Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/06
-
(ACC Mentioned) We Create a Plastic-Bag-Free Environment?
Jun 5, 2017 | Viera Voice
By Marcia Booth
Introduced to the American public in the 1970s by ExxonMobil, plastic bags were not well received by consumers at first, who preferred the familiar, sturdy paper bags. It was not until the 1980s, after businesses realized that plastic bags were “simply much cheaper for stores to purchase than paper bags, [and were] also waterproof and stronger than paper bags,” that plastic bags became the norm. -
White House Launches Vision on Spending, Projects
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Camille von Kaenel
The White House today began a weeklong effort to promote plans to boost infrastructure spending by private companies, states and cities. -
Another Tragic Death — Time for EPA to Ban High-Risk Chemical Paint Strippers
Jun 5, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
A few weeks ago, a 21-year-old man tragically passed away after being overcome by chemical fumes while refinishing a bathtub. -
Echa Seeks PAH Restriction Information
Jun 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has called for information to help in the preparatory phase of the restriction proposal on the following eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) -
Fossil Fuels Trade Moves in U.S.'s Favor
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E ENergywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The nation's trade gap expanded in April, but exports of oil and natural gas surged this spring as the United States moves closer to becoming a net energy exporter. -
Budget Cuts Rip into USGS Impact Research
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Pamela King
On the surface, the Interior Department's efforts to study the environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas development appear to have survived the Trump administration's massive budget cuts. -
Greens Sue Trump for Delaying Obama Methane Rule
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Environmentalists today made good on their promise to sue the Trump administration over its delay of Obama-era standards to reduce methane emissions from new oil and gas sources. -
Under Trump, Worker Protections Are Viewed With New Skepticism
Jun 5, 2017 | The New York Times
By Barry Merier & Danielle Ivory
The victory was so sweet that the head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sent thank-you notes to his employees. -
Colo. Pipe Probes Find No Leaks But Lots of Wells Near Homes
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Colorado oil and gas regulators are learning how closely the industry is intertwined with the state's residential areas as they process the results of a round of emergency inspections. -
Colorado Assessing E&P Flowline Data Following April Explosion
Jun 5, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Only a "handful" of smaller operators had yet to submit requested data regarding flowlines to the state following a mandate by the governor last month, but the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) was not ready to conclude that the industry is fully complying following a fatal explosion in April of an abandoned flowline from a well sited about 170 feet from a home. -
Trump Officials Say U.S. is a 'Leader' on the Environment
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
The United States was never on track to meet its Paris accord emissions commitments, so it's better to spare the economy those costly regulations and instead count on the private sector to solve the problem. -
Trump's Claim That US Is Cleanest Lacks Support From Studies
Jun 5, 2017 | The Associated Press (in The New York Times)
Is the United States the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth? President Donald Trump says it is, but some studies of the American environment don't agree. -
Left Says Pruitt is Mischaracterizing their Paris Criticisms
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The scientific community has warned that the Paris Agreement would not go far enough to limit global warming. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is now using that criticism to help justify President Trump's decision to exit the international climate accord. -
Governors Face Pressure to Distance Themselves from Trump
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow & Emily Holden
Six states announced they will join the climate pact organized by California, New York and Washington state in response to President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement -
Bloomberg Pledges $15M
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has committed $15 million toward the Paris Agreement, as a partial replacement of the deficit created by the U.S. withdrawal.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) We Create a Plastic-Bag-Free Environment?
Jun 5, 2017 | Viera Voice
By Marcia Booth
Introduced to the American public in the 1970s by ExxonMobil, plastic bags were not well received by consumers at first, who preferred the familiar, sturdy paper bags. It was not until the 1980s, after businesses realized that plastic bags were “simply much cheaper for stores to purchase than paper bags, [and were] also waterproof and stronger than paper bags,” that plastic bags became the norm. Their light weight and convenience made them acceptable and even popular among shoppers.
By 1985, 75 percent of American grocery stores carried plastic bags. In 2011, the estimated number of plastic bags used each year in the United States was around 102 billion (Rolling Stone) and still less than 1 percent are recycled.
As the use of plastic bags increased, concerns about their impact grew among environmentalists. Besides being made from an unsustainable byproduct of oil and natural gas — as any plastic — plastic bags are found flying around, polluting streets and waterways, where they become a threat to wildlife. Birds get trapped in them and “marine animals often mistake the plastic bags for food and ingest them, leading to starvation, suffocation or drowning.”
The cost of using plastic bags has affected communities that must spend time and money on cleanups, and harms our oceans, which end up being the last destination for the flying bags.
Recycling facilities also feel the impact of plastic bags. Plastic bag removal represents about 25 percent of their labor cost. If the bags are not removed from the processing line, they jam sorting equipment.
The negative effects of using plastic bags have been decisive for many countries to implement policies either banning or imposing fees on plastic bags. Bangladesh, China and Italy are examples of countries that have banned plastic bags altogether. Ireland’s imposition of a 15-cent fee has resulted in a 95-percent reduction in use (Worldwatch).
In the U.S., “the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group whose members include petro-chemical giants such as ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical,” has been strongly investing resources “to overturn bans on plastic bags, cast doubt on legitimate scientific studies and even file lawsuits against anti-bag activists.”
Despite steps taken by the ACC, a growing number of municipalities have passed measures restricting the use of plastic bags. Washington, D.C. has imposed a 5-cent fee on plastic bags, and in 2016 California confirmed the ban on plastic bags through a referendum. In May 2017, Coral Gables became the first city in Florida to ban plastic bags.
Businesses also are joining in the effort. IKEA stores, for example, only offer customers one option: reusable bags —available for a fee. And just last year Adidas “removed approximately 70 million plastic bags from 14,000 Adidas stores across 91 countries” as part of their Brand Sustainability project.
Grocery stores such as Target and Lucky’s Market implemented incentive programs for shoppers to bring in their own reusable bags. Target refunds 5 cents per reusable bag, while Lucky’s Market (LuckysMarket.com/west-melbourne-florida/) took the incentive a little further and created a program, called Bag for Change, to help raise funds for local nonprofit organizations. At checkout, shoppers who bring their own reusable bags have the option to either receive a 10-cent refund per bag or donate a 10-cent wooden chip per bag to one of the three non-profit organizations featured in the store for the quarter.
Recycle Brevard was fortunate to be one of the nonprofits selected for the program in the quarter that began May 21. So next time you shop at Lucky’s, remember to bring your reusable bags and please consider donating your wooden dimes to Recycle Brevard.
No matter which way it’s done, reducing the number of plastic bags that circulate in our community has become crucial to preventing ocean pollution and littering as well as protecting our wildlife.
While we don’t have legislation determining the fate of plastic bags in our area, we still can make a difference by bringing our own bags when we shop, requesting our favorite stores to provide alternative bags and asking stores to create incentive programs. It might sound like too little, but every step taken in the right direction is one step closer to a plastic-bag-free environment.
http://www.vieravoice.com/June-2017/Can-we-create-a-plastic-bag-free-environment/
-
White House Launches Vision on Spending, Projects
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Camille von Kaenel
The White House today began a weeklong effort to promote plans to boost infrastructure spending by private companies, states and cities.
The administration will publicize its vision in events and announcements. It kicked off with a long-discussed proposal to privatize air traffic control, which aides called "low-hanging fruit."
"This new entity will not need taxpayer money, which is very shocking," President Trump said during remarks unveiling the proposal in the White House East Room.
He was joined by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster, and previous Transportation secretaries and Federal Aviation Administration heads.
In a briefing with reporters this morning about the administration's broader infrastructure plan, aides pointed to a loose set of principles highlighting public-private partnerships and regulatory reform rather than concrete, detailed legislation.
They say an additional $200 billion in direct federal spending over the next 10 years would trigger $1 trillion in overall spending, despite proposed cuts to grants for highways and transit.
Many of the administration's ideas on infrastructure, like relaxing restrictions on tolling, have been trickling out over the past few months, but advisers called this week a more "formal" launch of their vision. Infrastructure legislation could come to Congress this fall.
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said Friday the federal government was seeking to be a "partner to state and local governments to help them overcome the political and bureaucratic obstacles."
That marks a departure from previous large-scale infrastructure pushes, like the expansion of the interstate highway system or public works projects during the Great Depression, in which the federal government provided most of the funding.'Massive' permitting reform
Cohn and other advisers, including the special assistant to the president for infrastructure, DJ Gribbin, and the Office of American Innovation's assistant to the president, Reed Cordish, lamented what they call a lengthy approval process for projects in background calls with reporters.
"Our length of time has nothing to do with environmental and has everything to do with a broken system," Cordish said today, adding that the president's plan will include "massive" permitting reform. The goal is to get projects approved in two years or less, instead of eight, he said.
The administration's vision would place much of the responsibility for building out new infrastructure on state and local officials as opposed to the federal government.
On Wednesday, the president will travel to Cincinnati to speak about rural infrastructure and inland waterways. The White House will host a bipartisan group of governors and mayors Thursday. And the president is scheduled Friday to visit the Transportation Department to highlight regulatory reform.
Separately, Chao will appear Wednesday before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on the FAA.
Democrats, who have pushed their own plans, including $1 trillion of direct federal spending, were already pushing back against the administration's vision.
"The entire focus of the President's infrastructure 'proposal' is on privatization, which sounds like a nice word but when you scratch beneath the surface it means much less construction and far fewer jobs, particularly in rural areas," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a statement.
Critics also say this week's events appear more like a public relations push rather than the administration presenting more concrete proposals for Congress to consider.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055550
-
Another Tragic Death — Time for EPA to Ban High-Risk Chemical Paint Strippers
Jun 5, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
A few weeks ago, a 21-year-old man tragically passed away after being overcome by chemical fumes while refinishing a bathtub. The young man was working for a small painting business in Tennessee. His death is currently being investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but is suspected to have been caused by methylene chloride exposure. If confirmed, this would add to the dozens of reported deaths caused by the chemical’s use in paint stripping products over the past several decades.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has within its grasp the ability to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again. In January, EPA proposed to ban methylene chloride in paint and coating removal products – including those used for bathtub refinishing, and is considering a ban on such use of another highly toxic chemical called N-methylpyrrolidone. The agency based its proposal on an extensive assessment of the scientific literature, which demonstrated not only lethal risks from acute methylene chloride exposure but also other health impacts from both short- and long-term exposure to both chemicals.
Products containing these chemicals are available at hardware and other retail stores across the country, and unless EPA acts promptly to finalize a ban, there will surely be more avoidable deaths and other health impacts due to use of high-risk chemical paint strippers. In EDF’s recent comments to EPA, we strongly urged it to finalize these bans as soon as possible to protect public health. EPA should not wait for another reason to take action.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/?_ga=2.225792339.835367548.1496677365-953214861.1490520958
-
Echa Seeks PAH Restriction Information
Jun 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has called for information to help in the preparatory phase of the restriction proposal on the following eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
benzo[a]pyrene (BaP);benzo[e]pyrene (BeP);benzo[a]anthracene (BaA);chrysen (CHR);benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbFA);benzo[j]fluoranthene (BjFA);benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkFA); anddibenzo[a,h]anthracene (DBAhA).
Its main areas of concern are articles made available to the general public and in toys.
Specifically the agency wants to hear evidence on the content of the substances – listed in entry 50 of Annex XVII of REACH – and the analytical methods used in establishing this.
It also wants information on the current availability of suitable, alternative low-PAH raw materials. The agency is particularly interested in carbon black and extender oils, used to manufacture rubber and plastic components.
The deadline for comments is 31 July.
PAHs are suspected carcinogens. The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) recently carried out an enforcement project looking at their presence in rubber and plastic goods. Of the 58 products it tested, it found five had prohibited levels.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56609/echa-seeks-pah-restriction-information
-
Fossil Fuels Trade Moves in U.S.'s Favor
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E ENergywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The nation's trade gap expanded in April, but exports of oil and natural gas surged this spring as the United States moves closer to becoming a net energy exporter.
On Friday the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported the latest international trade figures, showing that the U.S. trade deficit for April expanded by $2.3 billion over March figures. Exports fell, while imports rose.
But trade in fossil energy continued to move closer to the U.S.'s favor. Government researchers believe rising exports of natural gas, crude oil and refined products will combine with falling imports of those commodities to see the U.S. becoming a net exporter of fossil energy perhaps within a decade.
Data show that crude oil exports from the U.S. surged in value in April, and values of monthly oil exports continue to well exceed last year's figures as oil companies pushed more U.S. crude into the global market. The U.S. is likely exporting more than 1 million barrels a day of crude at the current pace, upsetting efforts by other major oil exporters to curb flows of crude in an attempt to push up oil prices.
OPEC, Russia and other leading net oil exporters have moved to curtail their combined crude oil production by about 1.8 million barrels a day. Analysts say they are largely succeeding. But U.S. oil companies have swiftly moved in to capture some of that global market share.
Census data show that April U.S. oil exports were valued at nearly $1.6 billion. At about $50 per barrel, that suggests a total volume of 31 million to 32 million barrels shipped from U.S. ports that month.
The U.S. also imported a lot less oil that month. According to BEA, crude oil import costs fell by $1.9 billion.
Regardless, U.S. trade with OPEC has returned to deficit. The nation imported more crude from Saudi Arabia as national oil company Saudi Arabian Oil Co. took full control of a massive refinery in the Houston region.
"The balance with Saudi Arabia shifted from a surplus of $2.0 billion to a deficit of $0.5 billion in the first quarter," BEA reported. "Exports decreased $0.2 billion to $6.6 billion and imports increased $2.3 billion to $7.1 billion."
Sales of liquefied natural gas were also stronger in April than in March. Though lower than January 2017 figures, LNG exports for April were valued at $270.6 million, compared with $202.4 million for March of this year.
By comparison, the U.S. was exporting about $40 million worth of LNG around the same time last year. More LNG export capacity is expected to come online this year.
Sales of gas by pipeline were steady at $447.6 million, little changed from the start of 2017 but up from $290.5 million in April of last year. Income from the export of coal fell by about $100 million.
Natural gas imports continue to fall over time, with volumes at their lowest since 1986, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
EIA believes the U.S. could become a net energy exporter as early as 2026 (Energywire, Jan. 6).Renewables trade
Trade figures moved sideways for renewable energy, with import dependence rising for some categories and falling for others.
The cost of importing solar panels fell from March to April, yet is trending up since the start of the year, from $166 million in January to $229.7 million in April. But imports are way off from a year ago, with the census reporting $780.7 million in solar panel imports in April 2016. In general, solar panel imports have been trending lower since June of last year.
Imports of wind turbines (wind-powered generating sets) jump up and down in value month to month, reflecting project cycles. The cost doubled in a year, with over $632,000 worth of imports reported in April this year, compared with just over $378,000 a year earlier. But in January of this year the U.S. imported more than $20 million worth of wind power equipment, and imports reached $70 million last summer.
Despite efforts by U.S. authorities and industry to expand domestic renewable energy manufacturing capacity, the nation remains heavily dependent on East Asia for solar power equipment and on Europe for wind energy technology. With the U.S. solar panel manufacturing sector on the brink of near-collapse, two remaining U.S. solar panel makers are pushing for tariffs on imports to save the industry (Energywire, May 26).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055517
-
Budget Cuts Rip into USGS Impact Research
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Pamela King
On the surface, the Interior Department's efforts to study the environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas development appear to have survived the Trump administration's massive budget cuts.
"As demands for energy and mineral resources grow, USGS research and assessments become increasingly critical to understand the occurrence, quality, supply, and use of national and global resources," according to the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal 2018 budget justification.
Just how robust that research will be remains unclear.
The Trump administration proposed a $922 million budget for Geological Survey programs, $138 million below the 2017 continuing resolution baseline. The proposal includes $74.4 million for the Energy and Minerals Mission Area, a $1.5 million increase.
But that bump is the result of a funding transfer for carbon sequestration research. Effectively, the mission area's two arms, the Energy Resources Program (ERP) and the Mineral Resources Program (MRP), would receive 2 percent less funding in the next fiscal year, said Murray Hitzman, associate director of Energy and Minerals.
How will those cuts affect USGS's ability to study hydraulic fracturing impacts?
"We're still trying to figure that out," he said.
Until this month, Hitzman led a multiagency research collaborative including Interior, U.S. EPA and the Energy Department to study unconventional oil and gas development.
Leadership this month shifted to EPA, where the Trump administration has proposed trimming the budget by 30 percent. According to an agency spokeswoman, EPA received its last oil and gas research appropriation — $3 million to study development in the Appalachian Basin — in fiscal 2016 (Energywire, Feb. 15).
As part of the research collaboration, USGS is charged with measuring fracking's impact on air and water quality and human health.
The steepest reduction to the agency's fracking research capabilities comes in the form of a 20 percent cut to the agency's Environmental Health Mission Area. One of the mission area's divisions last year found a "definitive link" between water quality impacts and deep well injection of oil and gas wastewater (Energywire, May 11, 2016).
That study was guided by the multiagency collaboration, USGS hydrologist Isabelle Cozzarelli said late last year. How that strategy could change under President Trump is "a big unknown," she said at the time (Energywire, Dec. 13, 2016).
"We currently plan to continue much of the work we do as part of the multiagency collaboration (energy assessments, water studies, etc.)," USGS spokesman Alex Demas wrote last week in an email to E&E News. "Unfortunately, because it's a multiagency collaboration and therefore depends on the budget situations of three different departments, it's too early right now for me to be able to tell you with any certainty or clarity how the whole collaboration will work."Energy and minerals
The Energy and Minerals Mission Area's primary oil and gas work is centered on resource assessments, such as the analysis last year that found 20 billion barrels of oil and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Texas' Wolfcamp Shale (Energywire, Nov. 16, 2016).
A $644,000 reduction to MRP and a $290,000 cut to ERP reduce the agency's ability to conduct those studies, according to USGS's budget justification.
Among ERP's strategic actions for 2018 is a plan to "release USGS assessments of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in U.S. and non-U.S. basins," the document shows.
ERP is also funding research on the extent to which fracking is polluting groundwater in U.S. shale plays. Last week, a group of researchers wrote that they did not find evidence that extraction is currently a primary contributor to drinking water contamination (Energywire, June 1).
Industry pointed to Tuesday's paper as evidence that federal research on fracking has reached its limit.
"Hydraulic fracturing is safe, and the science on fracking's alleged drinking water impacts has been settled for some time," said Neal Kirby, spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "We believe the research into the safety of hydraulic fracturing has been done, and no more American taxpayer dollars are needed to research the issue further."
Tuesday's study focused on a limited number of wells in southern shale formations and acknowledged it may take decades to fully understand fracking's effect on drinking water.
"In the past, it's been our experience that research can often lead to regulation," Kirby said. "We believe the states and private industry are in the best position to research and address these issues as they arise."
The Sierra Club cast a critical eye on the study — one of the first on fracking released by Trump's USGS.
"This slapdash report seems to be part of a troubling trend from this administration of attempting to erase science that is inconvenient for their friends in the fossil fuel industry," said Kelly Martin, deputy director of the Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign. "Whatever the claims made by this flawed and incomplete report, two things are clear: Donald Trump's dangerous beliefs have no place in government science, and fracking has no place in our communities."
Athan Manuel, director of the club's lands protection program, said environmentalists are watching USGS's findings moving forward.
"We want to be open-minded and read the research and see what it says, but we definitely assume the worst from this administration," he said.
If fracking is going to occur, its impacts should be studied by fact- and science-based entities like USGS, Manuel said. Shrinking the agency's budget — which is still subject to congressional approval — is a puzzling decision, he said.
"USGS does a lot with a little bit of money, and this is not the place we should be cutting," he said.Environmental health
A $4.3 million reduction to Environmental Health would push the mission area's focus to oil and gas, said Associate Director Geoff Plumlee.
"With the proposed budget, many different aspects of the USGS had to make a lot of tough decisions on what our core mission is," he said.
Plumlee's team could roll back studies of subsurface contaminant transport near known chemical spills and scale back work on legacy environmental pollutants.
If the proposed budget is approved, staff and resources would be rededicated to fracking science, Plumlee said.
"The main thing is that unconventional oil and gas remains a high priority for us," he said.
The mission area's Toxic Substances Hydrology Program has led research to understand how a brine spill in a North Dakota stream could be persisting in sediments, water and organisms.
If USGS steps back on its obligations on that project, state agencies could attempt to step in, said David Glatt, chief of environmental health for the North Dakota Department of Health.
"By putting our budgets together, we can come up with the information we need," he said. "It's really going to be critical that we prioritize and work together on what needs to be done."
No matter the president, proposed budgets are generally deemed dead on arrival in Congress, Glatt said.
He hopes lawmakers are able to swiftly decide on funding priorities for the coming fiscal year.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055480
-
Greens Sue Trump for Delaying Obama Methane Rule
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Environmentalists today made good on their promise to sue the Trump administration over its delay of Obama-era standards to reduce methane emissions from new oil and gas sources.
Shortly after the administration this morning published a notice delaying key parts of the rule for 90 days, several environmental groups filed a petition seeking review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The groups — the Clean Air Council, Earthworks, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club — are also asking the court for an emergency stay of U.S. EPA's decision that would keep the regulations in effect.
"In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law," Meleah Geertsma, senior NRDC attorney, said in a statement. "The Trump administration does not have unlimited power to put people's health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this."
Methane is a greenhouse gas that's more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The 2016 standards were a key part of President Obama's goal of reducing emissions from the oil and gas industry between 40 and 45 percent by 2025 compared with 2012 levels.
Central to the rule were requirements for new and heavily modified oil and gas operations to check for and repair leaks. The leak detection requirements were expected to deliver more than half the rule's methane reductions and up to 45 percent of its reductions in smog-forming volatile organic compounds.
The Obama EPA set a deadline of June 3 for owners of new and modified oil and gas operations to complete a first round of monitoring. Operators would have been required to fix any leaks within 30 days.
But last week, a day before President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the international Paris climate change agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency would formally delay rule provisions by 90 days, including the fugitive emissions requirements (Greenwire, May 31). That stay went into effect today upon publication in the Federal Register.
Pruitt's decision came after EPA granted requests by energy industry trade groups to reconsider parts of the rule, including its fugitive emissions requirements for low-producing wells, site pneumatic pump standards and requirements for certifying closed vent systems by a professional engineer.
"American businesses should have the opportunity to review new requirements, assess economic impacts and report back, before those new requirements are finalized," Pruitt said in April when announcing the reconsideration of some aspects of the rule (Greenwire, April 19).
In their motion asking judges to block EPA's delay of the standards, groups said the administration's decision would cause irreparable harm. They said EPA's decision affects more than 18,000 wells and associated equipment in 22 states.
"Every day that the administrative stay is in place irreparably harms petitioners and their members, as well as all Americans similarly situated," the motion says. "Because of the administrative stay, these individuals will now continue to experience high levels of dangerous air pollution due to unmonitored and unfixed leaks."
As expected, the environmental groups are arguing that EPA had no authority to issue the stay without going through formal notice-and-comment procedures.
The Trump administration premised the stay on a provision in the Clean Air Act that allows EPA to pause certain regulatory requirements when it has granted a petition for reconsideration of a rule.
But the environmental groups say the energy industry's reconsideration request was invalid because the issues it raised had already been extensively hashed out during the Obama rulemaking process (Energywire, June 1).
Moreover, the groups argue, the decision to stay the deadline was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act "because it is overbroad."
"The action was patently unlawful, the irreparable harm to the public is serious, and the burden on industry is minimal," their motion says.
The Clean Air Task Force, which is representing Earthworks in the case, today characterized the suit as the first legal challenge against a Trump administration decision to halt a climate change regulation's emission reduction requirements.
"While EPA's stay is premised on its authority to 'reconsider' the 2016 methane rule, as a legal matter that tactic is simply not available to the agency for this rule," said CATF attorney Darin Schroeder.
He added: "EPA is attempting an end-around the law."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055549
-
Under Trump, Worker Protections Are Viewed With New Skepticism
Jun 5, 2017 | The New York Times
By Barry Merier & Danielle Ivory
The victory was so sweet that the head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sent thank-you notes to his employees.
Nearly four decades in the making, a new rule under the Obama administration was set to lower workplace exposure to beryllium, an industrial mineral linked to a lung disease that is to estimated to kill about 100 people annually. And the nation’s largest beryllium producer had agreed to back the new restrictions.
“Once we finish, these workers will be protected and we will end the epidemic of beryllium exposure in the United States,” David Michaels, the OSHA chief, said at the time in 2015.
But several weeks ago, just as the rule was going into effect, the safety agency suddenly proposed changes that experts expect may exempt major industries from the tougher standard. It was one of several instances in which workplace safety decisions have been revisited in the early months of the Trump administration.
OSHA has also put off enforcement of an Obama-era standard for another respiratory hazard — silica, a mineral linked to a disabling lung disease as well as cancer — and it has delayed action on a rule that would require employers to electronically report workplace injuries so that they can be posted for the public.
The moves come as the Trump administration offers other hints of a significant relaxation in the government’s approach to occupational safety.
A successor to Mr. Michaels at OSHA has yet to be named. Mr. Trump’s proposed budget eliminates at least two other strategies designed to promote worker safety, including the Chemical Safety Board, which investigates chemical plant accidents, and an OSHA grant program that provides training in industries with high injury or fatality rates and workers who do not speak English well.
During the early months of the Trump administration, a former lobbyist for an industry group that has opposed the beryllium, silica and record-keeping rules served on the transition team at the Department of Labor, which oversees OSHA. That official, Geoffrey Burr, who has since moved to the Department of Transportation as chief of staff, had been a lobbyist for the Associated Builders and Contractors, which represents nonunion construction companies.
A spokesperson for the Transportation Department declined to make Mr. Burr available for an interview but said that the former lobbyist had been in regular contact with officials while at the Department of Labor “to ensure he was in compliance with all ethics rules.” The Associated Builders and Contractors did not respond to questions about Mr. Burr.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
Asked about the Trump administration’s approach to occupational safety, a spokesman for the White House said, “The President and his administration care very much about worker safety, but believe the Obama administration’s approach was counterproductive, and we think we can do better.” He added that decisions to repeal and reduce specific OSHA regulations had not been made.
OSHA did not respond to questions about specific regulations.
Business groups that have fought OSHA actions have welcomed the apparent new direction and others believe it heralds a different approach by the Trump administration.
“The agency, under Obama, changed into something that was more explicitly allied with unions and critics of business,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “That’s likely to change.”
Some workplace experts and advocates say the Obama administration’s decision to wait until the eleventh hour to finalize some major rules made them vulnerable.
“Because they did it so late in the game, they left the rules open to change,” said Dr. Lee S. Newman, a pulmonary expert at University of Colorado in Denver, who helped uncover worker deaths caused by beryllium.
Experts like Dr. Newman also fear that a widespread regulatory rollback is beginning, and possible changes to the beryllium rule are particularly frustrating to them because it had taken so long to get the new standards in place.
It has been known for decades that exposure at even very low doses to beryllium — a strong, lightweight metal used to make computers, aircraft parts and nuclear bombs — can cause chronic beryllium disease, a disabling and potentially fatal lung ailment, in a small percentage of workers with a genetic susceptibility to it.
The Obama-era standard resulted from negotiations between the biggest American producer of beryllium, Materion Corporation, and the United Steelworkers union.
At one time, Materion, which was once known as Brush Wellman, played down beryllium’s risks and fought efforts to lower federal exposure standards because of fears that doing so would undercut its defense of lawsuits brought by sick or dying workers, court filings showed.
When OSHA proposed its final rule in August 2015, Materion applauded it, calling it a demonstration of how “industry and labor can collaborate to better protect workers” and saying it could be a guide for how the agency could develop future standards.
But in April, less than three months into the Trump administration, OSHA sent proposed changes to the White House for review. Agency officials declined to discuss the proposal. But safety advocates and an industry lawyer involved in meetings with OSHA about the new rule said that it was made clear to them that OSHA intended to lessen the rule’s effect on maritime and construction companies — or perhaps even exempt them.
“I had the feeling that the administration has already decided what it wants to do,” said Peg Seminario, the director of safety and health for the AFL-CIO.
Maritime and construction companies were not included in the original proposed rule in 2015, but the agency soon expanded the standard to include them because of data showing the potential dangers of coal slag, a gritty, glass-like material containing trace levels of beryllium that is used to sandblast ships, tanks and other structures before painting, according to Mr. Michaels, the former OSHA administrator.
Data cited by the agency, Mr. Michaels said, found that air levels of beryllium detected during sandblasting at shipyards exceeded the new proposed OSHA limit.
Some big shipbuilders supported the rule’s extension to their industry, and said they were moving away from coal slag toward other abrasives like glass and garnet.
“We have a sophisticated work force and they understand some of these dangers,” said Dru Branche, the environmental, health and safety director for Newport News Shipbuilding, which is owned by Huntington Ingalls Industries.
Before the new beryllium rule was finalized during the final weeks of the Obama administration, sellers of coal slag, many of them small companies, had voiced opposition to it, arguing, among other things, that OSHA’s position on the material’s dangers was misleading and that other abrasives posed their own risks.
Since President Trump’s inauguration, they have become far more aggressive, spending at least $60,000 to lobby OSHA through an industry group called the Abrasive Blasting Manufacturers Alliance, public records show, and enlisting two former congressmen to fight for them. The group’s listed address in Camp Hill, Pa., is also the headquarters of the country’s largest vendor of coal slag, Harsco Corporation, a publicly traded company.
Requests for comment were referred by Harsco to a public relations agency, Dezenhall Resources, which declined interview requests but issued a statement. “There’s a growing consensus that the beryllium rule was erroneously expanded to include the entire abrasive blasting industry without any evidence to justify it,” it said.
Materion, the big beryllium producer, has also objected to some parts of the final rule and is in negotiations with OSHA about those issues. Groups like the Associated Builders and Contractors have said in filings that they were not given adequate opportunity provide input on the rule, a position that Mr. Michaels, the former OSHA head, rejected.
Several former workers sickened by the metal say they oppose any effort to roll back the Obama rule.
One of them, Vishwanauth Jailall, worked for about six years at a facility in Minnesota pouring molten metals including beryllium into casts for airplane parts. By 2012, he was having such trouble breathing that he went to see a doctor who told him that it was dangerous for him to go back to work.
Today, at 49, he needs help from family members to get dressed and is prone to passing out. He wants a lung transplant which, he said, is his best hope.
The government “shouldn’t weaken the standard; they should make it stronger,” Mr. Jailall said. “I don’t want anyone else to get sick.”
The process of enacting a new OSHA standard is often a long and arduous one, regardless of which party holds power. And companies or others frequently sue the agency, contending that it failed to follow procedures when drafting a rule or is imposing costs on employers that will yield little worker benefit.
The long-running dispute over silica followed that trajectory. The mineral, which is found in sand and rocks, can be released during activities such as construction, sandblasting and fracking and is a known respiratory hazard.
OSHA first considered taking action on silica in the 1990s, but it was not until 2013 that the agency issued a proposed final rule, saying that reduced workplace exposures mandated by it would save some 700 lives annually.
That standard was finalized last year, but industry groups including the Associated Builders and Contractors have filed a lawsuit to block it. The group said in a March letter to the Department of Labor that the rule was “infeasible and unworkable.”
A month later, OSHA announced it was delaying the rule’s enforcement for the construction industry until September to, among other things, “conduct additional outreach to the regulated community.”
In moving to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board, with an annual budget of about $11 million, the Trump administration’s budget proposal said the board was “largely duplicative” of efforts by other agencies, though the budget documents did not elaborate.
In arguing for the board’s continued existence, its chairwoman, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, said last month that it played an important and unmatched role. For example, after thirteen firefighters died responding to an explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant in 2013, the board determined that emergency workers nationwide were ill-prepared for such accidents and created a training program.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/business/under-trump-worker-protections-are-viewed-with-new-skepticism.html?_r=0
-
Colo. Pipe Probes Find No Leaks But Lots of Wells Near Homes
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Colorado oil and gas regulators are learning how closely the industry is intertwined with the state's residential areas as they process the results of a round of emergency inspections.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) ordered producers throughout the state to inspect certain types of pipelines that serve oil and gas wells within 1,000 feet of homes and other buildings, after gas from a severed line destroyed a home in Firestone, a suburb of Denver (Energywire, May 3).
The first results of those inspections, from 129 companies, show that 16,514 flow lines are within 1,000 feet of homes, COGCC spokesman Todd Hartman said in an emailed statement. Colorado has about 54,000 active oil and gas wells statewide.
None of the companies reported finding any improperly cut pipelines, Hartman said, although they haven't finished a more rigorous round of leak tests. The numbers could change because some companies filed duplicate reports and at least one company included lines that are within 1,500 feet of homes.
Producers were also required to turn in GPS data showing the starting and ending points of the pipelines, along with identifying numbers of the wells and other facilities that they connect. COGCC is still compiling that information, Hartman said.
Flow lines are typically low-pressure pipes that carry oil, gas and other fluids between wellheads and other oil field equipment like storage tanks and separators.
A flow line servicing a 24-year-old gas well was implicated in the April 17 explosion in Firestone. Investigators determined that the pipe had been improperly cut off underground, without being marked or capped. The 1-inch plastic pipeline was still connected to an active gas well and allowed raw gas from the well to seep into the basement of a nearby home.
The explosion killed Mark Martinez and his brother-in-law, Joey Irwin. Martinez's wife, Erin, was severely injured.
COGCC ordered the flow line inspections on May 2, and companies had until May 30 to comply. Companies were also required to ensure that all flow lines, regardless of their proximity to homes, are either connected to a well or properly cut off and abandoned.
A "small number" of companies missed the deadline, Hartman said, but COGCC hasn't decided whether to take enforcement action against them.
The commission also ordered companies to check their flow lines for leaks. The results of those inspections are due June 30.
Soil tests in the Firestone neighborhood showed that a second pipeline leading away from the well was also cut off and left uncapped. Gas from that pipeline saturated a patch of soil in an open area about a block from the Martinez residence, but COGCC said it wasn't a danger to any homes (Energywire, May 30).
The wells in the area are owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the biggest oil producer in Colorado. But they've had three prior owners, and it's not clear if the pipelines were cut as part of oil field operations or during the construction of the neighborhood.
The Firestone police and the National Transportation Safety Board are still investigating those details and other aspects of the explosion.
Anadarko has voluntarily closed 3,000 wells that were drilled around the same time as the Firestone wells and has said they won't reopen until they pass safety checks. The company is also permanently abandoning all the 1-inch plastic lines at those sites.
At the end of May, Anadarko told residents in Firestone that it is closing three wells near the Martinez home and is distributing methane detectors to residents in the neighborhood.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055516
-
Colorado Assessing E&P Flowline Data Following April Explosion
Jun 5, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Only a "handful" of smaller operators had yet to submit requested data regarding flowlines to the state following a mandate by the governor last month, but the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) was not ready to conclude that the industry is fully complying following a fatal explosion in April of an abandoned flowline from a well sited about 170 feet from a home.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper in May mandated a review of oil and natural gas operations after a preliminary investigation determined that an abandoned and severed unrefined natural gas flowline was linked to an explosion in Weld County that killed two men and seriously injured a woman.
A spokesperson for the state said it was "a time-consuming process” and incoming information had been "voluminous." Under a notice to operators issued by Hickenlooper in early May, operators are required to provide global positioning system locations for endpoints of all flowline risers within 1,000 feet of an occupied building.
The governor also mandated that operators verify that any existing flowlines not in use are abandoned. Any existing flowline or pipeline riser not in use must be clearly marked using fluorescent paint and all operating valves removed and capped until they can be cut-off below grade and sealed.
The reports processed as of Friday included flowlines associated with 16,514 wells.
"It will take additional time for COGCC to cross-reference all the locations submitted to ensure all wells within 1,000 feet of a building are part of this group," the spokesperson said.
In some cases, operators may have over-reported, he said, citing an example of a large operator that provided flowline information for wells within 1,500 feet of a building.
As of Friday, COGCC had received 129 reporters from operators, exceeding the 116 expected based on the agency's analysis. Some operators may have sent iterative reports, or corrected reports.
COGCC had processed 80 reports, which meant it had imported data and reviewed it to ensure it was standardized and organized. Reports by all of the state’s largest operators had been processed.
"It appears there may be a small number of operators that have yet to submit the required information, and COGCC will be contacting those operators to ensure the work is conducted,” the spokesperson said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110677-colorado-assessing-ep-flowline-data-following-april-explosion
-
Trump Officials Say U.S. is a 'Leader' on the Environment
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
The United States was never on track to meet its Paris accord emissions commitments, so it's better to spare the economy those costly regulations and instead count on the private sector to solve the problem.
That was the message President Trump's top officials pushed in a whirlwind of interviews yesterday. They tried to cast the United States as a global leader in environmental protections despite its isolation on climate change.
"Just because we got out of a club doesn't mean that we don't care about the environment," said U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, who will have to manage the diplomatic repercussions of withdrawing from an agreement that includes every country except Nicaragua, who wanted a more ambitious global agreement, and war-torn Syria.
"We will always be a leader in the environment — that's what we do, that's who we are," Haley said on CNN's "State of the Union." "There is clearly a difference between us and Nicaragua, and us and Syria. And the world knows that."
Touting signs of coal mining growth in the last few months, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said technology and innovation will continue to drive down the country's carbon emissions — even as the government seeks to expand fossil fuel production by cutting regulations.
"The past administration declared a war on coal, and there were several coal facilities across this country shut down because of their past efforts," Pruitt said on "Fox News Sunday." "Government regulation should be about making things regular, not picking winners and losers, and making sure we have fuel diversity and generating electricity in this country."
Pruitt repeated a false claim first made by Stephen Moore, who served as economic adviser to Trump during the campaign, saying the coal sector has added "almost 50,000 jobs" since the fourth quarter.
The mining sector has added 25,000 jobs since December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But that figure includes the oil and gas sector, coal mining and logging. In fact, the coal sector employed a total of 51,000 people as of the end of May. It has lost 2,800 jobs since December, according to BLS statistics.
Under the Paris accord, former President Obama pledged that U.S. carbon emissions in 2025 would be 26 to 28 percent lower than 2005's level.
His since-stymied climate plan would have put the country on track for a 17 percent reduction by 2020, but it would have taken even more to reach the Paris Agreement's goals, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group.
Rather than scale back that voluntary commitment, Trump on Thursday began the three-year process of exiting the accord.
"It wasn't achievable," Haley said, casting the nonbinding targets as a potential stain on America's credibility. "The countries told us, 'Oh, you can do it, we won't say anything.' That's not who the U.S. is. One, we're truth-tellers. ... We didn't want to be in violation of the agreement."
Obama's reluctance to submit the agreement to the Senate demonstrated that it was a flawed deal, she said. "The rest of the world wanted to tell us how to do it," she said. "And we're saying we'll do it, but we'll do it under our terms."
Environmentalists distraught about the federal government's stepping back from climate change mitigation policies can still look to states and large corporations, former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview yesterday on "State of the Union," adding that there's enough momentum for the country to meet the Paris Agreement's goals.
The United States' 2016 carbon dioxide emissions were down 15 percent compared with 2005 levels, according to preliminary data from EPA.
That's partly thanks to a boom in renewable energy technology, which has driven down electricity costs and is replacing jobs lost in the fossil fuel sector, Gore said.
"The U.S. ought to be leading this revolution and creating more of the new jobs here in the United States," Gore said, name-checking blue-state governors like California's Jerry Brown (D) and New York's Andrew Cuomo (D), along with companies like Google and General Electric Co.
"Rather than trying to recreate the 19th century and paint a picture of a past that's gone, we need leadership to gear America for the 21st century," he said.
But Gore conceded that Trump's move hobbles the international accord's goal of limiting warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
"The Paris Agreement was really historic. But it laid the foundation for the faster progress that's needed in order to solve the climate crisis in time," he said. "And we could have faster progress with presidential leadership."
Before his election, Trump repeatedly denied humans' role in climate change, calling it "bullshit" and a "hoax" cooked up to give other countries' economies an advantage.
And after Thursday's announcement, Vice President Mike Pence framed the accord's foundation as a partisan hang-up in an interview on Fox News, saying, "For some reason or another, this issue of climate change has emerged as a paramount issue for the left in this country and around the world."
Trump has acknowledged that "the climate changes; it's always changing," Pruitt said, but the EPA administrator repeatedly declined to say if the president believes humans contribute to it: "I think the whole question is an effort to get it off the point and the issue of whether Paris is good for the country or not."
Haley, pressed on the topic, offered a general assurance that he does.
"President Trump believes the climate is changing," she said. "And he believes that pollutants are part of that equation."
Gore, who met with Trump during the transition period, declined to share the contents of their conversation, saying, "None of it would surprise you."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055523
-
Trump's Claim That US Is Cleanest Lacks Support From Studies
Jun 5, 2017 | The Associated Press (in The New York Times)
Is the United States the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth? President Donald Trump says it is, but some studies of the American environment don't agree.
Data show that the U.S. is among the dirtiest countries when it comes to heat-trapping carbon pollution. One nation that has cleaner air in nearly every way is Sweden.
In fact, the U.S. emits more carbon dioxide than any other nation except China.
Taking into account economics, the U.S. ranks 10th highest in carbon pollution per gross domestic product. China is No. 1, followed by India and Russia.
In some traditional air pollution measurements, the United States is cleaner than most nations. The U.S. is better than most of the world when it comes to dangerous soot or fine particles.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/05/science/ap-us-sci-trump-climate-cleanest.html
-
Left Says Pruitt is Mischaracterizing their Paris Criticisms
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The scientific community has warned that the Paris Agreement would not go far enough to limit global warming. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is now using that criticism to help justify President Trump's decision to exit the international climate accord.
Speaking to the media Friday and over the weekend, Pruitt pointed out that there are critics of the Paris Agreement on both sides of the political aisle.
"It wasn't just from folks in this country who wanted it to be ratified or were critical of the processes," Pruitt told reporters in the White House briefing room Friday. "The environmental left was very critical of Paris. In fact, James Hansen is an individual who said at the time it was a fake and a fraud, and the general counsel at the Sierra Club said the same thing."
Activists who wanted to see more from the landmark 2015 accord are now accusing Pruitt of willfully twisting their words.
"Sure, Paris could have been stronger, but something is better than nothing, and with 190 countries, you need to start somewhere," said Bill Snape, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. But, he said, that hardly means he or others who have been fighting for governments to tackle climate change want the accord tossed out.
The core of the Paris Agreement is the voluntary pledges that nearly 200 countries made to either cut or scale back greenhouse gas emissions. The deal calls for countries to keep warming to "well below" a 2-degree-Celsius rise over preindustrial levels. But it is widely acknowledged that the combined pledges alone don't go far enough. A 2016 Nature study found that even if every country hits its targets, the world would see a median warming of 2.6 to 3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. Supporters acknowledge that's not ideal but note that it does get the world off its current dangerous emissions pathway.
Hansen, a former NASA scientist who is often credited with raising public awareness of climate change, was one of the people who had been highly critical of the targets countries proposed, saying the approach would not be the most effective at limiting warming.
"It's a fraud really, a fake," Hansen told The Guardian the day after the accord was gaveled through in Paris. "It's just bullshit for them to say: 'We'll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."
The article went on to say that instead of nations setting their own emissions targets, Hansen supported placing a price on carbon for the largest emitters.
In an email to E&E News responding to Pruitt's remarks Friday, Hansen questioned what actions the president might take to address climate change, now that the United States will no longer be part of the Paris Agreement.
He noted that if the Trump administration were to support an "across-the-board rising carbon fee" that only distributed money to the general public and was not used for expanding government, "this president could do more for young people and the planet than all prior Presidents put together."
"But if he means 'well, if we can't totally solve the problem we should just give up and say the Hell with young people's future,' they deserve all the scorn that the world is heaping on them today," Hansen wrote.
The Sierra Club also denounced Pruitt's comment. "The Sierra Club fully supports the Paris Agreement. Scott Pruitt is a liar," the nonprofit group tweeted.
At the time the Paris Agreement was announced, the environmental group publicly characterized the climate accord as a "turning point for humanity" and an important step for the world.
Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, said Pruitt's statement was "utterly false" and that she had not described the agreement in "anything remotely similar to those terms." She also said she was sure Pat Gallagher, the group's legal director, would not make such a statement.
"Sierra Club's general counsel deals with business matters, not climate or environmental law, and he does not make statements as a general matter and certainly not on climate issues," Spalding said in an email.
Yesterday, Pruitt doubled down on his comments about the "environmental left," repeating his reference to Hansen's critiques and elaborating on his comments about the Sierra Club's general counsel.
"The general counsel of the Sierra Club, contemporaneous to Paris being signed, said critical things of the agreement," Pruitt told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press." "The reason they said those things is because China and India particularly, the largest polluters on the planet, did not have to take any steps until 2030."
The EPA administrator added that the U.S. economy had contracted because of "front-loading" costs of reducing emissions through the development of the Clean Power Plan and other domestic rules.
Pruitt has argued that the United States would not be able to meet the target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and speaking with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," he cited that as another reason why the Sierra Club and other environmental groups had been critical of the agreement.
In the place of the Paris Agreement, Pruitt told reporters Friday, the United States should focus on exporting clean coal technology and hydraulic fracturing to other countries.
"We are leading with action and not words," he said, adding, "Leaving Paris doesn't mean disengagement."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055528
-
Governors Face Pressure to Distance Themselves from Trump
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow & Emily Holden
Six states announced they will join the climate pact organized by California, New York and Washington state in response to President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The move followed growing calls for states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the wake of Trump's announcement and illustrated the extent to which the president's decision has roiled local politics in some parts of the country.
Republican governors in blue and purple states found themselves confronting a gulf between a president of their own party and voters frustrated with his decision to shelve the global carbon-cutting deal. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, both Republicans in deep blue states, face re-election in 2018. The pair said their states would join the so-called U.S. Climate Alliance.
"Our administration looks forward to continued, bipartisan collaboration with other states to protect the environment, grow the economy and deliver a brighter future to the next generation," Baker said in a statement. Baker has been outspoken about his opposition to Trump and wants to cut the Bay State's emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Democratic Govs. Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, David Ige of Hawaii and Kate Brown of Oregon also announced their states would join.
Trump's decision on Paris also introduced a wrinkle to gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, where Democrats are vying in contested primaries to be the party's nominee.
Virginia Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam and former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello, who are in a fight for the Democratic nod, pledged to join the Climate Alliance. Phil Murphy, a Democrat and the front-runner to succeed Republican Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, promised the same and said he would go one step further, promising to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which Christie left years ago.
"New Jersey's future is at risk because of climate change, and President Trump's nonsensical call to withdraw from the Paris Accord puts us in danger unless we take action for ourselves and lead," Murphy said in a statement.
It's unclear what exactly the burgeoning coalition could do on any formal front to represent the United States in international efforts. Mark Muro, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, explained in a blog post that states and cities can register their commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions under the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action. But he said he wondered if the backlash would "provoke truly significant new compensatory actions among states and cities."
The details of the pact remained hazy over the weekend. State officials said the terms were still taking shape. They listed regulatory policy and support for renewables as possible areas for broader state collaboration.
Richard Kauffman, New York's energy czar, said the governors were in active conversations with other states that might join. Governors in Colorado and Minnesota said they were weighing invitations.
"There is a lot more that will be rolled out in the weeks and months to come," Kauffman said. "Certainly the states have committed to uphold the objectives and the targets for the Paris Agreement, and have agreed to work on harmonizing policies between states where these policies make sense."
Analysts noted that it would be hard for liberal states to fill the United States' Paris pledges without enlisting conservative ones. Texas, for example, produces almost double the carbon dioxide emissions of the country's next largest contributor, California.
Plus, even the greenest states might not want to pick up the slack for big emitters.
Colorado state Sen. Matt Jones (D) said he would lobby Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) to join the pact, noting that Colorado has worked to ramp up renewable energy and is familiar with climate change's consequences, including forest fires.
Jones said exiting Paris has "emboldened states and cities ... just because people know this is important, and now it's on us."
At the same time, he said Colorado would do its part and more, but "to say we're going to make up for a state that's not moving, that's not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to clean our energy supply up as fast as we can."'Count me in'
At the White House, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer downplayed the alliance, saying, "If a mayor or a governor wants to enact a policy on a range of issues, they are accountable to their own voters, and that's what they should do. We believe in states' rights, so if a locality, a municipality or a state wants to enact a policy, that their voters or American citizens believe in, then that's what they should do.
"But I would say with respect to elected officials, there was, I think, a large contingent of officials at every level of government who were very pleased with the president's decision yesterday and applauded him for that," he added.
It's clear Democrats are looking to use the moment to elevate climate change as an issue in American political debate. State lawmakers and officials were already working to raise the issue at home.
In Pennsylvania, state Rep. Leanne Krueger-Braneky (D) said she would be talking with members of a bipartisan climate caucus as soon as the sessions gavel in today to figure out how to get Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf to join.
"If it's something that he could do via executive order, then I would urge him to do it," she said, noting that "right now, anything that requires legislative action in Pennsylvania seems to have us moving backward on climate issues."
She stressed that Democratic lawmakers are already "fighting urgent fires on many fronts," barely defeating a measure that she said could have expanded plastic bag use and trying to enact methane standards for the oil and gas industry.
In Nevada, Democratic Assemblyman and clean energy advocate Chris Brooks tweeted that "if anyone's looking for a NV elected official to join, count me in." Nevada state Sen. Pat Spearman (D) seconded him.
In Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat running against Gov. Bruce Rauner (R), tweeted that he should "stand up for Illinois and defy the president's dangerous & misguided decision." Chicago's mayor touted the city's continued climate work.
The pressure was especially intense in Massachusetts and Maryland, dark-blue states with popular Republican governors who are up for re-election in 2018. Maryland lawmakers said they intended to push Gov. Larry Hogan to play a proactive role in partnering with other states.
"I will join with colleagues and advocacy groups to go to the U.N. or international bodies to say we're not satisfied," said state Sen. Paul Pinsky (D).
Hogan has a mixed record on environmental issues. He signed a bill calling for a reduction of the state's greenhouse gas emissions and a moratorium on fracking, but vetoed an increase in Maryland's renewable portfolio standard. Maryland lawmakers later overturned the veto.
Hannah Marr, a Hogan spokeswoman, said the governor was "still learning" about the Climate Alliance.
In Massachusetts, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh held a press conference with roughly a dozen city officials in anticipation of Trump's announcement last Wednesday, saying the city would not be deterred and pledging to go carbon-neutral by 2050. State senators and the Democratic attorney general on Friday clamored for Baker to join the pact until he made an announcement in the afternoon.
"The governor has already indicated that he is willing to stay the course," said Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg (D). "I'm totally open to going to work with other states. The more, the merrier."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055511
-
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has committed $15 million toward the Paris Agreement, as a partial replacement of the deficit created by the U.S. withdrawal.
Within hours of President Trump's Thursday pullout announcement, Bloomberg Philanthropies issued a statement on his plans to support operations of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretariat, including its work to help countries implement their commitments under the 2015 accord.
"Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up — and there isn't anything Washington can do to stop us," Bloomberg said, trumpeting commitments of mayors, governors and business leaders from both political parties who signed on to a statement of support that will be submitted to the United Nations.
In the 48 hours following the withdrawal announcement, dozens of U.S. mayors, governors and corporations declared their continued support of the climate agreement and their intent to live up to the standards as they existed prior to Thursday.
District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) is the latest to join the pledge. At 11 this morning, Bowser signed an executive order reaffirming the capital city's commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Her administration has pledged to cut carbon by 80 percent by 2050.
Bloomberg, currently serving as the U.N.'s special envoy for cities and climate change, will also work with other governments and philanthropies that may be interested in supporting the UNFCCC. One outlet for that action is the C40 network, an organization Blomberg started that aims to get the world's megacities committed to addressing climate change.
Trump indicated during his White House Rose Garden press briefing that the administration will terminate all support for U.N. climate change efforts, and he called the U.N. Green Climate Fund a "scheme to redistribute wealth" out of the U.S.
"Under the Paris accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us," Trump said.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa thanked Bloomberg for the contribution last week.
"While funding from governments remains central to our work, this kind of support is crucial for the work of the Secretariat to assist nations in their efforts to implement their commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement," Espinosa said in a statement.
Bloomberg Philanthropies supported the UNFCCC from 2014 to 2016 for its work with "non-state actors," like cities, states and businesses. Support would be allocated to cover staff costs in Bonn, Germany, associated with their climate negotiations and communications efforts, according to the charity.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/05/stories/1060055529
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested