Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/2/2017
-
EPA Issues Notice on the Establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and Sets Public Meeting Dates
Jun 2, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish in the Federal Register a notice of public meetings and a notice regarding the establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC). -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has received a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossier for 2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde. Submitted by industry, it has a proposed future entry in Annex VI of CLP of reprotoxicity 2. -
For Oil Giants, Trump's Climate Snub is No Match for Market Forces
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Maxine Joselow
The United States' exit from the Paris Agreement will have little financial impact on the biggest U.S.-based oil and gas companies, analysts say. -
FERC Warns Developer on Permit Conditions After Ohio Spill
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
Federal energy regulators warned developers of an interstate pipeline yesterday that diesel compounds allegedly found in drilling fluid that spilled into Ohio wetlands last month could violate the project's permit. -
Tribe Clings to Litigation as Commercial Service Begins
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the long-embattled Dakota Access pipeline kicks off commercial service, opponents are stressing that litigation over the oil project is far from over. -
Surging U.S. Exports Flood Global Market
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
U.S. natural gas is flooding the global market at an unprecedented pace, reaching customers from China to the Dominican Republic. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump withdraws USA from Paris Agreement Amid Opposition at Home
Jun 2, 2017 | PPP Focus
President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement Thursday, delivering a blow to worldwide environmentalists, major European powers – and daughter Ivanka. -
The U.S. is Out of the Paris Agreement. What Now?
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick
President Trump unharnessed the United States from the world community yesterday on climate change by pulling out of the Paris Agreement, a move that fulfills a controversial campaign promise and instantly inflamed diplomatic tensions with dozens of American allies. -
Fact-Checking Trump's Paris Agreement Speech
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Dylan Brown, Benjamin Storrow and Scott Waldman
President Trump justified his decision yesterday to leave a global climate accord with debunked conservative talking points and studies funded by groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry. -
Trump Offer to 'Renegotiate' Paris Draws Ire of Foreign Leaders, Democrats
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith, Doug Obey, and Lee Logan
White House officials say President Donald Trump's offer to “renegotiate” the Paris Agreement with an eye to rejoining is “sincere,” though it is already drawing heat from both Democratic lawmakers and foreign leaders -- who say the deal's terms are set in stone and any renegotiation would be a “fig leaf” to weaken the U.S. commitment. -
This is Scott Pruitt's Moment
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt clasped President Trump's hand as he stepped to the lectern in the White House Rose Garden yesterday to claim the biggest political victory of his nascent tenure as U.S. EPA chief. -
Tillerson's First Post-Pari Remarks: US Will Reduce Emissions
Jun 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Friday that the United States is likely to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite exiting the Paris climate change agreement. -
Calif., N.Y., Wash. Unite to Say They Will Honor Paris Agreement
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California, New York and Washington yesterday formed a coalition to unite states committed to upholding the Paris climate agreement and taking action on global warming. -
Air Quality Experts Mull Divergent Views of NO2 Emissions' Health Effects
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Air quality researchers from the United States and Europe are mulling divergent views on how to evaluate nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions' impacts on human health, with Europeans eyeing an approach that presumes harms in the absence of other data while U.S experts take a more cautious method requiring proof to show harm.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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
-
Jun 2, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish in the Federal Register a notice of public meetings and a notice regarding the establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC). The NRC’s objective is to “negotiate a proposed rule that would limit chemical data reporting requirements under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), [as amended], for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such byproduct chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.” The prepublication version is available online.
EPA’s notice lists the stakeholder groups from which EPA plans to invite representatives to participate as members of the Committee -- all of whom have been “identified as having a definable stake in the outcome of the proposed requirements”:
Inorganic chemical manufacturers and processors, including metal mining and related activities;
Recyclers, including scrap recyclers;
Industry advocacy groups;
Environmental advocacy groups; and
Federal, State, and Tribal governments.
The first meeting will be held on June 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT) and on June 9, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT). The second Committee meeting will be held on August 16, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT) and on August 17, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT). Both meetings will be held at EPA’s Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-notice-establishment-negotiated-rulemaking-committee-and-sets-public
-
Jun 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Submitted CLH proposal
Echa has received a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossier for 2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde. Submitted by industry, it has a proposed future entry in Annex VI of CLP of reprotoxicity 2.
Practical REACH help
In advance of its 31 May 2018 REACH deadline, the agency has published eight illustrative examples designed to help with the registration of chemicals.
Available in 23 EU languages, they describe possible situations companies might face when preparing for registration.
It has also released four video tutorials in English dealing with Iuclid and preparing a technical dossier. They are:
phase 1: know your portfolio;
phase 3: get organised with your co-registrants;
phase 4: assess hazards and risks of substances; and
phase 5: prepare your registration as a Iuclid dossier.
REACH 2018 toolkit
And Echa has also put together a toolkit for company trainers and consultants to raise awareness of the REACH 2018 registration deadline.
With most materials available in 23 EU languages, it brings together in one place existing materials and ideas, including downloadable presentations and explanatory notes on the six phases of the REACH 2018 Roadmap.
Agency-NGO meeting
Animal welfare, risk management and transparency were high on the agenda of the tenth meeting between Echa and NGOs. Six organisations sent representatives to the discussions on 27 April:
the European Environmental Bureau (EEB);
Peta International Science Consortium (PISC);
the Humane Society International (HSI);
ChemSec;
the European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients' Association (EFA); and
Cruelty Free International (CFI).
The agency has now published notes of the event.
Guidance correction
Echa has published a corrigendum to its Guidance for identification and naming of substances under REACH and CLP in all languages. It addresses typographical errors in the text and mistakes in the compositional information included in appendix III.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56241/echa-round-up
-
For Oil Giants, Trump's Climate Snub is No Match for Market Forces
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Maxine Joselow
The United States' exit from the Paris Agreement will have little financial impact on the biggest U.S.-based oil and gas companies, analysts say.
Speaking yesterday in the White House Rose Garden, President Trump formally announced that the United States will begin a yearslong process of leaving the landmark climate change accord (E&E News PM, June 1).
Trump premised a withdrawal on the idea that it would give American businesses more freedom from burdensome regulations.
An exit will erase the "draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country," Trump said.
The White House echoed this sentiment in a prepared statement, saying, "Industries such as cement, iron and steel, coal, natural gas, and petroleum would be forced to cut production under President Obama's Paris Climate Accord."
But several energy analysts told E&E News that market forces will have much more bearing on U.S.-based oil and natural gas companies than any White House decision. Market forces, they said, are shifting power generation from coal toward lower-carbon and cheaper sources such as natural gas and renewables. And companies are taking note.
"Over the last decade, the U.S. has been producing more gas, and this has outcompeted coal consumption," said Henrik Poulsen, senior vice president of government relations at Rystad Energy. "So the U.S. has lowered its CO2 emissions not by political decisions, but simply because of the market, where gas has become cheaper than coal."
"Since coal is obviously a big contributor to climate change, we've been seeing a shift toward natural gas and renewables in general," said Brian Youngberg, senior energy analyst at Edward Jones.
"If we stayed in Paris, would that maybe be a little bit [of a] stronger transition? Probably," Youngberg said. "But even with us pulling out, I think we're still going to be moving forward with reducing our usage of coal and increasing our usage of natural gas and renewables."
Exxon as an example
Paul McConnell, research director of global trends at consultancy Wood Mackenzie, said oil companies are increasingly recognizing market forces that lean toward a lower-carbon future.
"I think it's quite clear that the oil companies are moving toward an acceptance that the world is changing, and having strategies in place to deal with that is important," McConnell said.
As an example, McConnell cited the fact that Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. lobbied the administration to stay in the Paris deal over the last several months.
Exxon CEO Darren Woods in particular emerged as a vocal supporter of the deal. "The position that we've taken on Paris," he told reporters Wednesday, "is it's very consistent with the framework we've discussed and the challenges facing society" (Energywire, June 1).
"I think companies like Exxon want to be leaders in the discussion and a party at the table," Youngberg said. "You don't want to allow terms in your industry to be dictated while you're sitting on the side with your head in the sand."
Other countries double down
While oil supermajors such as Exxon and Chevron are based in the United States, they have a global reach, analysts said. And other countries have pledged to continue their commitment to Paris.
The European Union and China plan to issue a statement today declaring climate change "an imperative more than ever" in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Paris (Greenwire, May 31).
"These companies like Exxon are global — they operate around the world," Youngberg said. "Percentage-wise, the U.S. is a small piece of their earnings."
Paul Goydan, managing director of the Boston Consulting Group's energy practice, enthusiastically agreed with this sentiment.
"Fundamentally, we're in a global market, and companies focus on the most efficient way to meet global standards," Goydan said. "The role of federal regulations can be kind of a floor, but rarely is it a ceiling when setting standards. When the rest of the world has a set of standards and protocols, companies move and match those anyway."
To elaborate his point, Goydan drew a parallel between U.S. automakers and U.S. oil and gas companies. Just as automakers adhere to California's more stringent vehicle emissions standards, oil and gas companies will adhere to other countries' more stringent greenhouse gas emissions standards, he said.
"They don't want to make something for California and something for the other 49 states, when California is such a significant part of the U.S. economy," Goydan said. "So they'd rather just make one product or approach for the whole U.S. and sell it in all 50 states. This is very true when it comes to oil and gas."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055438
-
FERC Warns Developer on Permit Conditions After Ohio Spill
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
Federal energy regulators warned developers of an interstate pipeline yesterday that diesel compounds allegedly found in drilling fluid that spilled into Ohio wetlands last month could violate the project's permit.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission halted some work along the route of the 713-mile pipeline earlier this month after Energy Transfer Partners reported spilling about 2 million gallons of drilling fluid into wetlands near Ohio's Tuscawaras River (E&E News PM, May 10).
FERC staffers told the developer in a letter that Ohio EPA had discovered compounds typically found in diesel fuel in samples of spilled drilling fluid.
In its FERC application, the staff wrote, the pipeline developer had committed to use drilling fluid composed of a "slurry made of nontoxic/non-hazardous bentonite clay and water."
FERC's Office of Enforcement will "immediately initiate an investigation" into the presence of hydrocarbons in the drilling fluid, the letter says.
FERC Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Colette Honorable, both Democrats, said in a joint statement that they are "troubled" by the spill and indications of diesel fuel at the site.
"Although we have no reason at this point to believe the release represents an imminent threat to human health or the environment, this incident raises concerns about potential long-term environmental impacts, including impacts on sensitive wetlands in Ohio," they wrote.
The commissioners told the Rover pipeline developer to "immediately and fully" cooperate with FERC staff and reminded the company that FERC still has authority over the project.
"We recognize that Rover will need a number of additional authorizations as the Rover Pipeline Project moves forward. With the assistance of [Office of Energy Projects] and [Office of Enforcement] staff, we will continue to closely monitor its progress to ensure that Rover follows the terms of its certificate," LaFleur and Honorable wrote.
An spokeswoman said the pipeline developer is cooperating with FERC and Ohio EPA but added, "At this time ... there is no evidence that the source of the hydrocarbons is related to our drilling activity."
The Rover pipeline route runs from southeastern Ohio, western West Virginia and southwestern Pennsylvania and crosses Ohio before ending in Livingston County, Mich.
The company also owns the Dakota Access pipeline, which began transporting oil yesterday after a contentious construction process that culminated in massive protests last year. That project has dealt with leaks of its own, at sites in North and South Dakota (Greenwire, May 23).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055474
-
Tribe Clings to Litigation as Commercial Service Begins
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the long-embattled Dakota Access pipeline kicks off commercial service, opponents are stressing that litigation over the oil project is far from over.
In dueling press releases yesterday, pipeline backer Energy Transfer Partners LP trumpeted news that the recently completed pipeline is officially shipping North Dakota crude nearly 1,200 miles to an oil market hub in Illinois, while the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe emphasized that its legal battle will continue.
The start of commercial service is a major milestone for the divisive project, which was first proposed in 2014 and became the focus of intense tribal and environmental pushback last year. The Obama administration slow-walked approvals for the pipeline last fall, and President Trump promptly reversed course in January by pushing for speedy approval and construction.
Now in service, the $3.8 billion line has capacity to ship 520,000 barrels per day of crude from the Bakken and Three Forks oil formations to Patoka, Ill. From there, the oil can be shipped to Midwestern refining markets or transported through another ETP pipeline to the Gulf Coast. Market analysts have noted, however, that the line is not expected to reach capacity in its first year.
Litigation over federal approvals for the pipeline remains pending in federal court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has been weighing tribal challenges to the project since July, and Sioux leaders are holding out hope that the court will halt pipeline service and order additional environmental review.
"We will continue to battle the operation of this pipeline in court and remind everyone that just because the oil is flowing now doesn't mean that it can't be stopped," Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II said in a statement. "The courts can stop it by demanding that the administration be held accountable for the full Environmental Impact Statement it initiated and then abandoned."
The Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes have both asked the district court to grant summary judgment in their favor, and the Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access LLC have made similar requests for their side (Energywire, April 11).
Court watchers expected Judge James Boasberg to schedule arguments on the requests this spring, but no court date has been set. Boasberg could opt to decide the motions this summer without a hearing.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055434
-
Surging U.S. Exports Flood Global Market
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
U.S. natural gas is flooding the global market at an unprecedented pace, reaching customers from China to the Dominican Republic.
Eighteen ships carrying liquefied natural gas have departed the Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana this month — the highest monthly total since vessels began leaving the facility last year.
The surge in exports is helping to ease a supply glut at home.
And the surge shows no signs of stopping, as Cheniere Energy Inc. is preparing to start up a fourth plant at Sabine Pass.
"The pace of exports is pretty impressive," said Jason Feer, head of business intelligence at Poten & Partners Inc.
Cheniere "has been able to place cargoes with relatively little trouble and to a pretty wide variety of customers," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055426
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump withdraws USA from Paris Agreement Amid Opposition at Home
Jun 2, 2017 | PPP Focus
President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement Thursday, delivering a blow to worldwide environmentalists, major European powers – and daughter Ivanka.
His predecessor, Barack Obama, expressed regret over the pullout from a deal he was instrumental in brokering. On Thursday, he not only called the Paris accord a bad deal, he declared its rejection to be “a reassertion of America’s sovereignty”. “We’ll see if we can make a deal that’s fair”, one that protects the environment, USA companies, the American people, and the nation’s economy, Trump said.
In a phone call with the U.S. president shortly after his White House announcement, Mrs May stressed that the United Kingdom remained committed to the 2015 agreement, which aims to limit the rise in global temperatures caused by the use of carbon-based fuels.
“President Trump’s courageous decision to exit the Paris Accord recognizes that the United States is not legally bound to an Obama-era agreement that set unrealistic emissions targets at the expense of billions of American taxpayer dollars without the approval of Congress”, said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who joined nine other states in urging Trump to leave the agreement. Indeed, a withdrawal from the Paris Accord may well incentivize investments in clean technologies and stimulate significant new economic ties between the states and other nations.
“As someone who cares deeply about our environment, I can not in good conscience support a deal which punishes the United States”, he said.
Ivanka Trump’s arguments bumped up against her father’s campaign promises to create jobs, said the first former Trump adviser. Prime Minister: “if your special relationship with Donald Trump means anything, prove it”.
On the other hand countries like India and China are benefiting the most from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, he added.
Trump chose to do just that after conferring with European allies at last week’s G-7 meetings in Italy. “We need to make him see sense on climate change”.
Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said Thursday the No.2 USA automaker believes “climate change is real, and remain deeply committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our vehicles and our facilities”.
“We don’t want other countries laughing at us anymore and they won’t”, Trump declared.
The US was one of 195 nations that agreed to the accord in Paris in December 2015.
One degree may not sound like much, but Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute in Germany, says, “Every tenth of a degree increases the number of unprecedented extreme weather events considerably”.
“There is a pathway here where the rest of America in reaction to, really, what is an insane decision by president Trump, takes the kind of steps needed”, California Governor Jerry Brown told Reuters. “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.
“I wasn’t happy with the original agreement, but I know that climate change is real”.
They warned that United States withdrawal from the deal could speed up the effects of global climate change, worsening heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.
But Trump cast his decision as a reassertion of Americas sovereignty, arguing that the climate pact as negotiated under President Obama was grossly unfair to the USA workers he had vowed to protect with his populist America First campaign platform.
http://pppfocus.com/2017/06/02/trump-withdraws-usa-from-paris-agreement-amid-opposition-at-home/
-
The U.S. is Out of the Paris Agreement. What Now?
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick
President Trump unharnessed the United States from the world community yesterday on climate change by pulling out of the Paris Agreement, a move that fulfills a controversial campaign promise and instantly inflamed diplomatic tensions with dozens of American allies.
The announcement fractures a brief global unity in addressing human impacts on heat waves, rising seas and precipitation. The accord, finalized in December 2015, marked a rare international consensus of 195 nations after more than 20 years of negotiations. It aims to limit temperature increases to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Trump described those aspirations as a hostile effort by European nations and others that sought to disadvantage American businesses and tap into their wealth through a massive redistribution of workers and money. The result would be higher energy prices, trapped fossil fuels and an eroding economy, he said.
"At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?" Trump asked in the Rose Garden. "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be."
It took months for Trump to make his decision. Since his inauguration, his Cabinet and advisers wrestled with the global reverberations that it stood to ignite. They were also sharply divided over the United States' ability to replace its emissions goals — a 26 to 28 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2025 — with weakened commitments. That argument was widely refuted by architects of the accord, but it stood as one of the justifications behind Trump's decision to withdraw rather than submit lower carbon commitments.
Yesterday under a bright sun, Trump's tone struck the nationalist themes of his candidacy.
"It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; and Pittsburgh, Pa. — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France," Trump said.
An audience of conservatives clapped and took pictures as Trump made his announcement. Some hooted. Among them were prominent members of think tanks whose careers are rooted in questioning the accuracy of climate scientists. They included Joe Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, and Chris Horner and Myron Ebell, both of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. After Trump left, Bast and Horner were seen gathered around the president's chief strategist, Steve Bannon.
Not present were key figures who urged the president to stay in the deal. Among them were his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner. The White House said the couple were not at the event because they were celebrating the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who supports the accord, was also absent.
As Trump turned toward the columns of the Oval Office, reporters yelled questions to him. "Mr. President, do you believe that climate change is a hoax?" called Cecilia Vega of ABC News. "Do you believe in climate change?" yelled another.
Trump didn't respond.
Later, inside the White House briefing room, two senior administration officials faced similar questions stemming from Trump's past assertions that global warming is a "hoax" and is "bullshit." In December, as president-elect, he conceded that there's some "connectivity" between rising temperatures and human activity.
Reporters, filling the room's 49 seats, with more standing in the side aisles, began lobbing questions at the officials about whether Trump believes that people are causing the planet to warm.
"I've not talked to the president about his personal views on what is contributing to climate change," said one of the officials.
Renegotiate? The world says 'no'
Back in the Rose Garden, Trump described the agreement as having deep-rooted impacts on the economy, American workers and energy prices, even as he acknowledged that it's "nonbinding." He called it "draconian" and "onerous" and said it would result in "vastly diminished economic production."
Beginning yesterday, the administration stopped abiding by the emissions targets established under the deal and its goal of holding warming to 1.5 C since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Trump also said the country would rescind its promise to help finance the Green Climate Fund, because it's costing the United States "a vast fortune," he said.
Trump also offered to negotiate a new deal to replace the one he maimed. His administration would immediately "begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers," he said.
"So we're getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair," Trump added. "And if we can, that's great. And if we can't, that's fine."
The world responded with one message: "You can't."
From the Marshall Islands to Moscow and Mexico, world leaders reaffirmed their own commitments to Paris. They decried the United States' departure and said they wouldn't come back to the negotiating table.
French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Premier Paolo Gentiloni, all of whom experienced tense interactions with Trump last week during the Group of Seven summit in Sicily, issued a joint statement dismissing Trump's call to renegotiate. It came minutes after Trump's announcement.
"We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies," they wrote.
Macron and Merkel reiterated the same point in calls to Trump, as did Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May.
The White House said yesterday that Trump "reassured the leaders that America remains committed to the transatlantic alliance and to robust efforts to protect the environment."
The world's most vulnerable countries to climate change lamented Trump's move.
Thoriq Ibrahim, environment and energy minister for the low-lying Maldives and chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States negotiating bloc, noted that the agreement already gives countries scope to set their own commitments.
"If the U.S. wishes to change its contribution that would be unfortunate but is its prerogative," he said in a statement. "Renegotiating the entire agreement, however, is not practical and could be a setback from which we never recover."
Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine said, "Today's decision is not only disappointing, but also highly concerning for those of us that live on the front line of climate change."
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox was blunter. "The United States has stopped being the leader of the free world," he said in a statement.
'Nothing left to negotiate'
Trump gave no details about how he planned to reopen talks with the other 194 nations in the agreement. Within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, only Syria and Nicaragua are not signatories. And Nicaragua did not sign the deal because its leaders believed it did not go far enough to help the planet.
Even a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement yesterday saying Putin "attaches great importance" to Paris.
Trump and his advisers gave little information about the scope of the "renegotiation" he envisions.
But veterans of the decadeslong fight that led in 2015 to the Paris Agreement say Trump is either being naive about how multilateral agreements are reached, or being disingenuous about trying for a new climate "transaction."
"He complained but offered no solutions," said Jonathan Pershing, former U.S. climate envoy under President Obama who is now at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
The world accommodated the United States in Paris first by making carbon commitments in the first place. Under the decades-old structure of the United Nations, developing nations were under no obligation to do anything to address the problem created by wealthy, industrialized countries. Obama administration negotiators, however, successfully dismantled that architecture in favor of one that demands all countries, rich and poor, to take responsibility for rising global emissions. Under the Paris deal, even tiny islands like Vanuatu and war-torn countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo pledged to cut carbon.
Then nations bent to the United States by allowing those greenhouse gas and finance pledges to be political statements rather than binding obligations. That was done to help avoid the need for U.S. Senate ratification, which Obama could not have hoped to deliver.
Pershing said other countries are unlikely to entertain Trump's bid to reopen negotiations, preferring to wait for a new administration that might be more collegial.
"I think that other countries will say: 'We'll take over for you. If you're not going to lead, then get out of our way,'" he said.
"There's nothing left to negotiate in Paris," said James Connaughton, President George W. Bush's environmental adviser. "This is where folks don't read the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is now set for a generation."
The point of the deal, he said, was to create a basis for international collaboration on climate change and to avoid conflict. Paris is neither the planet's salvation nor a threat to any nation's economy. It's just a conversation, he said. And the irony is that the U.S. economy is shedding greenhouse gas emissions faster than that of almost any other country in response to market forces and policies, Connaughton contended.
Christiana Figueres, the former head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, called Trump's pitch to renegotiate "sad."
"Apparently, the White House has no understanding of how an international treaty works," Figueres said on a call with reporters. "You cannot renegotiate individually. This is in essence a multilateral agreement — that's why it took six years to bring together — and no one country unilaterally can change the conditions."
"I think they know that's not a serious offer," said Alden Meyer, strategic director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has been involved in this process since the 1992 Earth Summit.
Far from gaining leverage, Meyer said, the United States will lose the opportunity to negotiate key parts of the Paris rulebook that will be solidified over the coming 18 months, including on reporting and transparency.
CEOs want Paris
The United States will remain a party to Paris until Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the next presidential election. But while the administration may send a token negotiating team to future talks, it is unlikely to take an active role.
"It would be seen as extreme bad faith if, after today's speech, the U.S. delegation tried to negotiate anything over the Paris Agreement," Meyer said.
By offering to renegotiate, Trump may have intended to throw a bone to advisers who had hoped the United States would maintain a "seat at the table." But conservatives who have long pressed him to make good on his campaign pledge to pull out of the deal said renegotiation isn't necessary.
Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, called it "cover."
"He's being reasonable with the international establishment," said Ebell, who has been agitating for a Paris retreat since before he served as the Trump transition lead for U.S. EPA. "No progress will ever be made."
Critics of Trump's decision aren't limited to the ranks of Democrats and environmental activists. Republicans and business leaders also expressed concern.
Mark McIntosh, a GOP energy adviser who served as "sherpa" for Trump's transitional EPA, said the president's action could "severely impact" the same Americans who supported Trump in last year's election. He blamed White House aides for not giving the president a full picture of his decision's impacts on trade and the economy.
"The damage to our economy, and more specifically to a developing manufacturing sector, will be harsh regardless of the explanation given by the White House," said McIntosh, who worked in the White House under Bush. "It will be difficult to 'Make America Great Again' while surrendering aspirations of global economic leadership to China — which is, sadly, what this decision will do."
The move was also met tepidly by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which in the past urged states to repeal requirements promoting clean energy.
"The United States has enjoyed both economic growth and reduced carbon emissions for several consecutive years," said Sarah Hunt, director of the group's Center for Innovation and Technology. "American leadership in advanced energy technology development means this positive trend will continue regardless of President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement."
U.S. business icons sharply criticized Trump's announcement.
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said in his first Twitter post that the decision is a "setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world."
And Jeff Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric Co., said it is up to the private sector to take over. "Disappointed with today's decision on the Paris Agreement," he said on Twitter. "Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government."
Exxon Mobil Corp. echoed its former chief executive, Tillerson, in a statement saying the Paris Agreement is an "important step forward in the global challenge to reduce emissions."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055451
-
Fact-Checking Trump's Paris Agreement Speech
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Dylan Brown, Benjamin Storrow and Scott Waldman
President Trump justified his decision yesterday to leave a global climate accord with debunked conservative talking points and studies funded by groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
He claimed the Paris Agreement would make America the laughingstock of the world, costing the country 2.7 million jobs. He said China and India could build coal plants with abandon, while the United States would be forced to shutter its own. Factories would close. Energy prices would skyrocket. Brownouts and blackouts could spread across the power grid, forcing families to go without electricity.
"In short, the agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs. It just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries," Trump said. "The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement. They went wild. They were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage."
The picture Trump painted is a terrifying one. It's also incredibly unlikely, according to economic studies and analyses of how the Paris deal would work.
From the costs and benefits to the global impacts, the president cherry-picked his talking points to support withdrawing from the agreement.
Below are some of his statements deserving scrutiny:
"Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. ... By 2040, the cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income, and in many cases much worse than that."
The report Trump referenced was written by NERA for the American Council for Capital Formation, a pro-business think tank, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, which has oil and gas and coal companies as members.
NERA argues that the United States wouldn't be able to meet its Paris commitment without cutting greenhouse gases from the industrial sector, one of the toughest areas in which to limit emissions.
The report considered capping emissions from electricity, transportation, industry and all other sectors. Companies could trade emissions allowances within those sectors but not among them. That would mean much higher costs.
The $3 trillion gross domestic product loss Trump referenced sounds huge. But NERA found GDP loss could range widely depending on the scenario, from half a percent in 2025 to up to 10 percent in 2040.
It's hard to find a study on the Paris pledge that isn't funded by either opponents or supporters of the deal. But looking at the numbers from other groups provides some perspective.
Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank, applied a carbon tax across all sectors and found that the economic cost could be far lower, between 0.2 percent and 0.35 percent of GDP in 2025.
Climate advocates also frequently note that it isn't fair to consider the costs of action without also considering the societal costs of inaction.
"At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand. But at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts. 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 quality of life."
Trump cast doubt on renewable energy's ability to power the country in a high-economic-growth scenario.
The president is technically correct that the United States will need all forms of energy, said William Hogan, research director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. But that's because even the most optimistic scenarios don't envision a grid powered entirely by renewables until far into the future.
The question with renewables is less one of reliability and more one of cost, he said.
"The blackouts and brownouts is not consistent with how we operate the system," he added.
A series of recent studies have found that the U.S. grid could operate reliably with large amounts of renewable generation. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory study from last year concluded that the Eastern Interconnection could operate with 30 percent penetrations of wind and renewable generation. A 2016 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study found that the U.S. power sector could cut carbon emissions by 80 percent without increasing costs.
Additionally, when federal electricity regulators examined the potential impacts of the Obama administration's power-sector climate standards, they found that existing safeguards could prevent power supply disruptions.
"The mines are starting to open up, having a big opening in two weeks, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand-new mine. It's unheard of. For many, many years, that hasn't happened. They asked me if I'd go. I'm going to try."
After hundreds of closures in recent years, Trump said mines are opening, as he promised on the campaign trail.
The "big" opening later this month is likely a reference to the Acosta Deep mine in southwestern Pennsylvania.
The 70-worker operation would harvest metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel. It is one of three metallurgical mines to come online during a recent price surge.
But rebounds for metallurgical coal are not representative of the industry at large. Metallurgical coal makes up less than 10 percent of U.S. production.
"From a practical point of view, that doesn't make any difference to what is going to happen in the next five, six years," Wood Mackenzie analyst Matt Preston said.
U.S. coal production and employment may be up slightly in early 2017. But they remain well below levels in 2015, the second-worst year on record.
Preston said all signs point to the coal market continuing to shrink.
"Maybe a little of a revival this year and next year, then plant retirements begin to kick in," he said. "No one's thinking we need to build new coal plants."
Trump also said the Paris Agreement "effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America," while allowing China and India to increase their coal use.
But the agreement doesn't dictate the energy sources that a member nation must use, nor does it limit funding for any technology.
In fact, since the Paris Agreement took effect, the United States launched the world's largest carbon capture and sequestration system retrofit on a coal-fired power plant, Petra Nova, earlier this year.
"Under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States."
China is making strides under the Paris pledge, even if they don't look the same as in the United States.
China plans to stop growing emissions no later than 2030, and most analyses show the country's emissions peaking in the mid-2020s.
To reach its goal, China will need to build new green power infrastructure equal to the size of the entire U.S. electric grid. China has already begun that work and is on track to have an economywide price on carbon this year.
Additionally, China has pledged $3.1 billion in aid to climate-vulnerable countries, compared with the $3 billion pledge to the U.N. Green Climate Fund that the United States won't honor.
"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of 1 degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100."
White House officials said this figure came from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Researchers from the Climate Interactive project, which collaborates with MIT, quickly refuted Trump's point.
In fact, the MIT research to which the president referred showed that the Paris Agreement could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C.
The Trump administration essentially pulled one piece of data out of the study and removed all context before inserting it into a factually inaccurate and entirely different claim, said John Reilly, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT and author of the study. He said his study showed Paris was an important agreement that could shave off an entire degree of warming, but that climate skeptics have tried to make a similar false claim in the past. He said that if anything, the study shows an argument for remaining in Paris.
"The idea of withdrawing from it makes no sense at all," he said. "If he wants to negotiate something, he can negotiate the succeeding agreement, and there is nothing to say within the scope of the Paris Agreement you can't put forward a much more aggressive policy for the United States over that period and ask other countries to come up with even more."
"Exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States' sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in."
In the Paris Agreement, countries put forward their own commitments, known as nationally determined contributions. They are nonbinding, and there are no enforcement mechanisms if a country falls short. And the vast majority of international legal experts say they can be rescinded and lowered at will.
Trump may have gotten this idea from Republican senators who have suggested that staying in the Paris Agreement could force the United States into an economywide cap-and-trade system. In a recent letter to Trump, they argued that climate action supporters could sue the administration to write a regulation under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act if the United States remained in the deal.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also required some fact-checking.
"Before the Paris Accord was ever signed, America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels of the early 1990s. In fact, between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by more than 18 percent, and this was accomplished largely by American innovation and technology from the private sector rather than government mandate."
It's important to look at the years Pruitt picks to judge emissions levels.
Greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon, increased 7 percent between 1990 and 2014, according to EPA data.
Carbon dioxide from human activities went up 9 percent.
Emissions increased before 2000, which makes the reduction between 2000 and 2014 look more substantial.
The fairer comparison might be to look at emissions reductions next to GDP. Since the 1990s, emissions per dollar of GDP have declined 40 percent.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055454
-
Trump Offer to 'Renegotiate' Paris Draws Ire of Foreign Leaders, Democrats
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith, Doug Obey, and Lee Logan
White House officials say President Donald Trump's offer to “renegotiate” the Paris Agreement with an eye to rejoining is “sincere,” though it is already drawing heat from both Democratic lawmakers and foreign leaders -- who say the deal's terms are set in stone and any renegotiation would be a “fig leaf” to weaken the U.S. commitment.
Trump announced his intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate deal during a June 1 ceremony in the White House Rose Garden. But in the same breath, he said the administration will also “begin negotiations to re-enter the Paris accord, or an entirely new transaction, but on terms fair to the United States.”
In an appeal to Democrats, Trump pledged to “immediately” work with them to “negotiate our way back into Paris under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.”
He added: “We'll make it good. . . . People of our country will be thrilled. Until we do that, we're out of the agreement.”
Trump's decision to depart does not come as a surprise. Trump on the campaign trail pledged to “cancel” and “renegotiate” the global climate deal, and the administration has taken steps domestically to target domestic policies that were key to underpinning the Obama administration's greenhouse gas pledge under Paris.
But the White House has been debating the issue for months, with several key players in the administration -- including Trump's daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson -- as well as many major energy companies and some Republicans calling for Trump to keep the United States in the deal, but with a weaker national GHG target.
As Trump weighed the decision, many supporters of remaining in the deal -- including key architects of the agreement -- acknowledged that its national GHG targets are non-binding, indicating the United States could adjust its pledge. Obama submitted a pledge to reduce GHGs 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
But it is unclear how the administration intends to approach any renegotiation, and whether that might be directed toward relaxing the U.S. emissions pledge or address some of the key portions of the Paris framework. For example, Trump has consistently criticized the Green Climate Fund, which he said in his Rose Garden speech is “costing the United States a vast fortune” even as large developing economies are not required to pay.
A White House official told reporters at a June 1 press briefing that Trump is “sincere” in his intention to “find some way to get back in Paris that works for the United States.” The official said Trump “wants to figure out: Is there common ground? Is there a place for us to land with our allies and partners [and] with Democratic leadership on these issues?”
The official said there is “no question” the Obama GHG pledge “would have undermined U.S. competitiveness” and would have been the “nail in the coffin for U.S. manufacturers” across sectors.
But when asked what Trump is looking for in a better deal, the official hedged, noting that while one issue could be the U.S. emissions pledge, other issues could be related to international climate policy but not directly “fall into the Paris bucket.” The official suggested such issues might be the “role of innovation” in driving down emissions and “multilateral development banks” funding developing countries' climate efforts.
“The president is sincere when he says he wants a better deal. He wants to negotiate, potentially bring us back in Paris depending on what that looks like,” the official said, adding that the issue is “more nuanced than stay in or not.”
The official said that the administration intends to follow the process laid out in the Paris Agreement to withdraw, a process that requires a three-year waiting period before a country can submit a formal intent to withdraw. The country would have to wait an additional year -- until November 2020 -- for that departure to take effect.
During that period, the administration can engage in negotiations, though another White House official said that process is “to be determined” by Trump. That official added, however, that the United States “will not acknowledge or do anything to implement the current pledge put down by” the Obama administration.
'Cannot Be Renegotiated'
Even as the White House games out a renegotiation strategy -- officials say to look for “actions in the coming weeks” -- foreign leaders and Democrats quickly rejected the notion of a broad renegotiation of the climate deal.
“We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni said in a joint statement following Trump's announcement.
And Reuters is reporting Macron spoke separately with Trump over the phone, saying “nothing could be renegotiated” in the Paris deal.
In addition, Patricia Espinosa, the United Nations climate chief, said the Paris Agreement “cannot be renegotiated based on the request of a single Party.”
But she also appeared to suggest a willingness to work with the administration, should it decide to renegotiate “the modalities for the U.S. participation in the agreement. In this regard, it stands ready to engage in dialogue with the United States government regarding the implications of this announcement.”
The first White House official, however, argued that other countries, particularly U.S. allies and other big emitters, will have a “strong interest in finding common ground with the United States. No question there will be interest.”
Observers say Trump's comments suggest not a broader renegotiation of the Paris deal itself, but a trade-off of some sort, in which the United States lowers its emissions target and receives commitments on its priorities. Ahead of the announcement, some Republicans and industry representatives urged Trump to remain in the deal and use U.S. leverage to create a long-term future for fossil fuels under the framework.
“It's possible he's looking for something . . . where he offers a lower offer, if you like, and he persuades a couple of other countries to increase their offer, and do some kind of trade deal with the U.S,” Andrew Steer of the World Resources Institute (WRI) said on a press call. He added that such a trade deal could include an announcement of significant exports from the United States.
“That wouldn't be renegotiation in any sense whatsoever, of course,” he added. “It was such an odd statement, wasn't it? It could have meant anything.”
Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the U.N. climate office who oversaw the Paris negotiations, told the WRI call that while such a move is theoretically possible, “I would have a hard time imagining how any country would be willing to let the United States off the hook.”
She said many countries offered “conservative” targets that they will likely meet and exceed. “I can't imagine they would do that, meet and exceed [the goals], and then let the United States off the hook, unless it's in exchange for something out of the Paris deal.”
Similarly, former Obama EPA policy adviser Bob Sussman says he suspects Trump's renegotiation offer “will have few takers, not only because he has burned his bridges with the leading signatories but because the safest strategy is simply to wait him out and hope for a new outlook in the next administration rather than give credence to demands for changes in the agreement that are unrealistic and unjustified.”
During a separate press call, Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said there is “nothing for the Trump administration to renegotiate in this agreement. What they don't like is that it has [spurred] countries to cooperate and as a result of that it is squeezing their friends in the coal and oil industry.”
He added, “There is not one country that is going to come to the table and try to renegotiate this deal with President Trump. . . . Nobody is going to follow his lead, and it is going to create enormous blowback on his agenda” on trade, terrorism and other issues.
'Fig Leaf'
No matter the renegotiation tactic Trump chooses, he will certainly face blowback from Democrats, who are blasting the president's move and signaling an intent to fight it rather than work with the administration.
“The idea of searching for a new deal is a fig leaf. If you truly believe in improving the Paris Agreement, you don't back out -- you work with our allies and partners around the world,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement.
“This has the same hollow ring as President Trump's and Congressional Republicans' false assertion that repealing the Affordable Care Act will improve health care,” he added. “Democrats will do everything we can to undo what President Trump has done and prevent further regression.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-offer-renegotiate-paris-draws-ire-foreign-leaders-democrats
-
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt clasped President Trump's hand as he stepped to the lectern in the White House Rose Garden yesterday to claim the biggest political victory of his nascent tenure as U.S. EPA chief.
Trump had just announced that the United States would pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change — and Pruitt had led the way to making it happen.
"Today we put America first," the EPA administrator announced. "We as a nation do better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing our economy, growing jobs, while also being a good steward of our environment. We owe no apologies to other nations."
Pruitt's brief remarks, which did not mention climate change, marked the culmination of months of behind-the-scenes efforts to convince Trump to leave the historic climate agreement. He proved successful despite widespread opposition from environmental and business groups, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and the president's own daughter and son-in-law.
For Pruitt, the victory could be an important one politically, observers say. The EPA administrator is rumored to be interested in running for the U.S. Senate seat held by his friend, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is up for re-election in 2020. Some in Washington are speculating on whether Inhofe, 82, will want to seek another term. The senator has not yet announced whether he plans to run again.
Like Pruitt, Inhofe had called for departing from the Paris Agreement. Inhofe said he worked with the EPA administrator to craft a letter to Trump, signed by 22 senators, advising him to leave the climate accord.
"He won," Inhofe told E&E News. "I think that certainly vindicates any criticism of Scott Pruitt."
Inhofe said Pruitt had not discussed with him running for office. The senator did say that in the past three days, meeting with Republican groups in the state, he could not find any members of the party who disagreed with pulling out of the Paris Agreement.
Inhofe said the United States had to get out of the Paris Agreement, "just for the sake of honesty."
"We had a president who went to Paris and made commitments on behalf of the United States that he knew we could not keep," he said.
Speaking in the Rose Garden, Pruitt commended Trump for having the "courage" to get out of the climate accord. Repeating arguments he had made numerous times on conservative media over the past few weeks, Pruitt said the United States would now be striking a better balance between job creation and protecting the environment.
"America finally has a leader who answers only to the people," he said.
On CNN with Jake Tapper after the announcement, Pruitt said that withdrawing had nothing to do with whether climate change is occurring.
"This is about making sure America, as we negotiate CO2 reductions, that we do so with an America-first approach," he said.
Benefits of political experience
Supporters and critics alike said Pruitt's success in moving Trump toward his view of the Paris Agreement means his star is ascending in the administration and the GOP base.
"I think it bolsters his reputation among conservatives," said Nick Loris, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
"The fact that he was influential in swaying Trump to withdraw only strengthens his reputation as a leader who is willing to fight for all sources of energy in the United States and will make sure we aren't putting in regulations with high compliance costs and minimal, if any, climate benefits," he said.
Andrew Light, a distinguished fellow at the World Resources Institute and former State Department climate negotiator, said the ability of Pruitt and Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon ability to push for withdrawal from the climate accord showed their greater political experience over Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and Tillerson.
"Certainly what this demonstrates is that he is one of the more adept people in the Cabinet and the White House," he said.
Light noted that while Pruitt and Bannon had made a legal argument for exiting Paris, namely that the United States could not lower its emissions target under the agreement, the president's announcement focused instead on the administration's policy shift.
"The premises were all wrong, but the language was all policy stuff. In that respect, I guess it was not that particular legal argument which really was carrying this decision across the finish line, for Bannon and Pruitt, in the way that they thought that it would," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055456
-
Tillerson's First Post-Pari Remarks: US Will Reduce Emissions
Jun 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Friday that the United States is likely to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite exiting the Paris climate change agreement.
The brief statement during a photo op with Brazilian Foreign Minister Aloysio Nunes at the State Department was Tillerson’s first public statement about the Paris deal since President Trump announced Thursday that he would withdraw the United States from the pact.
The former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. supported staying in the Paris accord. But opponents of the pact such as Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt and White House strategist Stephen Bannon won out and convinced Trump to exit.
“It was a policy decision,” Tillerson said in response to a reporter’s question about the exit.
“I think it’s important everyone recognizes the United States has a terrific record on reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. It’s something I think we can be proud of and that was done in the absence of the Paris agreement. I don’t think we’re going to change our ongoing efforts to reduce those emissions in the future either,” he continued.
“So, hopefully people can keep it in perspective.”
The United States emitted 6.8 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2015, the most recent year of available data. That’s lower than every year since 1993, with the exception of 2012.
The drop in emissions is due largely to natural gas and renewable energy replacing coal-fired power plants.
In addition to exiting the Paris deal, Trump has started the process of rolling back nearly all of former President Barack Obama’s climate change policies, including limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry.
Tillerson’s department is responsible for managing international treaties and agreements like the Paris agreement. Under Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry was the main point person for the agreement.
But Tillerson didn’t attend Thursday’s White House ceremony, at which both Trump and Pruitt spoke.
The State Department did not release any statement after the event, in contrast with numerous other departments, including the departments of Energy, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336081-tillerson-us-will-continue-to-cut-emissions
-
Calif., N.Y., Wash. Unite to Say They Will Honor Paris Agreement
Jun 2, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California, New York and Washington yesterday formed a coalition to unite states committed to upholding the Paris climate agreement and taking action on global warming.
Governors announced the "United States Climate Alliance" after President Trump said he would withdraw the United States from the international pact. It's aimed at limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
"The White House's reckless decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement has devastating repercussions not only for the United States, but for our planet," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said in a statement. "New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington's irresponsible actions."
Cuomo said he also was signing an executive order "confirming New York's leadership role in protecting our citizens, our environment, and our planet."
The three states together represent roughly 68 million people, about one of every five Americans. The states combined generate one-fifth of the country's gross domestic product, they said.
Each of the three has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent from 2005 levels. California, New York and Washington account for about 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
"The president has already said climate change is a hoax, which is the exact opposite of virtually all scientific and worldwide opinion," California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said. "I don't believe fighting reality is a good strategy — not for America, not for anybody. If the president is going to be AWOL in this profoundly important human endeavor, then California and other states will step up."
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said that Trump's announcement "leaves the full responsibility of climate action on states and cities throughout our nation. While the president's actions are a shameful rebuke to the work needed to protect our planet for our children and grandchildren, states have been and will continue to step up."
'An insane move by this president'
Brown and other Golden State leaders separately said California would continue to lead on climate. California is the nation's most populous state with 39 million residents and has the nation's most aggressive goals to limit climate change.
"This is an insane move by this president," Brown said during a call with reporters. "The world depends on a sustainable future; he is going the other way. It's going to affect people's health, countries, our entire future."
The governor heads to China today to work with that country as it sets up a cap-and-trade program. The Golden State has an economywide carbon cap-and-trade market. Brown also has united a group of states, cities and subnationals committed to limiting the world's temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, called the Under2 MOU.
"No place is more aggressive on climate action than California," Brown added, listing the state's rules on cutting emissions, requiring efficient appliances and buildings, and aiming for more zero-emissions vehicles.
California's economy last year grew 40 percent faster than the rest of the country, he said, "following policies that are even tougher than what Paris is calling for. So Trump is wrong when he says this is bad for jobs."
California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) said lawmakers would continue to push forward. On Wednesday the state Senate passed his measure, S.B. 100, which aims for California to go to 100 percent renewable power by 2045. The bill still must go through the Assembly.
"We're sending a clear message to the rest of the world that no president, no matter how desperately they try to ignore reality, can halt our progress," de León said.
A Calif.-Canada-Mexico summit?
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said California "will fight the Trump administration tooth and nail anytime it tries to roll back our progress. The stakes are simply far too high."
Brown said Trump's decision could spur positive change on climate.
"Yes this is bad. It's tragic. But out of this tragedy I believe America and the rest of the world will mobilize and will galvanize our efforts," Brown said. "In fact, Trump may create the exact opposite of what he intended, and that is an aroused citizenry in America and aroused nations in the world that will not tolerate this deviant behavior from the highest office in the land."
A group of 27 Democrats yesterday urged Brown to hold a climate summit; partner with Mexico and Canada; and invite "like-minded states and subnationals from around the world, to ensure that we continue to charge ahead without forfeiting all of our historic progress to date."
Brown during an interview with Ari Melber on MSNBC said he was open to the idea.
"It sounds like a good idea," he said. "Can we pull it off? If we can, yeah. I want to talk to the prime minister in Canada and the president in Mexico, and if we can get them and others, that's an idea I would give very serious consideration to."
Brown added that there are "areas of collaboration" possible with China, which in addition to launching a cap-and-trade program has a zero-emissions vehicle program, as does California.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/02/stories/1060055446
-
Air Quality Experts Mull Divergent Views of NO2 Emissions' Health Effects
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Air quality researchers from the United States and Europe are mulling divergent views on how to evaluate nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions' impacts on human health, with Europeans eyeing an approach that presumes harms in the absence of other data while U.S experts take a more cautious method requiring proof to show harm.
The debate could play a role in whatever EPA decides in a proposed rule due by a July 14 legal deadline, in which the agency will determine whether to revise the NO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 100 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour.
At the Health Effects Institute's (HEI) annual conference in Alexandria, VA, last month, experts from both the United States and Europe debated the adverse effects of NO2, a pollutant that is a precursor to ozone formation but is also harmful in its own right. However, there is a vigorous discussion underway as to just how harmful NO2 alone is to humans, or even whether its unique effects can be distinguished from those of other air pollutants.
In the face of this uncertainty, the United States and European countries are adopting different approaches to risk. While U.S. air quality experts advising EPA on federal air standards have stopped short of drawing causal links between NO2 and health effects other than short-term respiratory effects for which the evidence is clear, the European approach leans toward assuming health effects from NO2 unless evidence can be shown to dispel such links.
The divergence comes as EPA is under the July 14 deadline under a consent decree with environmentalists to propose a rule either modifying or leaving unchanged NAAQS, and an April 6 deadline to finalize the rule. The agency must make the decision based on the standard it thinks will protect public health from NO2.
At the HEI event, air quality researcher Heather Walton of Kings College, London, outlined the current thinking of the U.K. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), a scientific body advising the British government on how to combat air pollution, toward the more precautionary assumption of risks from NO2. The committee in a 2015 interim report and letters to the British government drew stronger conclusions on how to view NO2's health effects than EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and EPA staff.
COMEAP is currently finalizing the report, which has now been delayed until after the June 8 British general election, Walton said. The report comes amid a heated debate over how to curb air pollution in Britain, and follows the U.K. government's May 5 release of its NO2 reduction plan. That plan focuses on creation of "clean air zones" in polluted areas and a program to scrap older diesel vehicles. Environmentalists have already lambasted the plan, which places much responsibility on local authorities, as weak. Mayor of London Sadiq Kahn derided the plan in a May 5 statements to the media as "toothless" and "woefully inadequate."
In a March 2015 statement, COMEAP concluded that: "Evidence of associations of ambient concentrations of NO2 with a range of effects on health has strengthened in recent years. These associations have been shown to be robust to adjustment for other pollutants including some particle metrics.
"Although it is possible that, to some extent, NO2 acts as a marker of the effects of other traffic-related pollutants, the epidemiological and mechanistic evidence now suggests that it would be sensible to regard NO2 as causing some of the health impact found to be associated with it in epidemiological studies."
Different Emphasis
Experts at the HEI meeting noted a difference in emphasis between the British experts and their U.S. counterparts, even though scientific review bodies in both countries are working with a very similar set of underlying studies and data. Walton said the difference is "what you do in the face of uncertainty. What philosophical approach you take to that."
Daniel Greenbaum, president of HEI -- a research organization jointly funded by EPA and the auto sector -- said the difference exists in part because "the facts on the ground are very different."
Many European countries in recent years encouraged the purchase of diesel vehicles, partly as a strategy to reduce fuel consumption and drive down greenhouse gas emissions.
But many such vehicles are emitting NO2 at rates greater than allowed, creating an urgent discussion on NO2 and ozone levels in cities such as London. Many locations in the United Kingdom therefore experience NO2 levels in excess of the European Union (EU) "limit value" of 200 micrograms per cubic meter over one hour, in violation of EU law. The British government in its new strategy document notes that NO2 levels have dropped substantially over recent decades, but acknowledges the unlawfully high levels of NO2 in some locations.
In contrast, the United States continues to see NO2 levels drop from both industrial sources and vehicles. In its April 14 policy assessment (PA) document prepared by agency staff to inform EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on whether to revise the NAAQS, the agency recommends no change in the standard.
"[W]e recognize that the uncertainties and limitations associated with the many aspects of the estimated relationships between NO2 exposures and adverse respiratory effects are amplified with consideration of increasingly lower NO2 concentrations. In staff's view, there is appreciable uncertainty in the extent to which reductions in asthma exacerbations or asthma development would result from alternative NO2 standards with levels lower than those of the current standards," EPA staff said in the PA.
The recommendation has the support of CASAC, which advises EPA on where to set the level and form of the NAAQS. CASAC agreed with EPA's assessment that NO2 directly causes short-term respiratory harm, such as worsened asthma symptoms, but that the evidence for other health effects such as long-term respiratory damage or cardiovascular effects is less conclusive.
Michael Jerret of the University of California-Los Angeles, a member of CASAC's NO2 review panel, noted that the panel struggled with the stronger evidence of NO2's harmful effects, saying the panel in the end could not agree with strong causality statements for several effects. "We had to punt the ball on this," he said.
Under the terms of a consent decree finalized and entered with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California April 28 in Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), et al. v. Pruitt, EPA now has until July 14 to propose a rule either changing the NAAQS or leaving it unchanged.
The decree also requires EPA to issue a final science assessment for sulfur oxides (SOx) health effects by Dec. 14, a proposed NAAQS rule for SOx by May 25, 2018 and a final NAAQS rule by Jan. 28, 2019. The Obama EPA set its SOx NAAQS in 2010 at 75 ppb over one hour.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/air-quality-experts-mull-divergent-views-no2-emissions-health-effects
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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