Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 04/12/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Straw Wars: The Fight to Rid the Oceans of Discarded Plastic
Apr 12, 2017 | National Geographic
By Laura Parker
Of the eight million tons of plastic trash that flow every year into the world’s oceans, the plastic drinking straw is surely not a top contributor to all that tonnage. -
White House Calls For Deep Agency Cuts
Apr 11, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ian Kullgren and Matthew Nussbaum
The White House on Wednesday will direct federal agencies to make deep personnel cuts over the next year, according to the White House budget chief and documents provided to POLITICO. -
EPA Cites TSCA Overhaul In Latest Denial Of Petition Targeting Chemicals
Apr 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is citing its ongoing work to implement the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as justification for what appears to be the third rejection of a petition asking for either testing or banning of chemicals since enactment of the TSCA overhaul, while outlining and expanding the minimum information it wants to see in any future petitions. -
What’s at Stake in Trump’s Proposed E.P.A. Cuts
Apr 10, 2017 | The New York Times
By Hiroko Tabuchi
... The exact science behind, and health consequences of, a class of chemicals called endocrine disrupters remains unsettled. With the proposed cuts to research at the E.P.A., it could stay that way. -
EU Council Of Ministers Adopts Rotterdam Convention Additions
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EU's council of ministers has adopted amendments to Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent (Pic) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. -
BASF Grenzach Appeals To EU Court Over BoA Triclosan Decision
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals manufacturer BASF Grenzach has appealed to the EU General Court to annul an Echa Board of Appeal (BoA) ruling that supported the agency's substance evaluation decision regarding triclosan. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Review Could Be Part of Larger Energy Policy Overhaul
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The EPA directive to review regulations that hamper domestic energy production did not specifically target ozone pollution standards, but the agency's ongoing review of the Obama-era requirements could aim to do away with pollution control and permitting requirements opposed by the energy sector. -
Shale-Related Projects Set Record Investment Level in Southwest Pennsylvania Last Year
Apr 12, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pittsburgh Regional Alliance (PRA) said this month that it tracked the largest-ever amount of capital investment in the 10-county region surrounding the city in southwestern Pennsylvania last year, attributing most of the $10.2 billion recorded to shale gas-related growth. -
Putin ‘Crony’ Could Take Over U.S. Energy Infrastructure, Senators Warn
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
A bipartisan group of six senators urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) to closely monitor the potential of a Russian-owned oil giant to gain control of “critical energy infrastructure” in the U.S. -
NatGas, Oil Groups Urge Global Sourcing of Steel for Pipelines
Apr 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
A quintet of trade associations representing the majority of U.S. pipeline operators engaged in transporting natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, refined petroleum products and carbon dioxide, said Friday they support President Trump's call for the use of American steel pipeline construction, but warn that there are serious hurdles to be overcome. -
Ozone Arguments Canceled as Court Lets EPA Review Rule
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration will get an opportunity to review and possibly reconsider more stringent ozone pollution standards that industry groups opposed after a federal appellate court canceled upcoming arguments over the rule (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 4/11/17). -
D.C. Circuit Grants EPA Bid To Delay Oral Argument In Ozone NAAQS Suit
Apr 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By - Anthony Lacey and Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted EPA's request to indefinitely delay April 19 oral argument in litigation over the Obama-era decision to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) while the Trump administration weighs a potential reconsideration of the decision. -
Trump Faces Showdown With G-7 Over Climate Stance Next Month
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan and Marine Strauss
A rift between U.S. President Donald Trump and the rest of the Group of Seven over his hard-line climate change stance looks set to widen next month when leaders meet in Italy.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Straw Wars: The Fight to Rid the Oceans of Discarded Plastic
Apr 12, 2017 | National Geographic
By Laura Parker
Of the eight million tons of plastic trash that flow every year into the world’s oceans, the plastic drinking straw is surely not a top contributor to all that tonnage.
Yet this small, slender tube, utterly unnecessary for most beverage consumption, is at the center of a growing environmental campaign aimed at convincing people to stop using straws to help save the oceans.
Small and lightweight, straws often never make it into recycling bins; the evidence of this failure is clearly visible on any beach. And although straws amount to a tiny fraction of ocean plastic, their size makes them one of the most insidious polluters because they entangle marine animals and are consumed by fish. Video of scientists removing a straw embeddedin a sea turtle’s nose went viral in 2015.
“If you have the opportunity to make this choice and not to use a plastic straw, this can help keep this item off our beaches and raise awareness on plastic in the ocean,” says Jenna Jambeck, the University of Georgia engineering professor whose ground-breaking 2015 study was the first measurement of how much plastic debris enters the ocean every year. “And if you can make this one choice, maybe you can do even more.”
Straws are the latest on an expanding list of individual plastic products being banned, taxed, or boycotted in an effort to curb seaborn plastic trash before it outweighs fish, a calculation projected to come true by 2050, according to one study.
Last fall, California became the first state in the nation to ban plastic bags, joining a host of nations that already do so, including Kenya, China, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Macedonia. France not only banned plastic bags, it has become the first country to also ban plastic plates, cups, and utensils, beginning in 2020. San Francisco banned polystyrene, including Styrofoam cups and food containers, packaging peanuts, and beach toys. And in Rhode Island, the release of celebratory balloons is being targeted by activists, after almost 2,200 balloons were picked up on the shores of Aquidneck Island in the last four years.
The plastics industry opposes bans at every turn. Bag manufacturers have persuaded lawmakers in Florida, Missouri, Idaho, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana to pass legislation outlawing the bag bans.
Keith Christman, managing director for plastic markets for the American Chemistry Council, says the industry also will oppose any efforts to outlaw plastic straws.
Bans of individual products often come with “unintended consequences,” Christman argues. Replacement products can cause more environmental harm than plastic products there were banned, he says. In some cases, products advertised as biodegradable sometimes turn out not to be. Worse, consumer behavior sometimes changes. When San Francisco banned Styrofoam products, he says, an audit of litter showed that while Styrofoam cup litter dropped, paper cup litter increased.
“What we really need is good waste management structure in countries that are the largest source of this challenge,” he says. “Rapidly developing countries in Asia don’t have that structure.”
What sets the anti-straw campaign apart from other efforts—and why the anti-straw campaign may succeed—is that activists are not seeking to change laws or regulations. They are merely asking consumers to change their habits and say no to straws.STEMMING THE TIDE?
Once found mostly in soda fountains of the 1930s, straws have become one of the most ubiquitous unnecessary products on the planet. No global usage figures exist, but Americans alone use 500 million straws daily, according to the National Park Service. Except for people with medical needs, straws are not needed to consume beverages or water.
“Ten years ago, straws weren’t everywhere. It used to be at a bar, you’d get a straw. Now you order a damn glass of ice water and they put a straw in it,” says Douglas Woodring, founder of the Ocean Recovery Alliance, a Hong Kong-based group that is working to reduce ocean trash. “Part of it, I suspect, came from people’s fear of germs.”
He noticed the uptick in straw use after the 2003 outbreak of the SARSrespiratory illness that began in China and spread to more than two dozen countries in the Americas and Europe and infected 8,098 people, killing 774 of them.
“All of a sudden, straws propagated,” he says. “Then consumers took them for granted that they had to have their straw, even though most don’t need it.”
As straws proliferated, so did anti-straw campaigns. Some groups have attention-getting names like Straw Wars, in London’s Soho neighborhood, or Straws Suck, used by the worldwide Surfrider Foundation. Others have been organized by pint-sized environmentalists, such as the OneLessStraw campaign, set up by a sister-and-brother team, Olivia Ries and Carter Ries, when they were aged 7 and 8.
If fear of germs drove the straw use globally into the billions, the eight-minute video of a four-inch section of straw being removed from a Costa Rican sea turtle’s nostril may have turned the tide. The video is painful to watch, and has been viewed more than 11 million times on YouTube.
Linda Booker, a North Carolina filmmaker, whose documentary, Straws,is making the rounds of the spring film festival circuit in the United States, says the turtle video, in part, inspired her to take on straws as a film project. She interviewed the scientists and included them in her film.
“I believe a lot of the catalyst for these straw campaigns was the video of the straw in the turtle’s nose,” she says.
The latest entrant in the anti-straw campaign is the Lonely Whale Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by actor Adrian Grenier, who recently added his celebrity wattage to the cause. He kicked off his effort at an ocean plastic conference in Charleston, South Carolina, this spring with a oft-told story about watching a waiter deliver a glass of water to his table with a straw.
“It’s a gateway, a way to start,” Grenier says. “A lot of times people are overwhelmed by the bigness of the problem and often give up. We need something achievable for everyday humans. The challenge is if we can get rid of plastic straws, let’s start there. Then we can move on from there.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/plastic-straws-ocean-trash-environment/
-
White House Calls For Deep Agency Cuts
Apr 11, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ian Kullgren and Matthew Nussbaum
The White House on Wednesday will direct federal agencies to make deep personnel cuts over the next year, according to the White House budget chief and documents provided to POLITICO.
Agency heads will receive a 14-page memorandum outlining changes. The memo, which replaces the federal hiring ban Trump enacted in January, outlines cuts based on Trump’s "skinny" budget, released last month. The budget proposal called for deep cuts to domestic programs and an increase in military spending.
The memo tells agencies to “begin taking immediate actions to achieve near-term workforce reductions." It also instructs agencies to develop by June 30 a plan to “maximize employee performance” — i.e., take steps to reward employees deemed effective while working to improve or dismiss weak performers. The memo also calls for delivery by September of an agency reform plan to shrink personnel to accommodate long term budget reductions outlined in the skinny budget.
Speaking to reporters, budget chief Mick Mulvaney said the end result will likely take effect in about 11 months. The executive branch will be dramatically different, Mulvaney said, with agencies operating more like private businesses. Mulvaney downplayed the cuts, saying the focus was on making agencies more efficient, not just smaller.
“Really what you’re talking about doing is restructuring Washington, D.C.,” Mulvaney said. “That is how you drain the swamp.”
“At the end of the day,” Mulvaney added, “this leads to a government that is dramatically more accountable, dramatically more efficient, and dramatically more effective at following through on the promises that the president made during the campaign.”
The White House’s latest instructions to the agencies would appear to bear the fingerprints of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who pledged himself publicly to "deconstruction of the administrative state."
Mulvaney did not discuss specifics of the cuts, including how many jobs will be slashed. That, he said, will be left up to the agencies. But Mulvaney did single out the EPA — perhaps the agency most-loathed by Republicans — as a particular target.
“Everybody acknowledges, given the proposed reductions to the Environmental Protection Agency in the budget, they would have to reduce the size of their workforce,” Mulvaney said. “And it’s just sort of up to them to come up with ideas on how to do that effectively.”
But the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments will increase staffing, Mulvaney said, though he didn’t elaborate on how that will occur. He didn’t address whether agencies might hire contract workers to replace cut positions.
The memo says that agencies should eliminate programs that are duplicative, non-essential to the agency’s mission, or are already carried out in some form by state and local government. It also tells agencies to cut any program that is “not justified by the unique public benefit it provides,” and to restructure programs to provide better customer service.
The memo also tells agencies to explore new technologies to “automate processes and result in increased efficiency and budgetary savings.”
Not all of the staffing cuts will be achieved through layoffs. Trump has yet to fill scores of positions, and the guidance says any vacant posts judged unnecessary can be eliminated immediately.
Mulvaney insisted the process could be bipartisan and include public input.
“We are not just asking conservative right wing think tanks to give us ideas on how to fix this,” said Mulvaney, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina. “We’re asking the general public: intellectuals, academia and the private sector to give us ideas, and it may well be they come in and make suggestions that might be the exact opposite of a former right-wing member of Congress.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/white-house-calls-for-deep-agency-cuts-155238
-
EPA Cites TSCA Overhaul In Latest Denial Of Petition Targeting Chemicals
Apr 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is citing its ongoing work to implement the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as justification for what appears to be the third rejection of a petition asking for either testing or banning of chemicals since enactment of the TSCA overhaul, while outlining and expanding the minimum information it wants to see in any future petitions.
In a notice slated for publication in the April 12 Federal Register, the agency formally rejects the petition from environmentalists asking it to order manufacturers to perform toxicity tests of a group of flame retardant chemicals known as chlorinated phosphate esters (CPE), including tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate, 2-propanol, 1-chloro-phosphate and 2-propanol, 1,3-dichloro-phosphate.
The petition -- filed by a coalition including Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- is the third TSCA petition rejected by the agency recently, following its March denial of a similar petition from the same groups for a testing order of another flame retardant chemical, tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), and its February denial of a TSCA petition from the Fluoride Action Network asking the agency to prohibit fluoridation.
In both denials of the environmentalist coalition's petitions for TSCA section 4 testing of flame retardants, EPA referenced the TSCA overhaul. The law calls on EPA to reduce its use of animal testing, and to expand its use of 21st century non-animal toxicology testing methodologies. EPA is directed to establish a plan to further the use of these non-animal methods, and also to evaluate existing data and non-animal approaches before requiring animal testing. EPA's response indicates that future petitions requesting such testing should address this latter issue.
EPA's response says that “to the extent the petitioners request vertebrate testing, EPA emphasizes that future petitions should discuss why such testing is appropriate, considering the reduction of testing on vertebrates encouraged by TSCA section 4(h), as amended” by the TSCA overhaul that took effect last June.
EPA's direction to future petitioners with more information that the agency could use should it choose to take up the request echoes its denial of what is through to be the first TSCA section 21 ban petition issued since TSCA's overhaul. In that case, groups opposed to fluoridation of water urged EPA to ban this use of fluoride under TSCA, because of their concern over potential neurodevelopmental effects.
In that case, EPA responded that the new statutory language requiring the agency to assess and consider all reasonably foreseeable uses of a chemical requires petitioners to have a similarly broad focus in their petitions, rather than simply describing one use they would like to see restricted or banned. An attorney for the petitioners says this is a new and burdensome requirement for petitioners, and could face a legal challenge.
Chemical Testing
Environmentalists in both their petitions to the agency on flame retardants urged EPA to issue testing orders on the chemicals because they said that they meet the hazard and exposure standards in TSCA Section 4(a)(1) to require testing and because of initial assessments of the chemicals that EPA began as part of the TSCA Work Plan risk assessment program. The groups also argued that there is “insufficient information” on the chemicals based on data gaps that EPA identified in its early scoping and problem formulation documents, which the work plan program released in 2015.
The Obama EPA launched the TSCA work plan program in 2012 with the intent of attempting to more strictly regulate existing chemicals under TSCA in the face of inaction from Congress to overhaul that statute, and to prepare staff for anticipated programmatic changes should that overhaul occur.
Obama EPA officials considered these preparations necessary because the original TSCA largely grandfathered existing chemicals, those that were on the market when the statute took effect in 1976.
In both petitions, the environmentalists argued that EPA needs the testing to fill the data gaps outlined in the problem formulation and initial assessment documents in order to pursue risk evaluations of the substances under TSCA section 6, which gives EPA authority to restrict or ban chemicals or certain uses of chemicals.
EPA, however, in its Register notice denying the latest petition points out that the TSCA work plan focused narrowly on specific risks, rather than a review of the risks of all uses of chemicals -- an approach that has changed since the overhaul of TSCA. “The requirement to consider all conditions of use in risk evaluations -- and to do so during the three to three and a half years allotted in the statute -- has led EPA to more fully evaluate the range of data sources and technically sound approaches for conducting risk evaluations,” the agency says.
The agency continues, “a policy decision articulated in a problem formulation under the pre-amendment TSCA not to proceed with risk assessment for a particular use, hazard, or exposure pathway does not necessarily indicate at this time that EPA will need to require testing in order to proceed to risk evaluation. Rather, such a decision indicates an area in which EPA will need to further evaluate the range of potential approaches -- including generation of additional test data -- for proceeding to risk evaluation. EPA is actively developing and evolving approaches for implementing the new provisions in amended TSCA. These approaches are expected to address many, if not all, of the data needs asserted in the petition,” the agency says in language similar to the response to the TBBPA petition.
'Sufficient Facts'
In the new Register notice, EPA says that it denied the environmentalists' petition because it “does not set forth sufficient facts for EPA to find that the information currently available to the Agency, including existing studies . . . on the CPE Cluster chemicals as well as alternate approaches for risk evaluation is insufficient to permit a reasoned determination or prediction of the health or environmental effects of the CPE Cluster chemicals at issue in the petition nor that the specific testing the petition identified is necessary to develop additional information.”
EPA's response to the TBBPA petition included identical language regrading vertebrate animal testing. EPA also provided a similar conclusion in its denial of the TBBPA petition, explaining that it denied the petition because environmentalists did not provide “sufficient facts for EPA to find that the information currently available to the Agency, including existing studies . . . on TBBPA and analogs, as well as alternate approaches for risk evaluation, is insufficient to permit a reasoned determination or prediction of the health or environmental effects of TBBPA . . . nor that the specific testing the petition identified is necessary.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-cites-tsca-overhaul-latest-denial-petition-targeting-chemicals
-
What’s at Stake in Trump’s Proposed E.P.A. Cuts
Apr 10, 2017 | The New York Times
By Hiroko Tabuchi
What is at stake as Congress considers the E.P.A. budget? Far more than climate change.
The Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency budget are deep and wide-ranging. It seeks to shrink spending by 31 percent, to $5.7 billion from $8.1 billion, and to eliminate a quarter of the agency’s 15,000 jobs.
The cuts are so deep that even Republican lawmakers are expected to push back. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the chairwoman of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, pointedly reminded Mr. Trump last month that his budget request was just “the first step in a long process.”
Here are some proposed cuts that are likely to face resistance when the budget reaches Congress.Tap water
Flint, Mich., is still reeling from its tainted water crisis, and unsafe levels of lead have turned up in tap water in city after city. Still, the E.P.A. is looking to decrease grants that help states monitor public water systems by almost a third, to $71 million from $102 million, according to an internal agency memo first obtained by The Washington Post.
The Public Water System Supervision Grant Program has been critical in making sure communities have access to safe drinking water. In Texas, for example, state-contracted workers collect drinking water samples across the state, an effort funded in part by federal grants.
Much of the risk to the country’s water supply stems from its crumbling public water infrastructure: a network of pipes, treatment plants and other facilities built decades ago. Although Congress banned lead pipes in 1986, between 3.3 million and 10 million older ones remain, primed to leach lead into tap water.Criminal and civil enforcement
Sharp cuts in the agency’s enforcement programs could curtail its ability to police environmental offenders and impose penalties. The budget proposal reduces spending on civil and criminal enforcement by almost 60 percent, to $4 million from a combined $10 million. It also eliminates 200 jobs.
Just last week, the agency fined Sunoco Pipeline, a subsidiary of the operator behind the Dakota Access pipeline, nearly $1 million over a 2012 spill. The spill sent 1,950 barrels of gasoline into two waterways near Wellington, Ohio, forcing the evacuation of 70 people.
One enforcement activity that could be set for an increase: security for Scott Pruitt, the new E.P.A. administrator. The agency has asked for 10 additional full-time staff members for a round-the-clock security detail — a first for an E.P.A. chief, who usually has only door-to-door protection — and more than doubling the agency’s infrastructure and operations staff.Geographic programs
The agency is taking an equal-opportunity approach to regional cleanup programs, proposing to virtually eliminate all of them: Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, South Florida, the Great Lakes.
Together, those projects amount to a loss of more than $400 million in federal funding for the regions involved. The largest part of that goes to the Great Lakes restoration effort, which is helping revive wetland habitats, clean up toxic pollution, combat invasive species and prevent runoff from farms and cities.
The E.P.A.’s defunding of these projects could backfire. Much of the federal money has gone toward helping bring affected communities to the table to find solutions. Absent that route, communities could sue the E.P.A. for failing to act, ultimately running up the agency’s legal bills and slowing remediation as cases wind their way through the courts.Superfunds and brownfields
Superfund is as high-stakes as environmental programs get. It makes federal funds available for the cleanup of sites contaminated by hazardous substances and pollutants, like the now-defunct Wolff-Alport Chemical Company in Queens, in New York City, which was designated a Superfund site in 2014. The site is heavily contaminated with thorium, a radioactive metal with a half-life of 14 billion years that has been linked to a higher incidence of lung, pancreatic and bone cancer. Superfund money is helping clean up the thorium.
The Superfund program can actually save taxpayers money, because it lets the E.P.A. identify polluters and compel them to pay for the cleanup. But the proposed budget reduces its enforcement and remedial components by 45 percent, bringing it to $221 million from $404 million.
E.P.A. officials call Brownfields, a program that helps towns and cities redevelop former industrial sites, one of the agency’s most popular programs. The E.P.A. website still lists its success stories: refashioning an old textile mill in Hickory, N.C., into a retail, dining and event space, and redeveloping former factory sites on the banks of Iowa’s Cedar River into riverfront condominiums. Funding to states under the Brownfields program is set for a reduction of 30 percent, to $33 million from $48 million.Endocrine disrupters
The exact science behind, and health consequences of, a class of chemicals called endocrine disrupters remains unsettled. With the proposed cuts to research at the E.P.A., it could stay that way.
The budget eliminates a $6 million research and screening effort targeting the chemicals, which are found widely in pesticides, plastics, shampoos and cosmetics, cash register receipts, food can linings and other products. The chemicals have been linked to breast cancer in women and hypospadias, a birth defect in boys.
Ending the program, which would result in the loss of nine jobs, would curtail the agency’s ability to review medical data and work with environmental lawyers to fashion an agency response.Climate protection
It is no surprise that the new E.P.A. is targeting climate change initiatives, given the Trump administration’s hostility toward the science of global warming and a pro-business bent. But many of the programs that fall under the $70 million Climate Protection Program — which would be eliminated under the White House proposal — are industry favorites.
Take the Energy Star program for energy-efficient televisions, washers, dryers, lights and other consumer goods. Companies say Energy Star helps give their products a competitive edge, and also helps them sell overseas, where the standard has been adopted by the European Union, Japan, Australia and Canada, among major markets.
And the SmartWay program works with logistics companies to make their operations more climate friendly. SmartWay helps trucking companies fit their trucks with aerodynamic flaps and low-resistance tires, for example, that save fuel and reduce emissions.Federal vehicle and fuels standards
It has been barely a year since Volkswagen agreed to pay as much as $14.7 billion to settle claims stemming from its diesel emissions cheating scandal, and the E.P.A. has accused a second automaker, Fiat Chrysler, of evading emissions standards. But the proposed budget cuts would all but eliminate the $48.7 million federal budget for vehicle tests and certification.
The budget foresees getting automakers themselves to pay for testing through fees. But that takes time to set up, and any funding shortfall in the meantime would mean a significant paring back of the work at E.P.A.’s emissions testing labs.Nonpoint source grants
The Trump administration has declared its intent to roll back business-killing regulations. But the second-biggest item eliminated from the proposed budget, after the Great Lakes Restoration project, exists precisely because federal regulations do not cover all pollutants.
The $165 million Nonpoint Source Grant program helps states deal with pollutants from sources that are not directly regulated under the Clean Water Act — like the phosphorus that flows into Lake Erie from fertilizer, which feeds algae and weeds that starve the water of oxygen, harming fish and other wildlife.
Among other remedies, the nonpoint source grants have been used to help states create “buffer strips” — areas of thick vegetation that help filter the contaminated runoff. The proposed budget would eliminate the grants.Radiation protection and response preparedness
When the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan sent radioactive plumes across the Pacific, the E.P.A.’s RadNet system monitored the fallout on America’s shores, deploying additional air monitors in Alaska and Hawaii and ordering accelerated samplings of rain, tap water and milk.
Over the next two months, laboratory analyses detected very low amounts of iodine and other radionuclides across the country. Levels remained far below the safety threshold, and the E.P.A. determined that no action was needed. But in the case of another nuclear accident, RadNet could help officials make science-based decisions on how to protect the public.
The proposed budget would defund the agency’s $3.3 million Radiation Protection program and eliminate 60 jobs. It would also remove four jobs from the Radiation Response Preparedness program; despite those job cuts, funding for that modest program would increase by $177,000, to just over $500,0000, to be used for “essential preparedness work only.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/climate/trump-epa-budget-cuts.html
-
EU Council Of Ministers Adopts Rotterdam Convention Additions
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EU's council of ministers has adopted amendments to Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent (Pic) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.
The substances to be added to Annex III are:
· carbofuran;
· carbosulfan;
· chrysotile asbestos;
· short-chain chlorinated paraffins;
· all tributyltin compounds;
· trichlorfon;
· fenthion (ultra low volume formulations at/above 640g active ingredient per litre (g/L)); and
· liquid formulations (emulsifiable concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing paraquat dichloride at/above 276g/L, corresponding to paraquat ion at/above 200g/L.
The Decision entered into force on 3 April.
The REACH Committee backed the additions in October 2013.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55099/eu-council-of-ministers-adopts-rotterdam-convention-additions
-
BASF Grenzach Appeals To EU Court Over BoA Triclosan Decision
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals manufacturer BASF Grenzach has appealed to the EU General Court to annul an Echa Board of Appeal (BoA) ruling that supported the agency's substance evaluation decision regarding triclosan.
In December 2016 the BoA backed Echa's request for BASF Grenzach to perform:
· persistence testing in marine and freshwater;
· a developmental neurotoxicity test with additional elements of an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (Eogrts); and
· a fish sexual development test.
BASF Grenzach says the General Court should annul the decision. It alleges the BoA breached an essential procedural requirement when it confined the case to a limited legality review, instead of conducting a full administrative review.
The BoA, BASF Grenzach says, also breached two essential procedural requirements in disregarding – without addressing their merits – numerous key arguments and pieces of scientific evidence that the applicant had brought forward.
The manufacturer also alleges a breach of proportionality principle, read in conjunction with Article 25(1) and Article 47 of REACH, and the General Court's consistent case law concerning judicial review and burden of proof.
Triclosan is a broad-spectrum antibacterial, used in toothpaste, soap and other consumer products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55098/basf-grenzach-appeals-to-eu-court-over-boa-triclosan-decision
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Review Could Be Part of Larger Energy Policy Overhaul
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The EPA directive to review regulations that hamper domestic energy production did not specifically target ozone pollution standards, but the agency's ongoing review of the Obama-era requirements could aim to do away with pollution control and permitting requirements opposed by the energy sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency has not yet said whether it will formally reopen the 70 parts per billion ozone standards, but a federal appellate court agreed April 11 to postpone oral arguments over the regulation to allow for the agency's review. The EPA in its court filing seeking the delay had indicated that it is taking a look at the ozone standards to determine whether the regulation is subject to a March 28 executive order that instructed the agency to review any existing rules that could “potentially burden” domestic energy production (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 4/11/17).
“This would fit right into that review … ozone is very tied into the power sector,” said James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP who previously worked on environmental issues at the Justice Department.
Any effort by the Trump administration to roll back the 2015 ozone standards would be fiercely opposed by environmental advocates. But attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that a formal reconsideration of the ozone rule would fit in with the Trump administration's focus on easing regulation on the coal, oil and natural gas sectors.
While the ozone standards don't target any particular sector for pollution reductions, the permitting and pollution-reduction requirements associated with failure to meet the standards can effect power plants, refineries and downstream oil and gas operations. For example, Utah recommended that the EPA label the Uinta Basin as a nonattainment area under the 2015 standards, a designation that could trigger various emissions control requirements on an area with thousands of active oil and gas wells.
“[Ozone] is a rule that could potentially have negative implications for energy production in this country,” Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA.
Part of Broader Energy Effort
Lorenzen, who also previously served at the Justice Department and who represents the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in litigation over Obama-era climate regulations covering utilities, told Bloomberg BNA that a review of the ozone standards is “of a piece” with other environmental actions taken early in the Trump administration. In addition to initiating a reconsideration of the climate rules for power plants, the Trump administration also reopened coal leasing on federal lands and is looking at potential changes to methane standards covering the oil and gas industry.
The 2015 ozone standards are opposed by a number of energy industry organizations, including the American Petroleum Institute and coal company Murray Energy Corp. Industry challengers, as well as several states, argued in court briefs that the Obama-era regulation is illegal because the standards are so strict that they are impossible to meet in certain parts of the U.S.
Those challengers now seemingly have an ally at the EPA: Administrator Scott Pruitt was involved in challenges to the ozone rule while serving as Oklahoma attorney general.
Advocates Plan Defense
While Pruitt may be sympathetic to industry arguments, any effort to change the ozone standards will be met with fierce opposition from environmental and public health groups that argue the current standards are still too lenient to protect the public. The environmental and public health advocates unsuccessfully opposed the EPA request to delay the scheduled ozone arguments, a request that they said came too late and would be “hugely inefficient” given the time spent writing briefs and preparing for arguments.
If the EPA were to decide to reconsider the ozone standards, advocates would make the case to the EPA, Congress and the public that the science supports an even stronger standard than 70 ppb and shouldn't be weakened, John Walke, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA. Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the standards at 70 ppb after determining that the previously 75 ppb standard wasn't adequate to protect public health.
Walke noted that the EPA has an “awful track record” in the courts on decisions where it departs from the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a panel that recommended the EPA consider setting the ozone standards within a range of 60 ppb to 70 ppb. Any reconsideration effort that aimed to set less-stringent standards would need to justify departing from that scientific advice.
Rubin acknowledged that the administration “will have some work to do” to address those scientific findings if reconsideration proceedings are initiated, but he said he wouldn't be surprised if the EPA decided to pursue that given the the number of industry interests that oppose it. In addition to the power sector, the ozone standards also are opposed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various other industry organizations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109235572&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109235572&jd=109235572
-
Shale-Related Projects Set Record Investment Level in Southwest Pennsylvania Last Year
Apr 12, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pittsburgh Regional Alliance (PRA) said this month that it tracked the largest-ever amount of capital investment in the 10-county region surrounding the city in southwestern Pennsylvania last year, attributing most of the $10.2 billion recorded to shale gas-related growth.
PRA, the economic development marketing affiliate of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, tracks capital investment and economic development deals across the region in an annual scorecard that serves as an economic indicator and helps guide its own strategies. Projects announced by Royal Dutch Shell plc, Tenaska and Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) in 2016 helped the region to a "banner year" in which the investments recorded by PRA since 2007 hit their highest levels.
Shell's decision in June to move forward with a $6 billion investment to build a world-scale ethane cracker in Beaver County easily topped the list. ETP's announcement that it would spend $1.5 billion on a 110-mile natural gas gathering system that would originate in Butler County and a cryogenic processing facility in Washington County also pushed up economic commitments in the area. Tenaska also broke ground last year on a $785 million gas-fired power plant in Westmoreland County that will generate 925 MW of electricity when it enters service late next year.
"The table is set for the region's future by leveraging the combined impact of manufacturing and energy," said PRA President David Ruppersberger. "Without the natural resource of the shale gas -- for which this region once pioneered extraction -- an ethane cracker would not have been a consideration."
While investments in the region reached a high water mark last year, PRA noted that there was a drop in the area's energy sector deals during the same time. The organization recorded 16, which was down from 31 in 2015. Energy-related manufacturing deals also dropped by 50% year/year from eight to four. PRA said the commodities downturn slowed regional investments, along with the fact that upstream operations are already firmly rooted in the state.
Shale gas continued to play a key role in the regional economy. The 2016 scorecard tracked deals across five key sectors to record 245 of them, including attractions, retentions, expansions, and infrastructure and real estate development projects.
PRA said the total job impact anticipated from those deals is 11,344, or 5,761 new jobs and 5,583 retained jobs. The greatest total job impact, PRA found, is expected to be in manufacturing (3,667), healthcare (2,893) and energy (2,288).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110084-shale-related-projects-set-record-investment-level-in-southwest-pennsylvania-last-year
-
Putin ‘Crony’ Could Take Over U.S. Energy Infrastructure, Senators Warn
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
A bipartisan group of six senators urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) to closely monitor the potential of a Russian-owned oil giant to gain control of “critical energy infrastructure” in the U.S.
The senators—Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)—said the move would have significant “national security implications,” because it could put part of the U.S.'s energy infrastructure in the hands of Rosneft, a government-owned oil company run by a “crony” of Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian “oligarchs.”
There is only so much CFIUS can do now, however, because the acquisition is still just a possibility.
Venezuela's state-owned company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A, wholly owns CITGO Petroleum, which operates energy infrastructure in the U.S., including refineries, pipelines and terminals.
Petróleos de Venezuela used 49.9 percent of its shares of CITGO as collateral for a loan from Rosneft. In light of Venezuela's ongoing economic crisis, Petroleos de Venezuela could soon default on that loan, the senators said. Coupled with Rosneft's acquisition of other bonds on the open market, this could bring Rosneft's ownership potential to more than 50 percent, they said.
Election Interference, Sanctions
This would be particularly alarming in light of Russia's recent efforts to “sow distrust of our democratic institutions” through cyber campaigns, the senators said, as well as its violations of arms control agreements and strong opposition to existing sanctions.
CFIUS is a committee with officials from the departments of State, Defense and Commerce, among other agencies, that reviews transactions that could result in foreign entities gaining control of U.S. businesses. If CFIUS determines that a deal presents national security risks, it can order the parties to take steps to mitigate those risks. The committee can also refer the matter to the president, who in rare cases can block the transactions.
The senators acknowledged that it is too early for CFIUS to begin a formal review of Rosneft's potential control of CITGO. Nevertheless, they asked Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, the chairman of the committee, to “proactively monitor the situation” and keep the senators briefed. In the event that Rosneft were to acquire CITGO, the senators said, “we would expect a thorough, conflict-free, and expedient review.”
Energy as Weapon
“We know that in the past, Russia has used cyberattacks to disrupt energy grids in Ukraine. Likewise, Putin has used the Russian oil and gas industry to manipulate energy prices in Eastern European economies,” Menendez said at a news conference.
“We cannot give Putin any opening to affect the flow of oil or toy with Americans’ prices at the pump, and we cannot play Russian roulette with America's energy infrastructure,” Menendez said. “The risk to our national security and our economy is not one that I'm willing to take.”
Petróleos de Venezuela's default “is a matter of ‘when,’ not ‘if,’” Jennifer Harris, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former member of the policy planning staff at the State Department, said at the news conference.
The deal could give Russia an unprecedented reach into the U.S. energy grid, Harris said. She said such economic moves are “increasingly the face of statecraft today,” with countries such as Russia and China “waging with economic instruments what used to be the stuff of armies, and accomplishing with sovereign checkbooks and with financial levers the stuff of sovereign conquest.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109235578&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109235578&jd=109235578
-
NatGas, Oil Groups Urge Global Sourcing of Steel for Pipelines
Apr 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
A quintet of trade associations representing the majority of U.S. pipeline operators engaged in transporting natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, refined petroleum products and carbon dioxide, said Friday they support President Trump's call for the use of American steel pipeline construction, but warn that there are serious hurdles to be overcome.
"If these hurdles are not overcome, government action to increase domestic steel and pipe production could have the unintended result of reducing or significantly delaying new pipeline projects, limiting U.S. pipeline job growth, and hurting American consumers," according to joint comments filed with the United States Department of Commerce Office of Policy and Strategic Planning by the American Gas Association (AGA), the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and GPA Midstream Association (GPA).
Just days after his inauguration,Trump signedmemorandums ordering the Commerce Department to submit a report to him on ways to streamline the federal permitting process for domestic manufacturers within 60 days, and for Commerce to develop a plan to maximize the use of American steel for pipeline construction within 180 days.
"We are, and I am, very insistent that if we're going to build pipelines in the United States, the pipes should be made in the United States," Trump said at the time. "[This is] going to put a lot of steel workers back to work. We will build our own pipeline. We will build our own pipes, like we used to in the old days."
The trade associations said in their comments with the Commerce Department that they "support President Trump's objective to grow domestic jobs and boost the U.S. economy by reinvigorating American manufacturing...However, a number of hurdles unique to pipeline-grade steel and pipe manufacturing must be overcome to expand domestic pipeline production and manufacturing." Any plan put together by Commerce in response to Trump's memorandum "should recognize that global sourcing of steel is currently essential for the continued growth of America's energy pipeline infrastructure and the U.S. economy overall," they said.
The associations said they are concerned that domestic sourcing requirements could undermine the ability to achieve the positive economic impacts, including job growth, associated with pipeline manufacturing and construction, and have the potential to adversely affect maintenance activities and reliability of existing pipelines.
"An advantage of trade is that it allows economies to specialize in areas where they have a competitive advantage. The specialized steel, pipe, and equipment required to construct and maintain pipelines necessitates tight controls on chemical composition, mechanical properties and quality. Manufacturing facilities need advanced equipment and state-of-the-art processes to achieve this result. Current domestic capacity to produce certain materials and equipment used to construct, operate, and maintain energy pipelines is limited," they said.
"Domestic steel and pipeline manufacturing industries would need time to boost their capability to meet the unique demand and support the continued growth of America's energy pipeline infrastructure. The companies that currently supply the U.S. pipeline industry have spent considerable time and resources perfecting their processes. New entrants would need to consider these costs relative to the size of the niche market for pipeline materials and equipment."
The associations believe that several considerations "are essential" for Commerce's plan: Consider the constraints for materials and equipment that cannot be procured domestically in adequate quantities, at the necessary technical specifications, and in time to meet market demand; Consider potential impacts to reliability of existing pipelines if materials and equipment cannot be sourced within the time necessary to meet maintenance requirements; Consider the potential for domestic sourcing requirements to have the unintended consequences of reducing or delaying investment, and consequently reducing jobs, in the U.S. energy industry and in pipeline construction; Consider the cost and service implications, for industry and for consumers, of any potential domestic sourcing requirements; Consider excluding pipeline projects that already have shipper commitments and/or pending or issued federal or state permits, such as interstate projects with a pending or issued FERC certificate, projects that have been approved by the state agency responsible for intrastate transmission and distribution pipelines, and projects that are subject to federal or state agency siting or permitting review; Consider the varied operational characteristics, pipe and equipment needs, and regulatory frameworks of transmission, gathering, and distribution pipeline systems; and Consider the multiple factors that affect sourcing decisions made by pipeline operators and production decisions made by steel and pipe mills and equipment manufacturers.
While Trump's memorandum directed the development of a domestic sourcing plan "'to the extent permitted by law,' neither the presidential memorandum, nor the Federal Register notice, nor any other information now available, provides the legal authority for any such requirement," the associations said. "Therefore, to assist in the development of a plan that complies fully with the president's instructions, the associations request that interested stakeholders are given a meaningful opportunity to provide advance comment on the possible legal limitations and ramifications of any plan."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110079-natgas-oil-groups-urge-global-sourcing-of-steel-for-pipelines
-
Ozone Arguments Canceled as Court Lets EPA Review Rule
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration will get an opportunity to review and possibly reconsider more stringent ozone pollution standards that industry groups opposed after a federal appellate court canceled upcoming arguments over the rule (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 4/11/17).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit canceled April 19 oral arguments on the revised ozone standards over the objections of public health and environmental groups that wanted the case to continue because it had been fully briefed and attorneys were prepared for court.
Though the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA's request to halt the litigation, the court in its April 11 order also chided the administration for the lateness of its request.
“The court disfavors motions to postpone oral argument and reminds respondent it is imperative that the court be notified promptly when a potential issue arises that affects the date of oral argument,” the court said.
The Obama administration had set the national ambient air quality standards for ozone at 70 parts per billion in 2015, down from the 75 ppb standards set during the Bush administration. Industry groups, particularly fossil fuel companies, argued that the standards were too stringent for some parts of the country to meet because a standard of 70 ppb approaches naturally occurring concentrations of ozone in places.
Public health and environmental groups were prepared to defend the 70 ppb standard, but they also argued that it was insufficient to protect the public and the environment.
The EPA sought to review the ozone standards after the White House directed the agency to examine regulations that burden in the energy industry. The EPA must file status reports with the D.C. Circuit every 90 days as it reviews the ozone rule.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109235579&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109235579&jd=109235579
-
D.C. Circuit Grants EPA Bid To Delay Oral Argument In Ozone NAAQS Suit
Apr 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By - Anthony Lacey and Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted EPA's request to indefinitely delay April 19 oral argument in litigation over the Obama-era decision to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) while the Trump administration weighs a potential reconsideration of the decision.
In a brief April 11 order, a panel of Judges Thomas Griffith, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins removed the oral argument from the court's calendar and placed the case in abeyance pending a further court order. The judges mandate that EPA file status reports on its review of the Obama EPA decision at 90-day intervals beginning 90 days from the April 11 order until it has reached a decision on whether to change the ozone rule.
Once EPA has decided whether it will reconsider the October 2015 decision to tighten the ozone standard, the court says it must within 30 days file motions with the court on how to proceed with the suit.
In a likely strike at EPA for only filing its motion to delay oral argument on April 7 -- just eight days before argument -- the court says it “disfavors motions to postpone oral argument and reminds respondent it is imperative that the court be notified promptly when a potential issue arises that affects the date of oral argument.”
The Obama EPA's rule tightened the 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, prompting litigation from environmentalists who argued the limit was too weak and from industry groups and some states who argued it was too stringent and that EPA lacked the scientific justification for the move.
The Trump EPA in its motion last week then said that it is weighing whether to reconsider the Obama EPA's decision as part of its broader review of regulations that have impacts on the energy sector, in line with President Donald Trump's recent executive order aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on the industry.
Environmentalists opposed a delay, saying the agency's “thin excuse” to postpone argument while it weighs potential reconsideration of the rule falls far short of the legal basis for a delay.
But the court's order sides with the agency, and an official with the 12-state Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) warns reconsideration of the rule could squander “momentum” on reducing ozone pollution.
The source in an April 11 interview with Inside EPA warns against any weakening of the ozone standards that would compromise curbing ozone in the 12 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states, where ozone levels have historically been higher than elsewhere. The OTC area also experiences significant amounts of ozone-forming pollution from other regions, making efforts to cut ozone nationally a priority for the group.
“We don't want to lose the momentum” of ozone reductions, the official says. “The reason we are on track” to attain the federal ozone standards “is because we didn't stop,” the source adds. The 2008 limit of 75 ppb and the 2015 limit of 70 ppb are not contradictory, “they are complementary of each other,” the official says.
Critics of the 2015 standard have argued that it imposes unnecessary burdens on states, requiring them to craft onerous implementation plans in tandem with their implementation efforts for the older standard.
A House bill, H.R. 806, aims to delay implementation of the new standard and give EPA leeway to consider “feasibility” in setting future limits -- but stops short of seeking to scrap it.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-grants-epa-bid-delay-oral-argument-ozone-naaqs-suit
-
Trump Faces Showdown With G-7 Over Climate Stance Next Month
Apr 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan and Marine Strauss
A rift between U.S. President Donald Trump and the rest of the Group of Seven over his hard-line climate change stance looks set to widen next month when leaders meet in Italy.
Energy ministers from Canada, France, Germany and others members of the G-7 took the unusual step of declining to issue a joint statement after a meeting in Rome April 10, saying the U.S. wasn't ready to endorse language upholding the Paris Agreement.
The move gives Trump's administration time to determine whether to follow through on his campaign pledge to abandon the landmark climate agreement, brokered in 2015 by more than 190 nations. It also indicates that other nations are unwilling to drop climate change from the G-7 agenda, setting up a potential showdown for when Trump attends his first summit with other world leaders in Taormina, Sicily, on May 26-27.
“The leaders’ summit is the deadline,” said Alden Meyer, who has followed international climate talks for two decades as director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If President Trump walks into that meeting saying he still doesn't have a position, I think that would be the end of the line for the other countries.”
The shift toward a potential confrontation comes as world leaders have been largely silent as Trump, who has called global warming a hoax, has issued sweeping orders to gut environmental regulations. The president plans to determine next month whether to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement.
Instead of publicly confronting Trump, Germany and others have tried to use international pressure at G-7 and G-20 meetings to convince his cabinet members to work with the rest of the world to fight climate change. G-7 nations hold significant leverage. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K. are among America's most important economic and military allies.
Statement Scrapped
As host of this year's G-7 meetings, Italy pushed to include language supporting the Paris accord in a joint statement drafted for this week's meeting of energy ministers. Past communiques have included similar language, but U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry objected, saying Trump had not made up his mind, according to a G-7 negotiator.
Rather than rewriting the statement to appease the U.S., the other nations scrapped it altogether. In its place, Italy issued a statement of its own. It singled out the U.S., saying America was ”reviewing many of its policies and reserves its position on this issue.” All other G-7 members, the statement showed, remain committed to the Paris accord.
“On Paris, it was impossible to sign a joint declaration because United States were not ready to take a clear position,” said Tiziana D'Angelo, a spokeswoman for Italy's minister of economic development.
G-7 Leverage
In his own statement issued after the meeting, Perry said it was important for nations to continue developing fossil fuel generation—including coal—as well as clean energy. He made no direct mention of the Paris accord.
“I discussed with my fellow Ministers that the Trump Administration believes that economic growth and the environment can successfully go hand-in-hand,” Perry said in the statement.
Walking away from the Paris accord could isolate the U.S. on multiple fronts, John Kirton, director of the University of Toronto's G-8 Research Group, said in an interview.
“Trump needs them to stand against Russia, China, ISIS—you name it,” Kirton said. “Time is on the side of the G-7.”
Adding and removing passages from communiques are part and parcel of international diplomacy. It would be unprecedented, however, if the U.S. ultimately refuses to sign onto a joint statement backed by all other members.
“That would be a pretty striking development,” Meyer said. “The Trump administration is aware that it would put them under a pretty intense spotlight, isolated from the rest of the G-7.”
—With assistance from Ari Natter.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109235553&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109235553&jd=109235553
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested