceed EPA Cr6 standards who purchase home water filtration systems and “encourages appropriate agencies at all levels of government to determine the causes of harmful levels of [Cr6] and take appropriate mitigation actions.”
Green's resolution states that Cr6 “was found at elevated levels in the drinking water sources of over 200,000,000 Americans in all 50 States,” and aims to bolster the case for regulation by referencing a 2008 toxicology study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) which raised first-time concerns about oral exposure to Cr6.
While Cr6 has long been known to cause cancer when inhaled, it's carcinogenic potential when ingested was not previously known. NTP's study led EPA and other health agencies to embark on assessments of Cr6 in drinking water, to determine whether levels of the relatively common contaminant could be harmful.
Green's resolution points to drinking water standards set by three states between 2010 and 2016, in California, New Jersey and North Carolina and notes that EPA “is in the process of drafting a toxicological review of acceptable levels of [Cr6] found in drinking water,” although the fate of that effort under the Trump administration is unclear.
California's 2010 standard is the strictest in the country at 0.02 parts per billion (ppb) in drinking water, while North Carolina set a health-based screening level of 0.07 ppb in 2016. New Jersey, in 2010, drafted a 0.07 ppb standard.
But EPA's national standard, set in 1991, is a much weaker 100 ppb in part because the federal standard is for total chromium, rather than Cr6 alone. Environmentalists have long raised concerns that the total chromium standard allows trivalent chromium, an essential nutrient, to mask the toxicity of Cr6.
Ongoing Work
EPA continues to work on a new draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of Cr6's human health risks, expanded to address inhalation risks as well as ingestion risks.
Several members of a 2011 peer review panel that considered the agency's strict 2010 public draft called on EPA to wait until industry contractors completed their then-pending publications on the biological mechanism by which Cr6 causes cancer before finalizing the assessment.
EPA management heeded their call, though environmentalists protested the industry connections of two of the peer reviewers, leading to an agency re-write of policies for contractor-managed peer review panels. An industry source last fall said the next public draft Cr6 IRIS assessment is scheduled for release for public comment in 2017.
The ongoing assessment is despite assurances to 10 concerned senators in 2010 from former Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that the agency would work quickly complete the IRIS assessment. In a December 2010 statement, Jackson indicated she told the senators that based on EPA's draft 2010 assessment, at that point pending peer review, “it is likely that EPA will tighten drinking water standards to address the health risks posed by chromium-6.”
Environmentalists last November sent EPA a notice of intent to sue over what it considers the agency's failure to meet Safe Drinking Water Act statutory deadlines to establish standards for the presence of six drinking water contaminants, including Cr6. A suit has yet to be filed, a Waterkeeper Alliance spokeswoman says.
By contrast, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) last fall worked from the industry-sponsored consultants' publications to generate its Cr6 risk assessment.
When TCEQ released the draft version of its assessment for comment last June, it suggested in a press release that the draft risk number -- the same figure adopted in the final assessment -- indicates EPA's 1991 100-ppb drinking water standard for total chromium is adequately protective of public health.
Green's resolution does not mention the TCEQ assessment. It does, however, cite EPA water test results collected in his Houston district and analyzed by the Environmental Working Group “ that exceeded 6.0 parts per billion.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rep-green-floats-resolution-calling-epa-issue-cr6-water-standard
-
GMOs And Pesticides Versus Cigarettes: Putting Health Risks In Proper Perspective
Feb 21, 2017 | Forbes
By Matan Shelomi,
Is smoking cigarettes a greater cancer risk than eating GMO corn containing glyphosate? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.
Answer by Matan Shelomi, Biologist, on Quora:
Is smoking cigarettes a greater cancer risk than eating GMO corn containing glyphosate? Absolutely!
First of all, let’s be clear: cigarette smoking is one of the worst things you can legally be doing to your body. Cancer, emphysema, and a whole suite of lung, heart, blood, brain, mouth, and throat diseases are linked to it, plus teratogenic effects. The evidence for this is immense. Please don’t take up smoking, and if you currently smoke do try to quit for your and your family’s sake.
As for glyphosate, you can find it on non-GMO foods as well, but since the edible part of corn is not exposed and may not even be developed during the time this weed-killer is sprayed, there may not be any of it on the corn at all. That low dose does not compare to inhaling a cigarette's worth of smoke directly into the lungs, even if glyphosate was just as dangerous. Plus most such corn is used for corn syrup, not corn-on-the-cob, so the potential dose is even lower. Corn syrup is not exactly healthy, but that has nothing to do with the glyphosate.
Then there’s the fact that pure glyphosate is listed by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as being as carcinogenic as grapefruit juice, yerba mate tea, or sitting by an open fire, at most. Official tests on Glyphosate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others found it to be uncarcinogenic in any animal at all, with low oral toxicity even at high doses, in part because your body can’t digest it well and mostly poops it all out. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health organization have all declared glyphosate to be uncarcinogenic, both as the pesticide and on food. The only real risk for glyphosate is getting it in your eyes (it hurts), and the surfactants mixed with it in the pesticide formulation, but this again applies to drinking the stuff straight out of the bottle, not on food. The compounds in cigarettes are ranked as much more carcinogenic. Forget the corn: smoking one cigarette is more carcinogenic and toxic than drinking a spoonful of glyphosate-containing pesticide! (Though you really shouldn't do either). Finally, there are zero human cases of any disease or condition or symptom linked to GMO consumption per se, while the biostatistics on smoking alone being dangerous is quite clear.
Ignore the “organic” or “GMO-free” label, it’s just a marketing ploy. Do not ignore those warning labels on cigarettes: they are not kidding.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/21/gmos-pesticides-versus-cigarettes-putting-health-risks-in-proper-perspective/#19916810629d
-
Ecetoc Publishes 2016 Annual Report
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology (Ecetoc) has published its 2016 annual report. It covers the industry-funded body's activities and publications during the year.
According to the report, the organisation has completed taskforces in three areas. These are:
· guidance for effective use of human exposure data in risk assessment of chemicals;
· freshwater ecotoxicity as an impact category in lifecycle assessment; and
· guidance on assessment and application of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) relevant to the endocrine system.
Established taskforces are:
· aquatic toxicity and bioaccumulation of sparingly soluble manufactured particulate substances;
· geospatial approaches to increasing the ecological relevance of chemical risk assessments; and
· Echa PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) guidance update
https://chemicalwatch.com/53735/ecetoc-publishes-2016-annual-report
-
Canada Proposes Adding Natural Gas Condensates To Toxic Substance List
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has proposed adding natural gas condensates (NGCs) to the list of toxic substances in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa).
Canada released its final screening assessment report for NGCs under the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) on 31 December. Based on the results of that assessment, the ministers of environment and health concluded that NGCs meet one or more of the criteria for a toxic substance as defined under section 64 of the Act.
NGCs are complex combinations of hydrocarbons that condense or are separated from the gaseous phase into the liquid phase as follows:during oil and gas production at wellheads;in natural gas processing plants;in gas pipelines for production, gathering, transmission and distribution; andin straddle plants along the main gas pipelines.
The objective of the proposed order is to enable the Canadian government to propose risk management instruments under Cepa to manage the risks posed by NGCs to the environment and human health, should they be deemed necessary.
Stakeholders can submit comments within 60 days of the proposed order's publication in the Canada Gazette.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53727/canada-proposes-adding-natural-gas-condensates-to-toxic-substance-list
-
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
The Canadian government has issued significant new activity notices (Snacs) for two substances.
They cover:
· heteromonocycle, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, carboxymethyl hexadecyl ether; and
· heteromonocycle, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, carboxymethyl octadecyl ether.
The notices designate as a new activity the use of either substances in a quantity greater than ten kilograms in one calendar year in the manufacture of either consumer products as defined by the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, or cosmetics as defined by the country's Food and Drugs Act.
Any person intending to start such a use must submit a significant new activity notification (Snan) at least 90 days before doing so.
The notices include transitional provisions to help compliance by those who have imported or manufactured up to 1,000kg of either substance and started activities with it. These expire on 28 February 2018.
The environment and health ministers issued the notices. The move came after they determined that a significant new activity might result in the substances becoming toxic as defined under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).
https://chemicalwatch.com/53730/canada-issues-two-snacs
-
(ACC Mentioned) Not All Sold On Lawmaker’s Plan To Ban Fracking In Nevada
Feb 22, 2017 | Las Vegas Review-Journal
By Sean Whaley
CARSON CITY — A state lawmaker said Tuesday he wants to ban hydraulic fracturing in Nevada because new studies show that the risks outweigh any economic benefits from the controversial practice to produce oil and gas.
Assemblyman Justin Watkins, D-Las Vegas, said the studies show that the process known as fracking contributes to harmful seismic activity, water contamination, air pollution and adverse health effects on humans who live nearby.
Watkins testified for his measure, Assembly Bill 159, which would ban the practice used to obtain oil and natural gas by fracturing rock and repeal the 2013 regulations allowing for its use in Nevada.
The bill was heard by the Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee, but no immediate action was taken on the measure.
“What these studies show is that no amount of regulation can eliminate the harmful human effects of fracturing,” he said.
No hydraulic fracturing is underway in Nevada. Some fracking efforts were attempted in Elko County a few years ago, but they were abandoned when the price of oil dropped and made it economically unfeasible.
Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, R-Gardnerville, said the fracking site in Elko County established by Noble Energy was studied by the Desert Research Institute and no water contamination was identified.
But Watkins said the study did not examine seismic, air pollution or human health impacts.
Testifying in support of the bill was David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, who said Nevada is not a fossil-fuel production state, and so banning fracking would not have a major economic impact. But banning the practice will ensure Nevada’s water supply is protected and prevent the potential of an earthquake, he said.
Assemblywoman Robin Titus, R-Wellington, questioned why a moratorium should not be pursued instead so fracturing could be allowed in Nevada if and when the technology improves.
Tim Shestek, senior director of state affairs for the American Chemistry Council, submitted a letter expressing concerns about the legislation. A ban could stifle future economic growth opportunities, he said.
William Ehni, who operates a Carson City geological consulting firm, told the committee that hydraulic fracturing is safe. The Nevada Division of Minerals has a permit process to allow the process to proceed without endangering the public or environment, he said.
A ban would signal that Nevada is not friendly to the oil industry, and so would adversely affect revenues received from the proceeds of BLM lease sales, Ehni said.
But many other speakers supported the ban, citing the same concerns of water contamination and other potential harmful effects from the practice.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/not-all-sold-lawmaker-s-plan-ban-fracking-nevada
-
Pruitt Says He Will Withdraw Clean Power Plan, WOTUS Rule; Meets EPA Employees
Feb 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
In one of his first actions as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt told a roomful of agency employees that while he rues the current “toxic” political climate, he wants EPA to follow a definitive regulatory process and the rule of law, thereby avoiding costly legal battles. He added that EPA's counterparts in state government need to see the federal agency as "partners...not adversaries."
And in an interview with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) conducted last week just before the Senate confirmed him to lead the agency, Pruitt said he plans to quickly withdraw two proposals formulated under the Obama administration: the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the Clean Water Rule (CWR), the latter of which was designed to clarify what constitutes Waters of the United States (WOTUS).
"I know it's very difficult to capture in one speech the vision and direction of an agency," Pruitt told EPA employees at the start of his comments Tuesday, which lasted about 11 minutes. In a nod to the controversy surrounding his nomination, he added "I also recognize that you don't know me very well...other than maybe what you've read in the newspaper and seen on the news...
"The environment that we live here in this country today is, forgive the reference, a very toxic environment. We have jerseys that we put on, both politically and otherwise. That's something that I think is damaging to the overall objective of finding results and answers to some very challenging issues that we face as a country...
"We ought to be able to get together and wrestle through some very difficult issues, and do so in a civil manner. We ought to be able to be thoughtful, and exchange ideas and engage in debate and make sure that we do find answers to these problems, but do so with civility."
Pruitt stressed that he believes "regulations ought to make things regular," and that companies, including those in the oil and gas industry, deserve to work in a regulatory framework that provides certainty.
"Those that we regulate ought to know what is expected of them so that they can plan and allocate resources to comply," Pruitt said. "That's really the job of a regulator. And the process that we engage in adopting regulations is very important, because it sends a message: that we take seriously our role of taking comment and offering response and then making informed decisions on how it's going to impact those in the marketplace -- to achieve the ends that we have in statute."
Having served previously as attorney general in Oklahoma, and to actually havesued EPA several times in the past, Pruitt said the agency should "avoid abuses that occur sometimes." Specifically, he said the agency had used the guidance process to conduct rulemaking, engaged in regulation through litigation, and relied on consent decrees that bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act.
"We need to be open, transparent and objective in how we do rulemaking and make sure that we follow the letter of the law as we do so," Pruitt said. "That will send a great message to those that are regulated, but more importantly they will know what's expected of them and they can act accordingly."
While conceding that Congress has granted some agencies in the executive branch broad powers, Pruitt said lawmakers have been "very prescriptive" with others, strongly hinting that EPA was with the latter group.
"[Congress] has been very specific on what we can and cannot do as an agency," Pruitt said. "We need to respect [and] follow that...because when we do...we avoid litigation, we avoid the uncertainty of litigation, and we reach better ends and outcomes at the end of the day."
In many instances, Congress has also given the states "a very robust and important role" in regulating environmental matters, the new administrator said, adding that EPA's regional offices serve an important purpose through "partnering with the respective of departments of environmental quality at the state level, with respect to enforcement and other related issues...
"I really believe that we can be better as a country. I believe that we as agency, and we a nation, can be both pro-energy and jobs and pro-environment, that we don't have to choose between the two."
Pruitt explained to the Wall Street Journal why he planned to withdraw the CPP and the CWR in short order.
"There's a very simple reason why this needs to happen: because the courts have seriously called into question the legality of those rules," Pruitt said. On regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, he said "There will be a rulemaking process to withdraw those rules, and that will kick off a process.
"Part of that process is a very careful review of a fundamental question: Does EPA even possess the tools, under the Clean Air Act, to address this? It's a fair question to ask if we do, or whether there in fact needs to be a congressional response to the climate issue."
Last February, the U.S. Supreme Courtissued a stay blocking implementation of the CPP until all legal challenges to the plan were resolved. Four months earlier, a federal appeals court blocked nationwide implementation of the CWR.
EPA had planned to use the CPP as a tool to compel states to develop and implement plans to reduce CO2 emissions, especially from power plants. Meanwhile, the agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers devised the CWR in an attempt to clarify what constituted WOTUS, thereby deserving protection under the Clean Water Act.
Pruitt, in his capacity as attorney general of Oklahoma, had sued EPA over both proposals.
Tuesday was also the deadline for Pruitt to turn over thousands of emails to a watchdog group. According to reports, a district court judge in Oklahoma ordered him to release 3,000 emails to the Center for Media and Democracy. The group sued Pruitt earlier this month, alleging he violated the state's Open Records Act by failing to make the emails public.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109488-pruitt-says-he-will-withdraw-clean-power-plan-wotus-rule-meets-epa-employees
-
Okla. Removes Pruitt From Lawsuit
Feb 21, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A few hours after Scott Pruitt addressed employees in his first speech as U.S. EPA chief, the state of Oklahoma asked the federal court hearing the case over the Obama administration's landmark climate change rule to remove him from the litigation.
Pruitt on Friday was confirmed as administrator of EPA, which issued the Clean Power Plan in 2015 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. He was previously the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma.
As the state's top lawyer, Pruitt sued EPA many times over its regulations. Oklahoma has been slowly asking courts to remove him from lawsuits that are still pending.
Today, the state asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace Pruitt in the Clean Power Plan lawsuit with Michael Hunter (R), who was named yesterday as Oklahoma's new attorney general.
Oklahoma also told the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it would swap in Hunter in the state's litigation over the Obama administration's controversial Clean Water Rule, which clarified which wetlands and streams get automatic federal protection. That lawsuit is stayed until the Supreme Court decides where litigation over the rule belongs.
As EPA administrator, Pruitt said he expects to withdraw both the Clean Power Plan and the waters rule (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
Pruitt signed an ethics agreement that he would check with EPA lawyers before weighing in on issues he had previously litigated, but Democratic senators and environmentalists have said that his promise doesn't go far enough (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/21/stories/1060050373
-
House Energy and Commerce Hearing Highlights Critical Need to Invest in America’s Infrastructure
Feb 22, 2017 | The Hill -Congress Blog
By Richard Kauzlarich
Last week’s House Energy and Commerce hearing on infrastructure development explored opportunities to improve America’s economic competitiveness through infrastructure. This could begin a unique opportunity to hear voices from across the political spectrum on critical policy initiatives that will guide America’s future role as an energy producing and exporting nation.
Congress must consider throughout the testimony whether existing legislation benefits both local communities and national interests. A dramatic energy revolution driven by market forces is underway in the United States. Part of this revolution is an investment in energy production, transportation, and processing. By doing so, we have reduced the leverage of the foreign governments and entities whose predatory energy market practices hurt the geopolitical position of the United States, the competitiveness of the US economy, and the pocketbook of the American consumer.
But just as freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction, our energy independence must also be secured for the future generations. To sustain the growth experienced in the past decade, and to sustain our gains toward increased energy independence, America must continue to invest in its infrastructure – including modern oil and gas pipelines and export facilities.
As U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, I saw the strategic importance of safe, reliable, and secure energy infrastructure constructed across national boundaries in the Caspian region. Oil and gas are commodities that have immense power to influence global politics as well as benefit producing nations and their citizens. So, the United States, must invest in modern technologies that securely, reliably, and in an environmentally conscious manner, transport these resources to domestic and international consumers.
Regulatory oversight of such projects is important, and the United States maintains a strong tradition of enforcing the rule of law. We also have a tradition of ensuring that the voices of local communities affected by such projects are heard. Government at all levels has a responsibility to ensure the rule of law is followed to the letter of the law.
The recent Dakota Access Pipeline protests created an atmosphere of insecurity around an important energy infrastructure project. The interests of local communities and the national interest were hijacked by groups whose political objectives included forcing a no-carbon energy future on the American people. There are legitimate ways and venues for having that debate about America’s energy future. Protests such as occurred in connection with the Dakota Access Pipeline, must not determine public policy on this important question. Private investment is critical for the production and distribution of U.S. energy resources. The integrity our legal and regulatory structure is critical to ensuring this investment. That’s why we must hold the Executive accountable for acting within the law as defined and interpreted by the Courts. This ensures systemic harmony, between regulators and government oversight and the legal process that is necessary for the physical construction of vital energy infrastructure.
By doing so, the United States can remain the standard bearer for responsible, sustainable, and safe energy infrastructure development driven by market forces – a model of democracy and due process in action for energy producing nations throughout the world.
Ambassador Richard Kauzlarich is Co-Director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy and an Adjunct Professor for Geopolitics of Energy Security at the Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/320547-house-energy-and-commerce-hearing-highlights-critical
-
Freight Rail Reform Can’t Come Soon Enough
Feb 21, 2017 | The Hill- Congress Blog
By Donna Harman
Forest and paper product manufacturers rely on America’s railroads to move raw materials to mills and finished products to customers. Nearly 60 million tons of wood, pulp and paper products made that journey in 2015, according to the American Association of Railroads. The U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB), which has regulatory oversight of rail rates and service, has initiated proceedings to revise outdated regulatory exemptions, enhance rail competition through reciprocal switching agreements and improve its procedures used to challenge unreasonably high rail rates. Implementing those reforms will go a long way toward supporting our industry’s needs for more cost-effective, efficient and competitive rail service.
In March 2016, the Board proposed to eliminate certain outdated commodity exemptions in a rulemaking proceeding. Although forest and paper products were not included in the proposal, the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) has formally requested that exemptions adopted more than 25 years ago for these products also be revoked, and we filed comments and evidence to support revocation.
History tells the story of our industry’s evolving needs and underscores why we hope the STB is taking our request seriously. More than 25 years have passed since the STB exempted our industry’s rail shipments from its oversight. At that time, the rail industry was financially weak and highly regulated. The exemptions benefitted our industry by removing certain pricing and administrative burdens which allowed the railroads to compete more effectively with trucks.
That picture, however, has changed dramatically. Today, the rail industry is highly concentrated and extremely profitable. More than 40 Class I railroads that existed in 1980 have consolidated to just seven, with the four largest railroads handling 90 percent of the nation’s freight rail traffic. One third of forest products facilities have access to just one rail carrier, leaving our industry with limited rail competition. In the ten year period 2004-2014, rail rates for our industry increased by 91 percent, although the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index increased by 25.3 percent and long-haul trucking rates a similar amount of 25.7 percent.
According to an analysis by Escalation Consultants comparing rail shipments of forest and paper products in 1989 and 2014, our industry has been subjected to a substantial increase in railroad market power. Specifically, during that period, while the volume of rail shipments decreased, there was a 550 percent increase in the number of shipments priced above the legal threshold that must be met for a shipper to challenge the reasonableness of rail rates before the STB.
Moreover, in 1995 Congress adopted the ICC Termination Act and permanently lifted pricing and administrative burdens for non-exempt commodities. Thus, the benefits derived from the original exemptions for our industry evaporated. Today, there are only disadvantages to our exempt status, since we have no direct recourse to the STB when forest products and paper companies encounter poor rail service or exorbitant rates. In order to provide our industry with the same access to the STB provided to other non-exempt industries, the STB should grant our request to remove the forest products and paper exemptions.
AF&PA is watching other proceedings at the STB, including the Board’s rulemaking that would modify its existing reciprocal switching rules to enhance rail-to-rail competition. This commonsense reform would allow rail customers to request to move their freight to another major railroad at a nearby interchange for an appropriate fee – a routine practice in Canada for more than a century where railroads have thrived.
The Board is also seeking to improve its procedures for resolving challenges to rail rates that are permitted in markets lacking competitive transportation options. Currently, large Stand Alone Cost rate cases take an average of three and half years and more than $5 million to litigate before the STB. Many rail customers cannot afford such cases which operate as an unacceptable regulatory hurdle. The exploration of reforms to improve the STB’s rate review process also has our support.
Updating outdated policies by revoking the forest products industry’s commodity exemption, allowing competitive switching and simplifying the rate review process would level the playing field for our industry. With 900,000 employees in large and small communities across 45 states, our companies are the face of American manufacturing, account for 4 percent of total U.S. manufacturing GDP and meet an annual payroll of $50 billion dollars. We deserve access to the same tools other rail shippers currently enjoy to help our industry stay competitive.
We commend the STB for recognizing that America’s freight rail policies need fresh review. It’s fair to say that the reforms currently under consideration could not come soon enough.
Donna Harman, American Forest & Paper Association President and CEO. The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) serves to advance a sustainable U.S. pulp, paper, packaging, tissue and wood products manufacturing industry through fact-based public policy and marketplace advocacy.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/320491-freight-rail-reform-cant-come-soon-enough
-
Russia Won't Pick Fight with Trump on Climate, Lawmaker Says
Feb 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Tirone
Russia intends to stick to international climate commitments, though it may not argue with President Donald Trump if he decides to weaken U.S. adherence to the Paris accord, according to a senior Russian lawmaker.
“We will support all the efforts that lead to progress in this area,” Alexei Pushkov, a member of the Russian upper house's defense and security committee, said in an interview in Munich on Feb. 18. “But I don't think we will choose to have it as a topic of contention with President Trump.”
It is not clear when and if Trump will make good on his frequent campaign promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, a 2015 United Nations agreement to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions that was adopted by nearly 200 countries. Since he took office, the administration has rolled back U.S. rules to combat climate change and eased restrictions on fossil-fuel companies.
For Russia, the world's biggest energy exporter and a signatory to the Paris convention, there are more important bilateral challenges than climate to tackle with the U.S., Pushkov said during an international security conference. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Russia over President Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin's role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Climate change “is an important issue,” but “there are other issues more important for us,” the Russian lawmaker said. “I don't think we will argue with President Trump.”
--With assistance from Elena Gergen-Constantine.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105973901&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105973901&jd=105973901
-
Ozone Implementation Plan Shows Major Divisions Among Stakeholders
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's proposal for how to implement its latest ozone ambient air standard is highlighting major divisions among stakeholders, with several states and industry groups faulting the agency's approach to weighing international emissions in states' compliance plans and environmentalists attacking parts of the rule as too weak to reduce ozone.
Various groups weighed in ahead of a Feb. 13 deadline for input on the Obama EPA's proposal that outlines how to craft state implementation plans (SIPs) in which states detail their ozone reduction measures to meet the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) issued in October 2015. The Trump EPA under new Administrator Scott Pruitt will now review and respond to the comments as it crafts the final version of the rule.
The NAAQS -- which the previous administration tightened from the 2008 limit of 75 ppb -- is currently being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the stark divisions among the groups that commented on the implementation rule suggest the final rule could also be contested.
EPA's Nov. 17 proposal details options for states and EPA to identify areas of the country out of attainment with the new standard, and to craft SIPs to mitigate ozone-forming emissions. These include deadlines for state and EPA action, measures to be contained in SIPs, two options to revoke its 2008 ozone NAAQS, and “anti-backsliding” measures to prevent any relaxation of pollution controls that could result in worsening air quality.
Perhaps the most common complaint among Western states and industry groups in their comments is over EPA's policy preference to limit NAAQS compliance exemptions for air pollution stemming from foreign countries, by reserving the exemptions for areas along the U.S. border. This restriction would wrongly punish areas away from the border for international emissions transported far into the United States, critics say.
The Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) in its Feb. 13 comments says it “believes this requirement is unreasonable. There are many areas throughout the entire United States that are overwhelmingly affected by international transport, whether these areas are affected by nearby border sources or from foreign sources from many thousands of miles away.” Clean Air Act section 179(B) allows states to petition EPA to exclude from determinations of NAAQS attainment air monitoring data that are influenced by international pollution.
WESTAR asks EPA to identify a “reasonable hard deadline” for responding to state's section 179(B) petitions, to avoid delays that it says could undermine state and industry planning. EPA needs to better characterize U.S. “background” air pollution, which includes foreign and naturally-occurring ozone, the group says.
The group is also concerned about EPA's proposed treatment of nonattainment areas within states, which would require areas in those same states that are attaining the standards to curb pollution as well. “This interpretation is not consistent with the longstanding implementation of nonattainment plan general provisions” under the air law, “which unambiguously applies to the nonattainment area,” WESTAR says.
International Emissions
Several industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) of electric utilities take similar positions on international emissions.
MOG goes further than WESTAR's arguments by saying in its comments that consideration of international emissions should be made part of states' air law “good neighbor” obligations to mitigate their emissions that cause or contribute significantly to NAAQS attainment problems in other states downwind.
MOG suggests that failure to include international emissions in states' planning to meet good neighbor obligations will result in “overcontrol” of upwind states. The Supreme Court found the Obama EPA's overcontrol in its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) air trading program unlawful in a 2014 ruling that otherwise upheld the rest of CSAPR.
MOG also suggests EPA's proposed deadlines for SIPs due in 2019 requiring reasonably available control technology (RACT) to cut ozone be integrated with those for “good neighbor” SIPs due in 2018. This would allow states to take into account pollution control measures going into effect after 2018 that would impact interstate air pollution, and help avoid excessively stringent good neighbor SIPs and overcontrol, MOG argues.
Meanwhile, industry groups in their comments generally agree that EPA's “option one” for revoking the 2008 ozone standard is better than “option two.” The first option would revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS one year after the initial designations of areas attaining the new 2015 standard go into effect, similar to the approach that EPA took in revoking the earlier 1997 ozone NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb. The second approach would not revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS for any area designated nonattainment until that area has been redesignated to attainment.
EPA designed the second approach to conform to the approach that the agency has taken in revoking prior particulate matter NAAQS. However, industry groups object to having two standards in effect at once, saying this would impose onerous and duplicative requirements. The state of Ohio in its Feb. 13 comments agrees, saying, “under no circumstances should an area be subject to two or more ozone standards at any given time.”
Industry groups also generally back EPA's proposed allowance of inter-precursor trading in state plans for ozone reduction, where sources may trade emissions of precursors to ozone formation.
Groups' Concerns
Environmentalists and some Eastern states in their comments question whether EPA's proposal will adequately help reduce ozone levels, with several environmental groups attacking the plan to revoke the 2008 NAAQS.
In their Feb. 13 comments, a broad coalition of local and national environmental groups including Air Alliance Houston, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and numerous others calls on EPA to retain both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.
The groups further oppose inter-precursor trading, and emissions trading in general to satisfy ozone SIP requirements, saying this will not help to reduce ozone to the NAAQS level.
The state of Delaware in its Feb. 13 comments supports inter-precursor trading, but calls on EPA adopt its second option for revoking the 2008 NAAQS. Delaware takes issue, however, with EPA's “percent above the standard” method of calculating which areas attain the 2015 NAAQS, which is based on a revoked one-hour ozone limit.
“Delaware believes that using this classification methodology for the 2015 ozone NAAQS will not lead to expeditious attainment of the ozone NAAQS,” the state says. The 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS both use eight-hour averaging times, and this longer period tends to increase the role played by ozone from out-of-state in locally measured ozone levels, Delaware says. “The 8-hour averaging length makes the 8-hour data more heavily influenced by background or transported ozone and/or precursors” than one-hour data.
Maryland in its Feb. 10 comments agrees with Delaware on this issue, but calls for the adoption of option one for revoking the 2008 NAAQS. Maryland further criticizes EPA for sticking to policies of the past that have outlived their usefulness in terms of further reducing ozone levels in the state.
The state says, “it is becoming evident that historical policies used by EPA will no longer effectively clean the air. These same policies are also significantly hampering economic development in Maryland.”
The state “is concerned that the ozone implementation guidance creates an unnecessarily large workload, which is often focused on areas that are not critical for continuing to make clean air progress.”
Maryland says it will further address these issues through comments of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of East Coast and Mid-Atlantic states that are subject to stricter ozone limits than other states. The 12 OTC states have been working toward policies to curb emissions on high electric demand days (HEDD), usually hot summer days with high electric demand and weather conducive to ozone formation. They are also seeking further federal action to curb emissions from mobile sources, such as trucks, and exploring local measures such as idling bans to control emissions, as an alternative focus to traditional ozone SIPs that are concerned with stationary sources.
OTC in its Feb. 13 comments asks that HEDD be taken into account when implementing the 2015 ozone standard, and generally agrees with Delaware and Maryland over the “percent above the standard” method being inadequate. OTC states generally favor EPA's option one to revoke the 2008 NAAQS faster, the group says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ozone-implementation-plan-shows-major-divisions-among-stakeholders
-
Paris Treaty a Bad Deal Based on Flawed Logic
Feb 21, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Steven J. Allen
President Donald Trump has inherited eight years of disastrous environmental policy. He should move as far away as possible from the Obama agenda.
His work should start with the Paris Agreement, which went into effect in November aiming to “combat climate change [and] assist developing countries to do so” through the Green Climate Fund, a redistribution operation under U.N. auspices that sends developed countries’ money to poorer countries or, really, to ruling elites in poorer countries. President Obama ignored the Constitution’s requirement that treaties require Senate approval and unilaterally “ratified” the Paris Agreement, which commits the United States to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Meanwhile, he pledged $3 billion over four years to the Green Climate Fund, where the money will theoretically help developing countries reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. (Of this amount, he was able to transfer $1 billion before leaving office.) This deal gives America the short end of the stick, and lets other countries take advantage.
The Communist Chinese promised to reduce emissions starting in 2030, with 20 percent of the country’s electricity supposed to come from non-carbon sources by that year. Targeted emissions relative to the size of the economy would be reduced by 60-65 percent from the 2005 level, which means that China’s carbon emissions numbers would actually go up until 2030. In essence, China pledged only to achieve changed emissions that were most likely coming anyway.
The U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory already projects that China’s targeted emissions would peak around 2030, notes Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute, while a Bloomberg analysis shows that the reduction by 2030 relative to the size of China’s economy is less than what was expected without the Paris treaty.
The same goes for India, which promised to reduce targeted emissions by 33-35 percent by 2030 relative to the size of their economy. That promise, even if kept, is no more than what would have happened without the Paris treaty. But it didn’t stop the Indian government from claiming that, to follow through, it needs the rest of the world to give it $2.5 trillion—almost $2,000 per Indian, and a sum almost 25 percent larger than India’s entire economy.
Contrast China’s and India’s trifling promises with President Obama’s attempts to shut down the U.S. coal industry and all coal-fired power plants, a self-inflicted wound utterly unmatched in the rest of the world. As of 2015, there were 510 coal-fired power plants under construction in the world with a further 1,874 planned—a total of 2,384. China accounted for 136 under construction and an additional 639 planned, while India had 177 under construction and 539 more planned. Since 2005, China has seen a 69 percent increase in its artificial carbon dioxide emissions and India’s increase surpassed 50 percent, while the U.S. has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 13 percent—largely due to fracking and the increased use of natural gas.
To what end? According to the Heritage Foundation, a climate model by the National Center for Atmospheric Research indicates that, if the U.S. eliminated all artificial carbon dioxide emissions, the effect on global temperatures would be less than two-tenths of a degree on the Celsius scale. Eliminating all artificial carbon dioxide emissions throughout the entire industrialized world would have an effect of less than four-tenths of a degree.
What is more, if the U.S. abides by the Paris treaty and President Obama’s vision, the ensuing environmental regulations would cost thousands of American jobs. The Heritage Foundation used the National Energy Modeling System 2015—a computer model created by the U.S. Department of Energy—to project that the Paris treaty would mean a loss of nearly 400,000 jobs (including more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs), cause a hike of 13-20 percent in household electricity prices, and cost the national economy $2.5 trillion by 2035.
That’s a lot of pain for no gain. Renegotiating bad deals starts with the Paris Agreement.
Dr. Steven J. Allen is Vice President and Chief Investigative Officer of the Capital Research Center, America’s investigative think tank.http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/320522-paris-treaty-a-bad-deal-based-on-flawed-logic
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested