Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 6/2/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Expands in April, ACC Says
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Engineering Online
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that global chemicals production rose 0.1 percent in April after a revised flat performance in March... -
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Critical Issues Facing Contract Chemical Manufacturing
Jun 2, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
When Jack Drawdy, the vice president of sales and business at MFG Chemical, walked into his presentation at InformEx last month, the planned topic was about the state of innovation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Devon Energy Among Clients For Which Trump Aide Lobbied
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The White House granted an ethics waiver to an energy staffer to work on issues such as the EPA's methane regulations, despite recently having lobbied for companies such as Devon Energy Corp. in 2017 on the rules. -
EPA Seeks Comments on Extension of National Formaldehyde Standard Deadlines
Jun 2, 2017 | Home Accents Today
By Thomas Russell
Stakeholders in a new national formaldehyde emissions standard for composite wood products have until June 8 to comment on the extension of compliance standards recently announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Updated Chemical Production Data Said Useful for Companies
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA's production volume and other data for 8,556 chemicals are out, and an industry official says this will help companies as they prepare to meet requirements of the new chemicals law. -
EU Chemicals Agency Says Animals Used In 11% of REACH Data
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Methods to generate chemical safety data that don't require tests on animals are widely used by companies seeking to fulfill their obligations under the European Union's REACH regulation, the European Chemicals Agency said in a report published June 1. -
BoA Dismisses First Appeal by Downstream User
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) has dismissed an appeal against a substance evaluation decision on N,N- dicyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulphenamide (DCBS). -
EU Council Adopts Conclusions on Strategy for Future Industrial Policy
Jun 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Council has called on the Commission to create a policy that strengthens and modernises EU industry as part of its 2018 work programme. -
Despite Contaminated Wells Across Vermont, Toxics Bill Falls Short In Montpelier
Jun 2, 2017 | Vermont Public Radio
By Peter Hirschfeld
Public health advocates say the discovery of a toxic chemical in private drinking wells in southern Vermont last year exposes shortcomings in state regulatory oversight. But an effort to bolster consumer protections fell short in the Legislature this year. -
U.S. Department of Energy Authorizes Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Exports from an Offshore Project
Jun 1, 2017 | Energy.Gov
The U.S. Department of Energy announced today that it has approved a long-term application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the first offshore project, Delfin LNG, LLC (Delfin). -
Trump's Paris Adieu Is a Win for Coal and Oil but Not a Big One
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan and Naureen S. Malik
The biggest winners in President Donald Trump's decision to walk away from the Paris climate accord are oil, coal and natural gas producers. And even they aren't popping Champagne corks. -
Despite Trump, Cleaner Energy Growth Expected to Carry On
Jun 2, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Seth Borenstein
President Donald Trump may abandon U.S. pledges to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, but that step seems unlikely to stall the push to adopt cleaner forms of energy. -
Offshore Safety Director Dives Into Regulatory Reviews
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The new top regulator for offshore oil and gas safety and environmental protection is diving into reviews of Obama administration regulations to assess how justified they are. -
USGS Finds Too Little Methane in Water Wells From Natural Gas Drilling to Worry About
Jun 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
A new study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said natural gas drilling in the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville and Haynesville shales is not a significant source of methane or benzene found in drinking water wells located in areas of drilling operations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scientific Groups Disappointed in Trump's Move on Climate
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Leaders from the chemical and scientific enterprises expressed disappointment that President Donald J. Trump announced he will withdraw the U.S. from a landmark climate change deal. -
(ACC Mentioned) Inslee Joins Governors of New York, California to Form US Climate Alliance
Jun 2, 2017 | Normangee Star
By Madaleine Patrick
But even without the Trump administration’s involvement, “the great cities of the world.remain resolutely committed to doing what needs to be done to implement the Paris Agreement“, wrote Hidalgo, who chairs a network of major cities that have pledged to tackle climate change. -
These Titans of Industry Just Broke with Trump’s Decision to Exit the Paris Accords
Jun 1, 2017 | Washington Post
By Steve Mufson
Thirty states and scores of companies said Thursday that they would press ahead with their climate policies and pursue lower greenhouse gas emissions, breaking sharply with President Trump’s decision to exit the historic Paris climate accord. -
Our Disgraceful Exit From the Paris Accord
Jun 1, 2017 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
Only future generations will be able to calculate the full consequences of President Trump’s incredibly shortsighted approach to climate change, since it is they who will suffer the rising seas and crippling droughts that scientists say are inevitable... -
Trump Bids Paris Adieu
Jun 1, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
President Trump announced the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement on Thursday, to the horror of green elites world-wide. -
Opinion: American Isolationism From the League of Nations to Trump
Jun 2, 2017 | Roll Call
By Walter Shapiro
On November 19, 1919, the Senate failed to muster a two-thirds majority to ratify the Versailles Treaty ending World War I and establishing the League of Nations -
Lawyer Warns EPA Budget Cuts May Shrink Industry's Sway In Citizen Suits
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Political and budgetary attacks on EPA carry a major downside for regulated industries, an industry attorney says, because they could make individual companies more vulnerable to citizen suits without the moderating influence of government regulators... -
Deputy Offers Timeline for Buyouts
Jun 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA is starting to lay out its timeline for shrinking the agency workforce.
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) Global Chemical Production Expands in April, ACC Says
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Engineering Online
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that global chemicals production rose 0.1 percent in April after a revised flat performance in March, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. During April, chemical production increased in North America, Western Europe and Africa & the Middle East but decreased in Latin America and Central & Eastern Europe. Activity was flat in the Asia-Pacific region. The Global CPRI was up 1.8 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis and stood at 109.6 percent of its average 2012 levels in April.
During April, capacity utilization in the global business of chemistry slipped 0.1 percentage points to 79.9 percent. This is off from 80.7 percent last April and is below the long-term (1987-2016) average of 88.8 percent.
Results were mixed on a product basis during April, with gains in pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, inorganic chemicals, synthetic rubber, manufactured rubber, coatings, and other specialty chemicals. Considering year-over-year comparisons, growth was strongest in plastic resins followed by coatings and inorganic chemicals.
ACC’s Global CPRI measures the production volume of the business of chemistry for 33 key nations, sub-regions, and regions, all aggregated to the world total. The index is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) production indices and features a similar base year where 2012=100. This index is developed from government industrial production indices for chemicals from over 65 nations accounting for about 98 percent of the total global business of chemistry. This data are the only timely source of market trends for the global chemical industry and are comparable to the US CPRI data, a timely source of U.S. regional chemical production.
http://www.chemengonline.com/global-chemical-production-expands-in-april-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Critical Issues Facing Contract Chemical Manufacturing
Jun 2, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
When Jack Drawdy, the vice president of sales and business at MFG Chemical, walked into his presentation at InformEx last month, the planned topic was about the state of innovation. But after he sat with peers from the industry, the discussion turned to the major issues facing contract manufacturers.
Here are the three stubbon problems and possible solutions Drawdy and the group identified:Hiring Woes
The jobs are there. The pay is good. The industry is growing.
“But it’s hard to find good people,” Drawdy said.
According to Drawdy, one deterrent is that the jobs can be repetitive and require workers to closely keep up with processes. And while many of these processes are being automated, that option doesn’t always exist for contract manufacturers, who work with multiple chemistries and don’t necessarily make the same products every day.
Making matters worse, Drawdy noted that it’s also difficult to find workers who can pass a drug test.
The Solution: Drawdy suggested collaborating with the local education system to promote jobs in the industry.
“Work with a local college to develop operator programs for technicians,” Drawdy said.Transportation Hassles
The shortage of qualified truck drivers on the road has been hitting many manufacturing sectors hard. Earlier this year, PwC partnered with the American Chemistry Council to study the problem and found that70 percent of the chemical companies they surveyed were worried about delays in shipping caused by the trucking industry.
Trucks move about 54 percent of the industry’s goods and chemical shipments are likely to increase as major producers continue to build new plants and expand output.
The Solution: There’s no easy fix to this issue, apart from adding more truckers to the road. In the face of expected delays, PwC and ACC recommended that manufacturers actively prepare their supply chain, and know their risk exposure so they have options to overcome bottlenecks.Regulatory Uncertainty
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that calls for two regulations to be nixed from the record every time a new regulation is enacted. But how will this order be implemented? Which agencies will be impacted? As those questions remain unanswered, Drawdy says he’s planning for the current regulatory environment to stay about the same, or for regulations to even increase.
“Best case scenario is that it stabilizes,” he said. “But we are planning for it to continue.”
Customers also want to know more about how your company operates — especially when it comes to safety and sustainability.
The Solution: Drawdy says his company is looking at using different third party audits.
“You have to know what you’re good at and what you’re not good at. We’re good at speed to market and logistics. But we’re not good at audits,” he admitted.
Investing in third party audits gives your company an opportunity to rethink and then possibly improve processes. They will also give your customers more confidence in your operations and safety practices.
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/06/3-critical-issues-facing-contract-chemical-manufacturing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Devon Energy Among Clients For Which Trump Aide Lobbied
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The White House granted an ethics waiver to an energy staffer to work on issues such as the EPA's methane regulations, despite recently having lobbied for companies such as Devon Energy Corp. in 2017 on the rules.
A former Republican special counsel told Bloomberg BNA that the ethics waiver for Michael Catanzaro—special assistant to the president on energy issues, who previously lobbied as part of the CGCN Group LLC—is unique and concerning. It was rare for the past two administrations to allow individuals who had lobbied on an issue to come directly into the government and play a role in decision making, said Richard Painter, who served as an ethics lawyer for then-President George W. Bush (R).
Additionally, language in the Trump administration's ethics executive order could indicate more of these kinds of waivers are to come, Painter told Bloomberg BNA.
“When you lobby on an issue, you're paid to run all over Washington saying, ‘This is what the rule ought to be,’” Painter said. “Now, how do you with a straight face go into meetings, sometimes with the same people that you've been lobbying, and say, ‘This is what I think the rule ought to be’? It's just to not going to happen.”
Administration, Ethics Office at Odds
Catanzaro's waiver was released by the White House late May 31 along with more than a dozen other waivers for staff. The release of the waivers comes as the Trump administration has been at odds with the Office of Government Ethics over the need to release these and other disclosures.
A White House spokesman said in an email the move is part of the president's commitment to being transparent.
“The White House Counsel's Office worked closely with all White House officials to avoid conflicts arising from their former places of employment or investment holdings,” the spokesman told Bloomberg BNA. “To the furthest extent possible, counsel worked with each staffer to recuse from conflicting conduct rather than being granted waivers, which has led to the limited number of waivers being issued.”
The Office of Government Ethics declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA on whether this kind of waiver approval is normal. Catanzaro also lobbied during his time at CGCN for Bloomberg LP, an affiliate of Bloomberg BNA.
Waiver Allowances
Under the waiver, Catanzaro can lobby on energy and environmental policy issues, despite the fact that he was a registered lobbyist working in this issue area or on these issues within two years of his appointment as special assistant to the president.
The waiver specifically lists the “Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States rule, methane regulations covering oil, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program under the Clean Air Act and the gas sector and the Renewable Fuel Standard” as issues on which Catanzaro can work, but the waiver doesn't limit him to working on those issues.
“The Administration has an interest in you working on covered matters due to your experience and expertise on these issues,” the waiver says. “It is important that you participate in covered matters, and disqualification from such matters would limit the ability of the White House Office to effectively carry out its duties.”
Prior to joining the administration, Catanzaro also lobbied for energy companies affected by actions taken in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, including for Keystone XL pipeline owner TransCanada Pipeline Ltd., Senate filings show. Trump signed in January an executive order to advance the pipeline project, which Catanzaro disclosed lobbying on in the first three months of 2017.
Catanzaro has also disclosed lobbying for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Resolution Copper, the American Chemistry Council and Hess Corp., among other major clients.
Is This Normal?
This kind of situation under the last two administrations was rare, even though Bush didn't have an executive order laying out transparency requirements, Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said.
Painter said he tried to restrict the one instance that he saw under Bush. That's because, he said, it is difficult to put your reputation behind a client's argument and then credibly change your viewpoint right away if you disagree with who was paying you, Painter said. The person was a lobbyist who had worked for the derivatives securities industry and was moving into a role at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Additionally, the language in Trump's executive order doesn't place any restrictions on when the White House can grant this kind of waiver. The Obama administration's executive order said waivers could be awarded in limited instances, such as “exigent circumstances” related to the economy or national security.
The White House didn't respond directly to Bloomberg BNA's question as to whether it plans to make issuing these waivers the norm or whether they saw any conflict in these hiring practices. But Painter said this difference is concerning because it means the Trump administration can grant waivers “whenever they want.”
Asked what the Trump language portends, Painter said, “It signals that they're planning to issue a lot of waivers.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113184218&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113184218&jd=113184218
-
EPA Seeks Comments on Extension of National Formaldehyde Standard Deadlines
Jun 2, 2017 | Home Accents Today
By Thomas Russell
Stakeholders in a new national formaldehyde emissions standard for composite wood products have until June 8 to comment on the extension of compliance standards recently announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The new national standard, which was first announced in the Federal Register this past December, falls under what’s called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Formaldehyde poses health concerns as it is known to cause nose, eye and upper respiratory irritation, the latter of which is particularly an issue for people with asthma. It also has been linked to some cancers according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is mostly odorless below one part per million but can be detected at lower concentrations.
The changes proposed by the EPA include the extension of an original Dec. 12, 2017, date for emission standards, record keeping and labeling provisions until March 22, 2018. At this point, hardwood plywood made with a combination core or a veneer core, particleboard and MDF (medium density fiberboard) must be manufactured and imported in compliance with the rule, which establishes a formaldehyde emission standard of .05 parts per million (ppm) for hardwood plywood made with a veneer core or composite core, .09 ppm for particleboard, .11 ppm for MDF and .13 ppm for thin MDF.
These standards are identical to the Phase 2 requirements set forth by the California Air Resources Board, which regulated products sold in the state of California. The new standard regulates products sold around the country.
This final rule establishes the manufactured-by date for laminated products at Dec. 12, 2023. Before that date, laminated product producers must use compliant composite wood product platforms and comply with the record keeping and labeling requirements for fabricators. After that date, laminated products that are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood must also keep, as a condition of the exemption, records demonstrating eligibility for the exemption. Other laminated products will have to be made in compliance with the testing and TPC certification requirements for hardwood plywood.
The EPA also has proposed extending the original Dec. 12, 2018, date for import certification provisions until March 22, 2019. These provisions require importers to certify all chemical substances in a shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that the importer is not shipping a product that is in violation of the standard. The EPA said such certification statements provided in paper have commonly been included on or attached to bills of lading, commercial invoices or comparable documents. Importers or their agents can also submit these documents electronically.
The EPA also is extending the original Dec. 12, 2023, date for provisions applicable to laminated products producers until March 22, 2024. The EPA said under the final rule, the definition of hardwood plywood exempts “laminated products made by attaching a wood or woody grass veneer to a compliant core or platform with a phenol-formaldehyde resin or a resin formulated with no added formaldehyde as part of the resin cross-linking structure."
To qualify for the exemption, a fabricator much switch to a phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin or a no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resin for use in attaching the veneer to compliant HWPW, according to the American Home Furnishings Alliance. Laminated products made with with a synthetic veneer such as foil or paper also are exempt, the AHFA said.
To be eligible for the exemption, laminated product producers must maintain records demonstrating eligibility for the exemption, according to the EPA.
Finally, the EPA has extended an original transitional period for CARB-recognized Third Party Certifiers that was originally set to end Dec. 12, 2018. This has been extended to March 22, 2019, to allow more time for companies to establish business relationships with the TPCs, which must also be approved and recognized by the EPA before being able to certify wood products under the standard.
As with CARB, the standard applies to manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers of furniture and related products. The EPA said that it doesn’t expect any major concerns or adverse comments regarding the deadline extensions. However, if it does by the June 8 deadline, the agency said that it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will not take effect as planned on July 10.
For a link to the full regulation, visit https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0461-0001.
To comment by the June 8 deadline, visit https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/get-involved-epa-regulations.
http://www.homeaccentstoday.com/article/543568-epa-seeks-comments-formaldehyde-deadline-extensions
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Updated Chemical Production Data Said Useful for Companies
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA's production volume and other data for 8,556 chemicals are out, and an industry official says this will help companies as they prepare to meet requirements of the new chemicals law.
The EPA released an updated database May 31 containing production and importation volumes for chemicals made or imported by 2,482 manufacturers for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. It also has data on processing and use and some other information that chemical companies provided for 2015. Companies, such as Dow Chemical and Dupont, had to provide that information to the agency by Oct. 31, 2016, to comply with the Chemical Data Reporting, or CDR, rule.
The EPA has long used worker and other exposure-related information collected through this rule to help it assess potential health or environmental effects of chemicals in commerce.
This year, the agency also has planned to use the CDR information it collected in 2016 and 2012 to update its inventory of chemicals in commerce. The agency is required by the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 to update the TSCA inventory. A final regulation, called the “inventory reset” or “inventory update” rule, describing how companies and the agency will do that, is to be published later this month.
Karyn Schmidt, senior director for chemical regulation, regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA the agency's release of the Chemical Data Reporting information will help companies as they prepare for that rule and other requirements in the 2016 TSCA amendments.
Under the EPA's proposed inventory update rule, companies would not have to renotify the agency that they have made or imported a chemical if they reported doing so under the 2012 or 2016 CDR rule.
Those chemicals are presumed to be active in commerce, and they will be placed on an active list the TSCA amendments required the agency to establish so the EPA could know what's being made and sold in the U.S. The current TSCA inventory lists more than 80,000 chemicals that are or have been in commerce.
Making the CDR information public will help companies as they prepare to let the agency know if a chemical they've made, imported or processed over the last 10 years is already on the active list. If not, these companies can notify the agency that they have been in commerce.
The CDR information also allows the agency to set up an interim list of chemicals it can use to begin sort through to decide which are high or low priorities for risk assessment, Schmidt said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113184223&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113184223&jd=113184223
-
EU Chemicals Agency Says Animals Used In 11% of REACH Data
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Methods to generate chemical safety data that don't require tests on animals are widely used by companies seeking to fulfill their obligations under the European Union's REACH regulation, the European Chemicals Agency said in a report published June 1.
However, new animal tests were used to generate 11 percent of the toxicological data contained in nearly 7,000 REACH registration dossiers that the agency analyzed for the report, despite a requirement in REACH that animal testing should only be done as a last resort. Companies that operate in Europe such as 3M, Albemarle and BASF must obtain approval from the chemicals agency for new animal tests under REACH.
Other chemical safety data came either from pre-REACH studies involving animals, or from non-animal methods, with 89 percent of registration dossiers containing at least some information from alternative approaches, the chemicals agency said.
The report also said that in many cases, chemical safety data generated from non-animal approaches had “quality deficiencies.” Companies should be more rigorous when using read-across, or the prediction of the properties of substances from data on similar substances, the agency said.
Geert Dancet, executive director of the European Chemicals Agency, said companies planning to register chemicals by the final REACH deadline of May 31, 2018 should avoid animal tests, but “registrants need to improve the quality of the alternative data.”
Under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), companies must submit dossiers containing information on the properties and safe use of chemicals to the European Chemicals Agency as a condition of access to the EU market. Deadlines for registration of high- and medium-volume substances passed in 2010 and 2013. The 2018 deadline applies to low-volume and specialist chemicals.
Read-Across
Quality problems with read-across approaches included lack of clarity on substance identity, the low quality of studies used as the source of read-across data, and “shortcomings in the toxicological hypothesis,” the report said. Companies could consider cross-checking read-across results with other non-animal approaches, the report suggested
Read-across methods have been used to provide data related to human health, such as on the reprotoxic effects of chemicals, the agency said.
Erwin Annys, product stewardship manager with the European Chemical Industry Council, told Bloomberg BNA June 1 that the use of read-across had been held back because when companies were submitting REACH dossiers for high- and medium-volume substances, “the framework for assessing read-across had yet to be developed” by the chemicals agency.
“The European chemicals industry supports all alternatives to animal testing,” but “some of these alternatives will materialize later than hoped for,” Annys said. The chemicals agency has had an assessment framework companies can use to check their use of read-across approaches since 2015.
The campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said despite the REACH requirement to minimize animal tests, about 1 million animals had been used in tests to generate data for REACH compliance purposes.
The results of animal tests are “often misleading” because of the physiological differences between animals and humans, PETA said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113184231&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113184231&jd=113184231
-
BoA Dismisses First Appeal by Downstream User
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) has dismissed an appeal against a substance evaluation decision on N,N- dicyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulphenamide (DCBS).
The appeal, filed by French tyre producer Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, was the first by a downstream user of a substance. The appellant uses DCBS, which is an accelerator of vulcanisation for certain types of rubber compounds, in the manufacture of internal components of tyres.
Following an evaluation of the substance by the German member state competent authority, Echa requested that the registrants of the substance submit an updated chemical safety report (CSR) containing further information on environmental exposure.
The appellant said the decision should be annulled on the grounds that Echa failed to ensure that the requested information for the use of the substance in tyres was obtained from the relevant downstream users. It also argued that the agency should have conducted a compliance check prior to the substance evaluation to request the information required.
However, the BoA has dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant does not have the "legal standing" to challenge Echa's decision as it is not an addressee of the information request, and has not prepared a CSR, or provided the agency with a downstream user report.
Therefore, it says, there was no obligation to involve the appellant in the substance evaluation process or the decision-making procedure.
The Board of Appeal also found that it is not the responsibility of the agency, or an evaluating member state competent authority, to seek out and identify downstream users that may be interested in a substance evaluation decision. "The provisions of the REACH Regulation envisage communication in supply chains on the risks of substances and place this responsibility both on registrants and downstream users," it said.
Direct concern
The appellant also claimed that it is "directly concerned" by Echa's Decision because, given the need to generate new information, it may result in various statutory or contractual obligations as well as economic consequences such as a price increase.
However, the BoA found that this is not sufficient to render the appellant directly concerned as the contested Decision does not sufficiently affect its "legal situation". "They constitute economic consequences and consequently affect the appellant's factual situation," it states.
In a statement to Chemical Watch, legal representatives for the appellant, Jean-Philippe Montfort and Thomas Delille of law firm Mayer Brown, say: "We regret that the Board of Appeal chose to take a restrictive approach on the right of downstream users to participate in and to appeal substance evaluation decisions affecting them. However, we observe that the Board does not close the door for an appeal by downstream users in certain conditions."
But they say that the adoption of such a restrictive approach has been because of the practical difficulty for authorities to identify all affected downstream users. "We feel there is still room for an interpretation of the REACH text that would be more inclusive towards downstream users," they add.
The lawyers - who state that their comments are not on behalf of the appellant - also say that the BoA's ruling, that Echa's Decision was not of direct concern to the appellant, "favoured a strict legal interpretation, against the weight of evidence".
"This decision should not discourage downstream users from making sure their views are heard with respect to substances listed on Corap.
"The merit of this case was to raise the interest of downstream users to access the process. Despite the negative ruling in this case, there remains options for downstream users to be identified as those concerned by authorities and therefore to be recognised as direct actors of the substance evaluation process."
https://chemicalwatch.com/56579/boa-dismisses-first-appeal-by-downstream-user
-
EU Council Adopts Conclusions on Strategy for Future Industrial Policy
Jun 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Council has called on the Commission to create a policy that strengthens and modernises EU industry as part of its 2018 work programme.
And it urges the Commission to provide a holistic EU industrial policy strategy in time for the spring 2018 European Council meeting. This, it says, should present medium- to long-term strategic objectives for industry.
A holistic industrial policy approach should embrace better regulation, the Council says. Streamlining legislation would help avoid unnecessary barriers to stimulating a more growth-friendly regulatory environment for industry.
The policy should be accompanied by an action plan, including concrete measures, developed with member states and relevant stakeholders.
Council conclusions
The Council has recently adopted several conclusions on a future strategy. These include that:
· industry is a major driver for growth, employment and innovation in Europe and must deal with major transformations in the EU economy, including sustainability, servitisation and digitisation;
· industry and related services operate in a highly dynamic global environment and it is essential to enhance the attractiveness of Europe's industrial 'ecosystems' for stimulating investment;
· regular dialogue with all relevant stakeholders is important;
· financial instruments must be simplified; and
· a coordinated and strategic industrial policy framework at EU level should ensure consistency between policies at EU, national and regional level.
And the European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, says the following steps – among others – need to be developed in order to achieve a holistic industry strategy:
· strict enforcement of REACH at the EU border regarding imported articles;
· greater support for applied research and development; and
· support for energy-intensive industry to ease the transition to a low carbon Europe.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56586/eu-council-adopts-conclusions-on-strategy-for-future-industrial-policy
-
Despite Contaminated Wells Across Vermont, Toxics Bill Falls Short In Montpelier
Jun 2, 2017 | Vermont Public Radio
By Peter Hirschfeld
Public health advocates say the discovery of a toxic chemical in private drinking wells in southern Vermont last year exposes shortcomings in state regulatory oversight. But an effort to bolster consumer protections fell short in the Legislature this year.
Back on May 10, shortly before the Legislature was scheduled to adjourn, lawmakers encountered an odd spectacle as they made their way into the Statehouse.
The 15-foot tall baby bottle was held aloft thanks to a fan powered by a whirring generator. Advocates said the massive prop signifies the population most at risk from toxic contaminants in water, food and manufactured goods.
“Imagine that your phone rings, and you learn that the water coming out of the tap in your home, the water you’ve drank, given to your children, bathed in cooked with and brushed your teeth with, contains a known toxic chemical,” Lauren Hierl, political director for Vermont Conservation Voters, said at a press conference that day.
Hierl says that’s precisely what happened to hundreds of Vermonters last year after dangerous levels of a chemical called PFOA were found in private drinking wells.
“We can’t afford to wait another year to protect our children and all Vermonters, and that’s why we’re here today to urge the Vermont Senate to pass legislation this year that takes several important steps to protect Vermont families from toxic chemicals,” Hierl said.
The press event was a last ditch effort by Hierl and other advocates to compel passage of legislation that would, among others things, require testing for certain chemicals in new drinking wells.
The effort was not successful.
“I know it’s disappointing to people at this point to slow down, but we’re talking about important law with long-term consequences,” says Addison County Sen. Chris Bray, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
It isn’t the well-testing provisions that concern Bray. Rather, it’s language added by House lawmakers, he says, that gave legislators in the Senate pause.
The House additions to the bill would have given the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Health unilateral authority to ban or restrict the use of toxics in products made for kids.
Bray says it might well be a worthy policy reform. But he says the House proposal arrived on Senate lawmakers’ desks literally days before the session’s end.
“We owe it to everyone to slow down and take proper testimony before we’re going to pass a major bill with health and welfare implications, with legal implications,” Bray says.
Among the people sounding the alarm over those implications is Bill Driscoll, the vice-president of Associated Industries of Vermont.
A 2014 law created new oversight framework for children’s products. Decisions about whether to ban or restrict certain chemicals used in manufactured goods used to fall to the Legislature. The 2014 law handed that authority to a working group.
Driscoll says his organization was concerned enough about that change.
“To give the commissioner that kind of discretion to start regulating products without any legislative involvement, and without any other broader stakeholder involvement, would be giving way too much discretionary authority to that department,” Driscoll says.
Westminster Rep. David Deen is the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, the committee that wants to give those new powers to the health commissioner. Deen says the working group that was supposed to weigh in on toxics regulations hasn’t met since it was created two and a half years ago. And he says there will be plenty of checks on the power of any health commissioner that seeks to institute a chemical ban.
“I think that’s being overlooked or maybe misrepresented in some way, that all of a sudden we have this rogue commissioner. Well, a governor’s not going to put up with a rogue commissioner, whoever it is,” Deen says.
Deen and Bray say they’re confident the House and Senate will reach agreement on a bill in 2018. Advocates like Hierl say the Legislature’s failure to pass a law this year means more Vermonters may be exposed to toxics in the meantime.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/despite-contaminated-wells-across-vermont-toxics-bill-falls-short-montpelier#stream/0
-
Jun 1, 2017 | Energy.Gov
The U.S. Department of Energy announced today that it has approved a long-term application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the first offshore project, Delfin LNG, LLC (Delfin). Exports in the amount of 1.8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas are approved from Delfin’s proposed offshore Louisiana floating LNG terminal in the Gulf of Mexico.
Development of the Delfin project offshore of Cameron Parish, Louisiana will include the construction of floating liquefaction and storage vessels. Due to its offshore location, the environmental review of Delfin was led by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the U.S. Coast Guard.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry stated, “I am pleased that with this authorization the Administration can continue to strengthen the United States as a dominant energy force with further exports of our abundant amounts of natural gas. Investing in American natural gas not only helps our economy and our jobs, but also helps our allies maintain their energy security. This represents a true win-win for everyone involved.”
With the rapid increase in domestic natural gas production, the United States is transitioning to become a net exporter of natural gas. The Department of Energy has now authorized a total of 21 Bcf/d of natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries from planned facilities in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and now, with Delfin, from the Gulf of Mexico. The Delfin project would further position the United States to become the predominant LNG supplier to the rest of the world.
America’s shale reserves have generated economic growth and jobs across the United States. Utilizing this clean energy source has also enabled the United States to achieve the largest drop in carbon emissions of all countries in 2016. DOE is eager to bring this clean burning resource and its benefits to all of our international trading partners. Secretary Perry will take this message to Japan, and then to China for the Clean Energy and Mission Innovation ministerials, where he plans to strengthen the U.S.-China LNG export partnership and continue working together towards a clean and affordable energy future.
This increase in U.S. natural gas production is expected to continue, with the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Short Term Energy Outlook projecting an average dry natural gas production rate of 74.1 Bcf/d in 2017, the second highest on record.
Federal law requires approval of natural gas exports to countries that have an FTA with the United States. For countries that do not have an FTA with the United States, the Natural Gas Act directs the Energy Department to grant export authorizations unless the Department finds that the proposed exports “will not be consistent with the public interest.”
The Energy Department conducted an extensive review of the Delfin LNG, LLC application. Among other factors, the Department considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts, including macroeconomic studies that showed positive benefits to the U.S. economy in scenarios with LNG exports up to 28 Bcf/d. The Department determined that exports from the Delfin LNG terminal, jointly owned by the India and Singapore-based Fairwood Group and the U.S.-based Peninsula group, for a period of 20 years, was not inconsistent with the public interest.
The full final authorization for Delfin LNG, LLC, can be found under “Recent Orders” HERE.
https://energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-authorizes-additional-liquefied-natural-gas-exports-offshore-project
-
Trump's Paris Adieu Is a Win for Coal and Oil but Not a Big One
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan and Naureen S. Malik
The biggest winners in President Donald Trump's decision to walk away from the Paris climate accord are oil, coal and natural gas producers. And even they aren't popping Champagne corks.
The president, who has called climate change a hoax, cast aside any lingering doubts about his commitment to fossil fuels June 1 when he announced the U.S. would quit the global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In theory, that bodes well for miners, oil drillers and gas companies. Yet coal stocks slipped this week after news first leaked out of Trump's decision. And two of the biggest oil producers, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, reiterated support for the accord. That's because market forces and individual government policies play a far larger role in driving energy demand than the Paris accord. So while quitting may be a boon for fossil fuels, it's not necessarily moving markets.
“It's symbolically important,” Anthony Yuen, an analyst at Citigroup Inc., said in an interview. “Numerically, it may not be as much.”
On the flip side, renewable energy companies are the biggest losers in Trump's decision. The Paris accord is designed to accelerate a transition away from fuels that emit greenhouse causing gases and toward wind, solar and electric vehicles. And indeed, shares of solar companies fell after early reports of Trump's decision, including JinkoSolar Holding Co., the world's biggest supplier, and Canadian Solar Inc., the biggest North American panel maker.
Short-Lived
Analysts, however, predict those losses will be short-lived.
“The impact is going to be irrelevant,” Richard Chatterton, a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst, said in an interview. “In terms of renewables, there isn't going to be a change in the trend.”
The reason boils down to state policies, economics and corporate demand. Even as Washington rolls back efforts to promote renewables, California, New York and other states are forging ahead. And after years of being supported by subsidies, wind and solar prices have plunged so much they can compete with fossil fuels in many areas.
That's prompting corporations including Amazon.com Inc., Facebook Inc., Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV and scores of others to buy renewable power. It's also leading Consolidated Edison Inc., the Tennessee Valley Authority and other energy giants to forsake coal -burning power plants in favor of wind, solar and cleaner-burning natural gas.
“Our businesses will continue to deliver clean energy solutions that make sense for our customers—with or without the Paris agreement,” Jessi Strawn, a spokeswoman for the energy unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in an email May 31.
Divergent Views
Some analysts see an unequivocal win for fossil fuels. Stephen Schork, president of Schork Group Inc., said investors were discouraged from wagering on hydrocarbons during President Barack Obama's eight years in office. Now Trump is sending a clear message: place your bets.
“The political winds have done a complete 180,” Schork said in an interview. “Pulling out of this accord will only further the oil and gas markets’ animal spirits.”
“The winners are merchant generators with coal-burning plants,” Kit Konolige, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst based in New York, said in an email June 1. “Coal plants now have more flexibility to run longer. Big regulated utility owners like Southern, Duke and Xcel Energy probably won't see much effect because it doesn't matter to their earnings whether coal plants run.”
On the other hand, Exxon and ConocoPhillips said the U.S. would be better off retaining a seat at the table, saying that staying in Paris would allow them to influence international efforts to reduce emissions from the oil they sell. Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods went further, saying at the company's annual meeting May 31 that oil demand will grow, with or without the accord.
“Energy needs are a function of population and living standards,” Woods said. “When it comes to policy, the goal should be to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to society.”
‘A Great Pity’
Coal producers were among the few companies that pushed for Trump to walk away from Paris, most notably Robert E. Murray, founder and CEO of coal miner Murray Energy Corp. Yet the industry isn't united in the effort. Cloud Peak Energy Inc. CEO Colin Marshall said sticking with the accord would give the U.S. “influence” to ensure the future of fossil fuels.
Trump argued that staying in the accord would handicap American businesses, making it difficult for them to compete with overseas rivals. Impax Asset Management Group CEO Ian Simm said the U.S. may wind up losing its competitive edge by dropping out.
The U.S. is a global leader in energy efficient technology. Trump's rejection of that effort may cause companies to think twice about some of their investments, opening the door for other nations to step in, Simm said in an interview.
“You may well see that the leadership is taken by China and other Asian companies rather than the U.S.,” said Simm, whose company focuses on sustainability and has about $7.8 billion under management. “It would be a great pity for many of the U.S. leaders in that industry.”
—With assistance from Jim Polson, Brian Eckhouse and Tim Loh.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113184215&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113184215&jd=113184215
-
Despite Trump, Cleaner Energy Growth Expected to Carry On
Jun 2, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Seth Borenstein
President Donald Trump may abandon U.S. pledges to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, but that step seems unlikely to stall the push to adopt cleaner forms of energy.
Around the world, coal-fired power plants are being shuttered as governments and private companies invest billions in wind turbines and solar farms.
Even in regions of the U.S. where coal is plentiful, electric utilities are increasingly shifting to cheaper, cleaner-burning natural gas. In the absence of federal action to address climate change, some left-leaning states such as California and New York are moving ahead with ambitious clean-energy policies of their own.
Trump said on Twitter late Wednesday he will announce his decision on whether to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord during a Rose Garden event Thursday afternoon. The Paris accord was negotiated by President Barack Obama in 2015. A White House official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Trump is expected to withdraw from the deal, though aides cautioned he had not yet made a final decision.Continue reading the main story
Reports of the impending move by the American president triggered statements of support for the climate accord from scores of world leaders. At a meeting of the G7 in Sicily last week, only Trump refused to reaffirm their nations' continuing support for the Paris deal, which was signed by nearly 200 countries.
"A U.S. withdrawal from Paris will be a disappointment to the climate community, but it may also embolden other countries to fill the void left by the U.S. and take on a greater leadership role," said Glen Peters, a Norwegian scientist who tracks global carbon emissions. "The declines in U.S. emissions in the last decade have largely happened without strong climate policies, and a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement may have minimal effect on U.S. emissions but give a hit to international morale."
Trump, a Republican who has claimed global warming is a hoax, has moved quickly since taking office to delay or block restrictions on burning of fossil fuels enacted by his predecessor that he claims are holding back economic growth. The president has pledged to reverse decades of decline in coal mining, which now accounts for fewer than 75,000 U.S. jobs.
Almost every other industrialized economy in the world is moving in the opposite direction.
On April 30, Germany established a new national record for renewable energy use with 85 percent of all electricity produced in the county coming from renewable sources. That same month, Scotland was able to produce an electricity surplus from its wind turbines, producing 136 percent of the energy needed for its 3.3 million households.
The Chinese government canceled construction of more than 100 new coal-fired power plants earlier this year, announcing plans to invest at least $360 billion in green-energy projects by 2020. It is a building boom expected to create an estimated 13 million jobs.
Though it remains the largest global carbon emitter, China also leads the world in total installed solar and wind capacity. China generates about 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, compared to about 13 percent in the U.S.
"President Trump is ceding the future to the Germans, the Chinese, the Indians, and other nations rather than having the United States continue to lead the world on clean energy solutions," said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. "By creating the clean energy technologies here at home and then deploying them around the world, we can have job creation that is good for all creation."
Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, accounting for more than three-quarters of carbon emissions from U.S. power plants despite generating less than 40 percent of the nation's electricity. Several of the country's largest coal companies have sought bankruptcy protection in the last year, largely due to competition from natural gas made cheaper and more abundant by hydraulic fracturing.
As American utilities have turned away from coal, the nation has seen a corresponding decline in carbon emissions. Still, the United States remains the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Scientists warn that any delay in weaning the country off fossil fuels could exacerbate the negative effects of climate change for the rest of the globe.
Carbon dioxide stays in the air for 100 years and about one-fifth of what's accumulated in the atmosphere over the last century came from the United States, more than any other country.
"The U.S. pulling out of Paris will not stop the fight against global warming, since almost all other countries are committed to it," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a German climate researcher. "But it could delay it and any delay could be detrimental, as stopping global warming before critical tipping points are crossed is a race against the clock."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/01/us/politics/ap-us-trump-climate-market-forces.html
-
Offshore Safety Director Dives Into Regulatory Reviews
Jun 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The new top regulator for offshore oil and gas safety and environmental protection is diving into reviews of Obama administration regulations to assess how justified they are.
“The goal is to review the rules to make sure they are not causing an undue burden,” Scott Angelle, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), told reporters June 1.
“We have been asked to review them, and we will review them,” Angelle said. “Folks actually started that process before I got here.”
Angelle knows the consequences of an offshore safety failure. He was secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources in 2010 when BP Plc's Macondo well blew out beneath the Deepwater Horizon floating rig. He served as the point man for the state's response to the disaster, which killed 11 men and spilled an estimated 3.19 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
After eight years heading the resources agency, he served four years on the state's Public Service Commission. He took office as BSEE director May 23.
Support for Seismic Surveys
Angelle said he wants a balance of safety, environmental protection, energy production and economic benefits.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act calls for development of offshore natural resources in an environmentally sustainable way, he said.
He said he supported allowing seismic surveys to go ahead.
“We owe it to the people to understand what resources are there,” he said.
Angelle's only specific criticism of the Obama administration was over the drilling moratorium initiated after the Deepwater Horizon accident. It was unjustified to shut down an industry for many months because of the accident, he said.
Angelle will be traveling to Gulf Coast states in the week of June 5 for a series of listening sessions with environmental groups, chambers of commerce and others to hear their ideas on offshore energy issues. He will travel to Alaska soon after that.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113184220&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113184220&jd=113184220
-
USGS Finds Too Little Methane in Water Wells From Natural Gas Drilling to Worry About
Jun 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
A new study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said natural gas drilling in the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville and Haynesville shales is not a significant source of methane or benzene found in drinking water wells located in areas of drilling operations.
However, USGS said it could take decades before the effects of unconventional oil and natural gas production on groundwater in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas is fully known. An article detailing the study, “Methane and Benzene in Drinking-water Wells Overlying the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shale Hydrocarbon Production Areas,” is published online in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The study is the first of these areas “to systematically determine the presence of benzene and methane in drinking water wells near unconventional oil and gas production areas in relation to the age of the groundwater,” USGS said.
“Understanding the occurrence of methane and benzene in groundwater in the context of groundwater age is useful because it allows us to assess whether the hydrocarbons were from surface or subsurface sources,” said USGS hydrologist Peter McMahon, study lead. “The ages indicate groundwater moves relatively slowly in these aquifers. Decades or longer may be needed to fully assess the effects of unconventional oil and gas production activities on the quality of groundwater used for drinking water.”
USGS said it examined 116 domestic and public-supply water wells in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas that were as close as 360 feet to unconventional oil and gas wells. Methane was detected in 91% of the wells and, of those, 90% had methane concentrations lower than the threshold of 10 milligrams per liter. The Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement proposed this threshold to minimize explosion risks.
Most of the methane detected in groundwater was from naturally occurring microbial sources at shallow depths rather than from deep shale gas, USGS said.
Although benzene was detected in 8% of the wells sampled, concentrations were low -- the highest concentration was nearly 40 times lower than the federal standard for benzene in drinking water (5 micrograms per liter). Benzene was detected about 1.5-8 times more frequently in the study area groundwater than in national data sets of benzene in groundwater, USGS said.
“Groundwater in the Louisiana and Texas study areas typically entered the aquifers several thousand years ago. Nearly all the benzene detected in those areas occurred in old groundwater, indicating it was from subsurface sources such as natural hydrocarbon migration or leaking oil and gas wells,” USGS said.
“In Arkansas, groundwater was much younger -- typically less than 40 years old. Benzene was detected in one sample of young groundwater in Arkansas that could be associated with a surface release associated with unconventional oil and gas production activities.”
Earlier this year the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania reversed a federal jury's March 2016 decision that required Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. to pay damages to two families in rural Dimock Township that had alleged contamination from area drilling operations. A new trial was ordered.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110647-usgs-finds-too-little-methane-in-water-wells-from-natural-gas-drilling-to-worry-about
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientific Groups Disappointed in Trump's Move on Climate
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Leaders from the chemical and scientific enterprises expressed disappointment that President Donald J. Trump announced he will withdraw the U.S. from a landmark climate change deal.
When countries completed the Paris Agreement on climate change in December 2015, chemists and other scientists were viewed as key actors in implementing it.
“Climate change represents a real and current threat to our economy, health, and welfare,” Thomas Connelly, CEO of the American Chemical Society, which said it was disappointed with the president’s plan. “America should continue to take the lead in addressing global greenhouse gas emissions and become a leader in sustainable energy production and technology,” Connelly adds. ACS publishes C&EN.
Moderna Therapeutics CEO Stephane Bancel said in a tweet he also was disappointed in Trump’s decision to leave the Paris deal. He added, “We all need to continue to do the right thing.”
Still, Trump’s move doesn’t seem likely to change the U.S. chemical industry’s current direction. “Chemical manufacturers will continue to meet global demand for materials and technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions,” the industry group American Chemistry Council said.
Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists called Trump’s move “reprehensible.” However, he added, “The clean energy revolution is well underway and can’t be halted by President Trump’s ill-informed choice.” And Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science “There is much the U.S. can do to address the risks that climate change poses to human health and safety, but disregarding scientific evidence puts our communities at risk.”
In his announcement, Trump said the 2015 Paris Agreement was less about climate change and more about other countries gaining an economic advantage over the U.S. “and laughing at us.” A senior White House official who spoke to reporters on condition that he not be named said the president was concerned about the impact of the pact on domestic manufacturing, including the chemicals sector.
Yet in a tweet just hours before Trump’s announcement, Dow Chemical urged the president to keep the U.S. in the climate deal. “You won the election with a manufacturing jobs agenda. If you want to create jobs in this sector, support the #ParisAgreement.”
The president said the U.S. will begin negotiations anew on a climate deal and invited Democrats, who he called obstructionists, to join in the work. “We’ll see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” one that protects the environment, U.S. companies, the American people, and the nation’s economy, Trump said.
Under the Paris Agreement, all U.N. countries except Nicaragua—which said the deal wasn’t tough enough—and conflict-plagued Syria pledged to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. The accord calls for countries to revisit their individual pledges every five years, with the hope that nations will adopt stricter limits as the price of cleaner energy technology drops.
The goal of the Paris accord is to keep global average temperatures to “well below” a 2 °C rise above preindustrial levels by 2100. The pledges in the agreement, however, would limit this expected temperature increase to 3 °C by century’s end.
Trump’s move is the latest in a series of actions to dismantle policies put in place by former president Barack Obama to address climate change, which Trump criticized during last year’s election campaign. Since taking office, Trump has issued directives to increase U.S. extraction of fossil fuels and proposed eliminating most federal research related to climate change, including advanced energy technology development and satellite observations.
He also ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review, with an eye on overturning, Obama’s cornerstone action for meeting the U.S. commitments under the Paris deal, the Clean Power Plan. That regulation requires coal-fired power plants to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by human activity.
The U.S. won’t officially be able to get out of the Paris Agreement until November 2020. That’s because accord sets out a three-year process for withdrawal. But no country can give official notice of its intent to exit the pact until Nov. 4, 2017, exactly a year after the accord entered into force.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i23/Scientific-groups-disappointed-Trump-move-on-climate.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Inslee Joins Governors of New York, California to Form US Climate Alliance
Jun 2, 2017 | Normangee Star
By Madaleine Patrick
But even without the Trump administration’s involvement, “the great cities of the world.remain resolutely committed to doing what needs to be done to implement the Paris Agreement“, wrote Hidalgo, who chairs a network of major cities that have pledged to tackle climate change. And if we can’t, that’s fine. The hope was that through peer pressure, diplomacy and negotiation, the countries would grow their commitment to reducing carbon emissions over the years while giving them the flexibility to respond to future variables.
“The Paris Accord gives the United States a global platform to be a leading voice on worldwide issues impacting our economy, security, and the environment”.
Leaving the agreement is “not good for America or for the world”, the Tesla (TSLA) and Space X CEO said in a tweet. “Chemical manufacturers will continue to meet global demand for materials and technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions”, the industry group American Chemistry Council said. However, he noted the importance of an agreement that recognizes climate change.
“India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions of dollars in foreign aid”, he said. “Come and work here with us”, he said. There are many other examples.
China, he said, will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants.
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon called the decision to withdraw from the agreement “irresponsible“. “Today, we’re back on a global stage, not through our old economy, through robotics and artificial intelligence and if it weren’t for that position Pittsburgh would never have been able to get back up”. It was immediately clear that there would be no renegotiating the Paris Agreement.
According to the US President, in short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs. A spokesman said that she “expressed her disappointment with the decision and stressed that the United Kingdom remained committed to the Paris Agreement, as she set out recently at the G7″. He added a lifeline to the majority of Americans who support the deal, saying, “I wish to tell the United States, France believes in you”. They went wild. They were so happy.
He called for the president to revise the pledge, end monetary contributions to the Green Climate Fund and use the country’s position in the agreement to push for initiatives that would protect us manufacturing and fossil fuels.
http://normangeestar.net/2017/06/02/inslee-joins-governors-of-new-york-california-to-form-us-climate-alliance/
-
These Titans of Industry Just Broke with Trump’s Decision to Exit the Paris Accords
Jun 1, 2017 | Washington Post
By Steve Mufson
Thirty states and scores of companies said Thursday that they would press ahead with their climate policies and pursue lower greenhouse gas emissions, breaking sharply with President Trump’s decision to exit the historic Paris climate accord.
In a pointed rebuttal to Trump’s announcement in the rose garden of the White House, New York’s governor Andrew M. Cuomo unveiled a plan to invest $1.65 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency on Thursday, the largest ever procurement of renewable energy by an American state.
Meanwhile, more than two dozen big companies — including Apple, Morgan Stanley, and Royal Dutch Shell — urged Trump not to exit the Paris agreement on Thursday.
President Trump framed his renunciation of the Paris climate accord as an historic moment in defense of American workers and the economy. But the actions of state capitols and corporate board rooms offer a counterpoint to the rationale behind Trump’s move.
Across the nation and the economy, renewable energy technologies have taken root and have gathered momentum of their own while creating thousands of new jobs, state and corporate officials said. And the pressure on executives of companies to address the issue have grown greater as major financial firms for the first time press the issue.
The Trump administration’s decision to exit the landmark climate agreement will damage America’s international standing on climate issues and make it nearly impossible for the world to reach internationally agreed goals of limiting global warming, officials said.
Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla, and Robert Iger, chief executive of Disney, both resigned from the president’s advisory council after the announcement. Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, tweeted that Trump’s decision “is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.’s leadership position in the world.”
But the action comes well after many corporate board rooms and state capitols had adopted climate change as a given, officials and executives said.
On Thursday, New York Gov. Cuomo unveiled his plan for $1.5 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency. In an interview, he said he would spend an additional $150 million to give solar energy a boost on the rooftops of schools and other public buildings.
While Trump has cited his concern about coal jobs in withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, Cuomo said his latest energy initiative combined with earlier measures would create 40,000 jobs by 2020 — nearly twice the current number of mining and logging jobs in the state of West Virginia, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Cuomo, who has made renewable energy a priority since Hurricane Sandy hit the northeast in 2012, expects the state’s solar capacity to more than double to about 1,600 megawatts by the end of 2018, and he said he would provide new incentives for the installation of 125 megawatts of solar on the rooftops of schools and other government buildings. The governor added that the state has established a partnership with a consortium of banks to finance energy and solar projects.
“As the federal government abdicates its responsibility to address climate change — at the expense of our environment and economy — New York is leading the nation in advancing a clean energy future,” Cuomo said in a statement. He said that with the package of measures, “New York continues to tackle the challenges of climate change and create the high-quality, good-paying careers of tomorrow.”
Cuomo isn’t alone. About 30 states have adopted mandates for utilities to increase their use of renewable energy, standards that will not change with Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord or his effort to nullify the Clean Power Plan.
In California, state legislators are looking at ways to boost renewable energy activity even as Trump moves to undercut that sector. On Wednesday the state senate voted to make utilities use 100 percent renewable energy by 2045 and 60 percent by 2030. The current standard in both California and New York is for utilities to get 50 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2030.
Though the California senate measure must still win approval of the state assembly and Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it sent a signal. “It draws a huge contrast between Trump wanting to go backwards and states trying to take the lead in tackling the climate crisis,” said Anna Aurilio, legislative director of Environment America.
“The California economy last year increased 40 percent faster than the rest of the country,” Brown said in a conference call Thursday. “In fact, following policies even tougher than what Paris is calling for, the California economy is boosted. Trump is wrong when he says Paris is bad for jobs. It’s good for jobs. The jobs of the future.”
Cuomo, Brown and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said they were forming a coalition of states determined to stick to the Paris targets. The three states account for a fifth of the U.S. economy.
Many energy experts say that progress will continue on greenhouse gas emissions even if the United States drops out of the Paris agreement.
“The net impact to our emissions performance is likely zero to negligible,” said Andy Karsner, former principal climate negotiator for President George W. Bush. “I don’t actually believe for a moment that a withdrawal from Paris is tantamount to abating our efforts, direction, or momentum toward increased penetration of clean energy technologies. Washington does not have the power to put the genie back in the bottle.”
Karsner, now managing partner at the Emerson Collective, compared renewable energy progress to the Pony Express. “When the Pony Express changed to air mail then the Pony Express was done. Obsolete,” he said. “When the Pony Express gives way to email then the Pony Express is a distant memory, a romantic relic. That’s what is happening in the world of energy technology. That has been our national aspiration for decades. We have invested in this outcome for our well being. And we’re winning. We’re ahead in the score. And we have a president who wants to quit the game.”
Trump’s announcement coincides with signs that climate concerns are growing stronger in the financial community. A resolution instructing corporate managements to do the climate equivalent of a stress test — describing in detail the effects of government policies designed to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade — has been adopted at Occidental Petroleum, the utility PPL, and ExxonMobil over the protests of management. Major financial advisory firms Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street bucked tradition and backed the resolutions.
On Thursday, 25 major companies took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times with a letter addressed to Trump. The companies — including Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Mars, Schneider Electric, Morgan Stanley, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts — urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord.
“As businesses concerned with the well-being of our customers, our investors, our communities and our suppliers, we are strengthening our climate resilience,” the letter said, “and we are investing in innovative technologies that can help achieve a clean energy transition.” But it said that government and U.S. leadership was essential too.
Separately, Royal Dutch Shell said in a statement that it had shared with the Trump administration “our strong support for the U.S. remaining in the agreement.” It added, “for our part, we will continue to take internal actions and convene important conversations that acknowledge our role in providing more and cleaner energy.”
Trump’s appeal to working class voters helped him win the White House last year, but Cuomo worked with Cornell University’s industrial and labor relations school and New York unions to agree on ways to train workers for new positions.
“There’s been much talk about losing jobs. This partnership is aimed at creating good middle class jobs while protecting the environment,” said Vinny Alvarez, president of the New York City Central Labor Council, which represents 300 unions and 1.3 million workers.
Cuomo’s plan would invest $1.5 billion in renewable energy credits, which are generated by renewable energy projects. The plan would limit the money to new projects that deliver power to consumers in the state. Richard L. Kauffman, chairman of energy and finance for New York state said “the extent of the state’s new commitment for renewable resources is several orders of magnitude greater than anything we’ve seen before in our state.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/01/these-titans-of-industry-just-broke-with-trumps-decision-to-exit-the-paris-accords/?utm_term=.231f9eca9f92
-
Our Disgraceful Exit From the Paris Accord
Jun 1, 2017 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
Only future generations will be able to calculate the full consequences of President Trump’s incredibly shortsighted approach to climate change, since it is they who will suffer the rising seas and crippling droughts that scientists say are inevitable unless the world brings fossil fuel emissions to heel.
But this much is clear now: Mr. Trump’s policies — the latest of which was his decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change — have dismayed America’s allies, defied the wishes of much of the American business community he pretends to help, threatened America’s competitiveness as well as job growth in crucial industries and squandered what was left of America’s claim to leadership on an issue of global importance.
The only clear winners, and we’ve looked hard to find them, are hard-core climate deniers like Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency and the presidential adviser Stephen Bannon, and various fossil fuel interests that have found in Mr. Trump another president (George W. Bush being the last) credulous enough to swallow the bogus argument that an agreement to fight climate change will destroy or at least inhibit the economy.
Mr. Trump justified his decision by saying that the Paris agreement was a bad deal for the United States, buttressing his argument with a cornucopia of dystopian, dishonest and discredited data based on numbers from industry-friendly sources. Those numbers are nonsense, as is his argument that the agreement would force the country to make enormous economic sacrifices and cause a huge redistribution of jobs and economic resources to the rest of the world.
In truth, the agreement does not require any country to do anything; after the failure of the 1997 Kyoto Accord, the United Nations, which oversees climate change negotiations, decided that it simply did not have the authority to force a legally binding agreement. Instead, negotiators in Paris aimed for, and miraculously achieved, a voluntary agreement, under which more than 190 countries offered aspirational emissions targets, pledged their best efforts to meet them and agreed to give periodic updates on how they were doing.
Paris did not, in short, legally constrain Mr. Trump from doing the dumb things he wanted to do. Which he already has. In the last few months, and without consulting a single foreign leader, he has ordered rollbacks of every one of the policies on which President Barack Obama based his ambitious pledge to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — most prominently, policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants, automobiles and oil and gas wells.
But if withdrawing from the agreement will not make Mr. Trump’s domestic policies any worse than they are, it is still a terrible decision that could have enormous consequences globally. In huge neon letters, it sends a clear message that this president knows nothing or cares little about the science underlying the stark warnings of environmental disruption. That he knows or cares little about the problems that disruption could bring, especially in poor countries. That he is unmindful that America, historically the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, has a special obligation to help the rest of the world address these issues. That he is oblivious to the further damage this will cause to his already tattered relationship with the European allies. That his malfeasance might now prompt other countries that signed the accord to withdraw from the agreement, or rethink their emissions pledges.
Perhaps most astonishing of all, a chief executive who touts himself as a shrewd businessman, and who ran on a promise of jobs for the middle class and making America great again, seems blind to the damage this will do to America’s own economic interests. The world’s gradual transition from fossil fuels has opened up a huge global market, estimated to be $6 trillion by 2030, for renewable fuels like wind and solar, for electric cars, for advanced batteries and other technologies.
America’s private sector clearly understands this opportunity, which is why, in January, 630 businesses and investors — with names like DuPont, Hewlett Packard and Pacific Gas and Electric — signed an open letter to then-President-elect Trump and Congress, calling on them to continue supporting low-carbon policies, investment in a low-carbon economy and American participation in the Paris agreement. It is also why Elon Musk, chief executive of the electric vehicle maker Tesla, was resigning from two presidential advisory councils after Mr. Trump announced the withdrawal from Paris.
Yet Mr. Trump clings to the same false narrative that congressional Republicans have been peddling for years and that Mr. Trump’s minions, like Mr. Pruitt at the E.P.A. and Ryan Zinke at the Interior Department, are peddling now (Mr. Pruitt to the coal miners, Mr. Zinke to Alaskans) — that environmental regulations are job killers, that efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions will hurt the economy, that the way forward lies in fossil fuels, in digging still more coal and punching still more holes in the ground in the search for more oil.
As alternative realities and fake facts go, that argument is something to behold. For one thing, it fails to account for the significant economic benefits of reducing greenhouse gases, avoiding damage to human health and the environment. And it ignores extensive research showing that reducing carbon emissions can in fact drive economic growth. Partly because of investments in cleaner fuels, partly because of revolutionary improvements in efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, carbon dioxide emissions in this country actually fell nearly 12 percent in the last decade, even as the overall economy kept growing. Under Mr. Obama’s supposedly job-killing regulations, more than 11.3 million jobs were created, compared with two million-plus under Mr. Bush’s antiregulatory regime.
It’s true that the coal industry is losing jobs, largely a result of competition from cheaper natural gas, but the renewable fuels industry is going gangbusters: Employment in the solar industry, for instance, is more than 10 times what it was a decade ago, 260,000 jobs as opposed to 24,000.
Therein lies one ray of hope that the United States, whatever Mr. Trump does, will continue to do its part in controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Market forces all seem to be headed in the right direction. Technologies are improving. The business community is angry. A Gallup poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans are worried about climate change, and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that almost 70 percent of Americans wanted to stay in the agreement, including half of Trump voters.
And some states are moving aggressively, including New York. On Wednesday, the State Senate in California, always a leader in environmental matters, passed a bill that seeks to put California on a path to 100 percent renewable energy by midcentury. On the same day, Exxon Mobil stockholders won a crucial vote requiring the company to start accounting for the impact of climate change policies on its business.
These messages might be lost on Mr. Trump. Hopefully, not on the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement.html?_r=0
-
Jun 1, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
President Trump announced the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement on Thursday, to the horror of green elites world-wide. If the decision shows he is more mindful of American economic interests than they are, the other virtue of pulling out is to expose the fraudulence of this Potemkin village.
In a Rose Garden ceremony, Mr. Trump broke with the 2015 agreement, starting the formal four-year withdrawal process: “We’re getting out. And we will start to renegotiate and we’ll see if there’s a better deal. If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine.”
This nonchalance inspired a predictable political meltdown, with the anticarbon lobby invoking death, planetary disaster and a permanent historical stain. Billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer called it “a traitorous act of war against the American people,” while Barack Obama accused his successor of joining “a small handful of nations that reject the future,” whatever that means. Get ready for another march on the White House.
But amid the outrage, the aggrieved still haven’t gotten around to resolving the central Paris contradiction, which is that it promises to be Earth-saving but fails on its own terms. It is a pledge of phony progress.
The 195 signatory nations volunteered their own carbon emission-reduction pledges, known as “intended nationally determined contributions,” or INDCs. China and the other developing nations account for 63% of annual global CO 2 emissions, and their share is rising. They submitted INDCs that pledged to peak the carbon status quo “around” 2030, and maybe later, or never, since Paris included no enforcement mechanisms to prevent cheating.
Meanwhile, the developed OECD nations—responsible for 55% of world CO 2 as recently as 2000—made unrealistic assurances that even they knew they could not achieve. As central-planning prone as the Obama Administration was, it never identified a tax-and-regulation program that came close to meeting its own emissions pledge of 26% to 28% reductions from 2005 levels by 2025.
Paris is thus an exercise in moral and social signaling that is likely to exert little if any influence on atmospheric CO 2 , much less on global temperatures. The Paris target was to limit the surface temperature increase to “well below” two degrees Celsius from the pre-industrial level by 2100. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Joint Program conclude that even if every INDC is fulfilled to the letter, the temperature increase will be in the range of 1.9–2.6 degrees Celsius by 2050, and 3.1–5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
Such forecasts are highly uncertain, which is inherent when scientists attempt to predict the future behavior of a system as complex as global climate. The best form of climate-change insurance is a large and growing economy so that future generations can afford to adapt to whatever they may confront.
A more prosperous society a century or more from now is a more important goal than asking the world to accept a lower standard of living today in exchange for symbolic benefits. Poorer nations in a world where 1.35 billion live without electricity will never accept such a trade in any case, while Mr. Trump is right to decline to lock in U.S. promises that make U.S. industries less competitive.
The surest way to “reject the future” is to burden the economy with new political controls today, because economic growth underwrites technological progress and human ingenuity. These are the major drivers of energy transitions that allow people to generate more wealth with fewer resources. Energy intensity—the amount of energy necessary to create a dollar of GDP—has plunged 58% in the U.S. since 1990, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Over the same period, intensity declined merely 37% in OECD Europe, 20% in Japan, 22% in Mexico and 7% in Korea. China dropped by 133%, but working off a far more wasteful initial base. Superior efficiency helps explain why U.S. carbon emissions fell by 145 million tons in 2016 compared to 2015, more than any other country. Russia was second, at minus 64 million tons. Over the past five years U.S. emissions have fallen by 270 million tons, while China—the No. 1 CO 2 emitter—added 1.1 billion tons.
All of which make the claims that the U.S. is abdicating global leadership so overwrought. Leadership is not defined as the U.S. endorsing whatever other world leaders have already decided they want to do, and the U.S. is providing a better model in any case. Private economies that can innovate and provide cost-effective energy alternatives will always beat meaningless international agreements. To the extent Paris damages economic growth, the irony is that it would leave the world less prepared for climate change.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-bids-paris-adieu-1496358860
-
Opinion: American Isolationism From the League of Nations to Trump
Jun 2, 2017 | Roll Call
By Walter Shapiro
On November 19, 1919, the Senate failed to muster a two-thirds majority to ratify the Versailles Treaty ending World War I and establishing the League of Nations. As a banner headline in The (New York) Sun shouted, “PEACE TREATY DEFEATED … SECOND BALLOT KILLS ALL HOPE OF LEAGUE.”
The Senate’s refusal to join the League of Nations ushered in two decades of isolationism culminating in an America First movement that argued that Hitler’s takeover of Europe was of no concern to us. At the heart of the America First mindset was a belief that Pittsburgh mattered infinitely more than Nazi-occupied Paris.
Ninety-eight years later, history repeated itself in the White House Rose Garden on a sunny June afternoon with temperatures about six degrees warmer than normal for the entire month. In withdrawing from the Paris accord, Donald Trump even repeatedly invoked the slogan “America First.”
Take a deep breath
With Trump’s decision to go it alone on climate change, America, in effect, became a rogue nation. Since the U.S. has historically pumped more excess CO2 into the atmosphere than any other nation, Trump might as well have passed out red baseball caps emblazoned with the slogan “Make America an Ingrate Again.”
There are, of course, limits to historical analogies. Give the feckless response of the League of Nations to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s, it is hard to argue that American participation would have deterred Hitler and Mussolini. In similar fashion, it is dangerously glib to suggest that Trump’s unilateral action means that New York will be under water in 50 years and the Midwest will be a giant Dust Bowl.
Like Brexit, the exit from the Paris accord (maybe we can call it “Parexit”) will drag on for years, with formal severing impossible before November 2019. And since the agreement was entirely voluntary, the Trump administration’s policies on energy and environmental regulation had already signaled that the federal government would be taking a four-year timeout from the battle against global warming.
What “Parexit” guarantees, though, is that climate change will be a central issue in the 2020 presidential campaign. If the Democrats win back the White House, it seems inevitable that one of the Day One pledges of the next president would be to eagerly rejoin the Paris agreement.
What is equally certain is that the 2018 congressional campaigns will be drowning in apocalyptic TV spots about rising seas, melting ice caps and a dying planet. At first glance, it seems like Trump has again jeopardized a GOP House majority in his quest to make good on his most extreme campaign promises.
It is difficult to specifically poll on the Paris agreement since many voters have no idea what it is. But two months ago, a Quinnipiac University national survey asked a revealing series of questions about climate change and environmental regulation.
For example, only 28 percent of voters believed that “Donald Trump should remove specific regulations intended to combat climate change.” And just 19 percent described climate change as a hoax. The demographic breakdowns in the Quinnipiac poll suggest that about as many younger voters share Trump’s views on global warming as emulate his wardrobe choices of bulky suits and extra-long ties.
But there is a danger in overreacting to the political implications of America’s environmental isolationism. The “Parexit” may just represent another reason for passionate Democratic voters to scorn Trump and his Republican enablers. If you’re already voting Democratic because of health care and Russia, you may not need a third issue to propel you to the polls in 2018.
That same early April Quinnipiac poll asked voters to name — without prompting — the “most important problem facing the country today.” Despite the steady drumbeat of dire news about the disappearing Arctic and record temperatures, only 4 percent of Americans named the environment or pollution as their top issue. Similarly, a Pew Research Center poll in early January found that voters did not rank either the environment or global warming among their top 10 issues for Trump and Congress.
In his Rose Garden rejection of the global community, Trump was politically clever in framing the issue in economic terms. Wildly exaggerating the burdens from the Paris agreement, the president declared, “Our businesses will come to a halt in many cases. And the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished way of life.”Scared to the right
Caught up in the fervor of environmental righteousness, Democrats should not cavalierly dismiss the power of these economic arguments. Again and again in American life, scared workers have been willing to risk permanent environmental damage in the quest for a secure paycheck. This is the tragic history of American coal mining, to cite the outmoded industry that Trump claims to revere.
Thursday afternoon, in a comic lack of self-awareness, Trump declared, “We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won’t be.”
Given the president’s tragic decision to go rogue, it is safe to say that Trump doesn’t get the joke.
Roll Call columnist Walter Shapiro is a veteran of Politics Daily, USA Today, Time, Newsweek and The Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter @MrWalterShapiro.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/trump-climate-change-paris
-
Lawyer Warns EPA Budget Cuts May Shrink Industry's Sway In Citizen Suits
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Political and budgetary attacks on EPA carry a major downside for regulated industries, an industry attorney says, because they could make individual companies more vulnerable to citizen suits without the moderating influence of government regulators who might otherwise help the businesses negotiate more favorable deals to resolve alleged violations.
“I think pretty much everybody anticipates we will probably see a significant increase in the number of citizen suits filed,” Tarifa Laddon, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Faegre Baker Daniels, told a May 24 energy and environmental forum organized by the firm in Washington, D.C.
Her warning runs counter to the broad narrative that ongoing Trump administration calls to rein in EPA will blunt the burdens of regulation on industry.
But precisely how this scenario plays out for industry depends on whether Congress follows through with the Trump administration's proposed cuts to EPA, and also on how aggressively environmental advocates and other groups ramp up citizen lawsuits in an effort to compensate for presumed, more lax enforcement by the agency or states.
In her remarks, Laddon, whose practice includes product liability, environmental and toxic tort litigation, noted that virtually all major federal environment statutes include citizen suit provisions that allow individuals or groups harmed by unpermitted releases or other offenses to “step in to EPA's shoes” and file suit against companies for alleged environmental violations.
The issue, according to Laddon, is that environmental and citizen groups are now under enormous pressure to “fill the void” left by any significant reduction in EPA's presence, with such a reduced role particularly assured if Congress agrees to aggressive proposals to trim the agency's funding.
Laddon's remarks come as the Trump administration has floated a fiscal year 2018 budget that slashes EPA funding by 31 percent, including deep cuts to EPA's enforcement function. But even Republican appropriators on Capitol Hill are questioning the scale of the proposed reductions given that the agency's budget has already eroded over the past several years, an indication that at least some of the Trump proposal will be dead on arrival.
But Laddon, for the purpose of discussion, outlined likely changes in litigation dynamics that would result if Congress follows through with the proposed cuts. The changes include an almost certain increase in citizen lawsuits, coupled with fewer options for companies to essentially use federal or state enforcement officials as mediators with citizen plaintiffs.
“At least traditionally in the past, if a company got notice that a citizen suit was forthcoming, you could at least consider going to the EPA and trying to negotiate some sort of friendly administrative or judicial enforcement order and block the citizen suit.” Laddon said. “There’s a lot of factors in play as to whether that is a good idea in a particular case but it is at least an option.”
But “if the proposed budget cuts move forward and the resources and staff are significantly diminished at EPA, I think it is going to be much harder for companies to get anyone to come and talk to you and work out a deal like I just mentioned,” Laddon said.
State Dynamics
Laddon expanded upon this analysis by stating that a gutted EPA budget could also set up differing, and not necessarily positive, dynamics at the state level for industry defendants who might be seeking to negotiate with the state to blunt the full force of citizen claims.
“It is really going to depend,” on the state, Laddon said, noting that in her home state of California or other similar politically “blue” states, state regulators are more likely to agree with “expansive” interpretation of environmental laws put forth by citizen plaintiffs.
However, any defendant seeking a palatable deal “might have an easier time” in a red state, or any state seen as more supportive of industry, she said.
At the same time, Laddon also warned participants at the event not to see even industry friendly states as a guaranteed fallback for defendants in citizen suit cases, noting that proposed cuts in EPA funding also would flow through to state budgets. This means that cash strapped states might not necessarily be in a position to broker deals with citizen groups, she said.
“I will say that if the state agencies receive significantly less federal funding as a result of the budget cuts, you might find yourself having a hard time getting somebody to talk to at that level as well.”
Laddon also provided an appraisal of approximate data her firm has complied on citizen lawsuit trends, saying the data do not show an increase in such suits yet but that drawing conclusions from that is likely “premature."
She cited data showing that “about 75 citizen suit lawsuits” were filed against industry in 2016 -- a figure that excludes a separate group of cases brought by groups against state and federal agencies. At this time last year, the year to date figure was 29 cases -- somewhat above 21 suits filed this year to date.
But Laddon expressed confidence that the number of citizen suits will rise, and attributed the slight lag to factors including that environmental groups may be waiting to assess the Trump administration's priorities in practice and mulling whether to use some of their resources to sue EPA directly.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/lawyer-warns-epa-budget-cuts-may-shrink-industrys-sway-citizen-suits
-
Deputy Offers Timeline for Buyouts
Jun 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA is starting to lay out its timeline for shrinking the agency workforce.
Acting Deputy Administrator Mike Flynn said in an agencywide email sent today that EPA will submit its plan for early retirement and buyout packages later this month.
The Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget will have to approve the plan before EPA can start offering incentives for employees to leave the agency.
"We plan to submit our agency-wide VERA/VSIP business case to OPM/OMB for approval later in June, and will work closely with OPM/OMB to help expedite the review process," Flynn said in the email obtained by E&E News.
EPA management will then tell employees what positions will be included in the buyout program "as soon as possible, likely sometime in July," Flynn said.
The acting EPA deputy said "a limited number of employees" will be offered the incentive payments to exit and must leave the agency by early September 2017.
Flynn also said EPA headquarters and regional offices are reviewing their staff positions, trying to find "where they can achieve efficiencies" and align buyout packages to those efficiencies.
EPA will work with its employee unions during that process. In addition, in developing the buyout program, the agency is considering several factors, including consolidating support functions and streamlining EPA functions, according to Flynn.
The agency has set aside $12 million for the rest of this fiscal year to pay for the buyout packages (Greenwire, May 18).
President Trump has targeted EPA for deep budget cuts in fiscal 2018. Under the president's budget proposal, the agency's workforce would be slashed, losing roughly 3,800 jobs (Greenwire, May 23).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/06/01/stories/1060055433
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