Preview Newsletter
ACC Olivia PM
-
(ACC Blog) Marine Litter: Let’s Stay Focused on Solutions
Jun 13, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Earlier this week I had the privilege of speaking at the German Mission during the United Nations’ “The Oceans Conference.” -
(ACC Mentioned) In Depth: WWF Circular Economy Initiative of Cascading Material Flows
Jun 13, 2017 | Waste Management World
By Ben Messenger
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has launched the Cascading Materials Vision, a circular economy platform that seeks to enable a global system of efficient materials management, creating markets that better the re-use of materials to reduce waste. -
(ACC Mentioned) New WWF Global Platform Seeks to Create Mainstream Market for Secondary Materials
Jun 13, 2017 | Sustainable Brands
Reliance on virgin raw materials to produce products has a significant, often detrimental, impact on both ecosystems and communities. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Enviros Double Down On TSCA Priorities
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Industry and environmental groups wrapped up meetings with the Office of Management and Budget yesterday over their priorities for evaluating chemicals under the new Toxic Substances Control Act. -
TSCA 30/30-EPA's Evolving Approach to "New" Polymers Under TSCA
Jun 13, 2017 | The National Law Review
Keller and Heckman LLP and Cardno ChemRisk present a webinar series on the changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) resulting from the June 22, 2016 passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act). -
US EPA Proposes Snur for Carbon Nanotube Substance
Jun 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed a significant new use rule (Snur) for a carbon nanotube substance that was subject of a pre-manufacture notice (PMN). -
US House Passes Bill That Would Repeal Conflict Minerals Rule
Jun 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US House of Representatives has passed a financial regulatory bill that would fully repeal the conflict minerals reporting rule. -
Trade Bodies Seek EU Rules on Drinking Water Contact Materials
Jun 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Legislation on materials in contact with drinking water must be harmonised across the EU, an alliance of companies supplying products and materials for drinking water applications has said. -
Gas Industry Unveils Campaign to Counter Activist 'Assaults'
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
The natural gas industry has launched a national campaign beginning in Connecticut and Virginia to counter a growing "keep it in the ground" grass-roots movement aimed at halting the spread of gas production, infrastructure and exports -
Law Profs Urge Court to Continue Fracking Rule Case
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dozens of law professors are urging a federal court to move ahead with a legal battle that calls into question the federal government's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. -
EPA to Use 'Beyond the Fence' Legal Critique to Scrap CPP
Jun 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Some details are emerging about the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rollback proposal EPA sent for White House review last week -- suggesting the Trump administration will use a key legal critique of the Obama-era power plant greenhouse gas rule to scrap it. -
Investigators: EPA Had No Rules for Working at Risky Mines
Jun 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dan Elliot
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had no rules for working around old mines when the agency inadvertently triggered a massive spill from a Colorado mine that polluted rivers in three states, government investigators said Monday. -
Colo. May Tighten Pipeline Testing, Impose Other Requirements
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Colorado oil and gas regulators are considering tougher pipeline testing rules, a mapping requirement and leak surveys using drones or ground vehicles in the wake of an oil-field-related explosion that killed two people. -
No Injuries Following Chemical Spill at Indianapolis Plant
Jun 13, 2017 | The Associated Press (in The Sacramento Bee)
No injuries have been reported following a chemical spill at a plant in Indianapolis. -
U.S. Cities and States Want to Implement the Paris Climate Accord Goals. It’s Not That Simple.
Jun 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Audrey Comstock
President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement led many cities and U.S. organizations to pledge their own actions on climate change. But can cities and groups implement international law when the executive remains unsupportive? -
The Energy 202: Paris Climate Accord Divides Industrial Trade Group
Jun 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Eastman Chemical Company -- one of the largest chemical manufacturers in the United States, which like many U.S. firms supported the Paris climate accord -- discontinued membership in one of the few trade groups that publicly pressed the Trump administration to pull out of the landmark climate deal. -
Tillerson: 'My View Didn’t Change' on Paris Climate Agreement
Jun 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told senators Tuesday that he still supports the Paris climate change agreement, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from it. -
Pruitt Supports 'Sustainable' Goals Connected to Climate
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The United States signed on to indirect international action on climate change at the recent Group of Seven environment ministers meeting, but it rejected explicit actions to address warming.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Marine Litter: Let’s Stay Focused on Solutions
Jun 13, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Earlier this week I had the privilege of speaking at the German Mission during the United Nations’ “The Oceans Conference.” The conference was designed to advance implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14 to conserve and sustainably use our oceans, seas, and marine resources. And this obviously includes our shared goal of keeping plastics out of the oceans.
My remarks began with a point on which experts agree: to stem the flow of plastics into the ocean, we must urgently start collecting and recycling municipal solid waste, with a focus on countries with expanding populations where such systems are not yet in place. And for now means much of the Asia-Pacific region.
The plastics industry has been – and remains – committed to finding and implementing effective solutions to this very real problem. In 2011 we brought together plastics associations from around the globe under a Global Declaration reflecting specific actions taken to prevent marine litter solutions. The Declaration now has 65 signatories and we’ve implemented 260 projects in 34 countries to work on keeping plastics out of the oceans.
We are also working with leaders in the Asia-Pacific region, where ocean plastic inputs are the highest, to catalyze investment in municipal solid waste collection and recycling programs. And we are working with the U.N. to provide technical expertise and a range of commitments under the Global Partnership on Marine Litter.
So with so much momentum on solutions we were surprised that this week the U.N.’s “big idea” did not focus on building support for financing waste management, or on deploying innovative recycling and energy recovery. Instead, it encouraged citizens to call for bans on plastic bags and other “single use” plastics.
That’s a shame. Focusing on just a small part of the overall waste stream doesn’t begin to address the problem. And, it gives politicians a “pass” on the much harder parts. And worst of all, it probably makes matters worse for the ocean. How?
A 2016 study conducted by Trucost, the same firm that conducted a similar study for the U.N. in 2014, found that using materials other than plastics for packaging and consumer goods could have harmful, unintended effects on our environment. The study showed the environmental costs of using plastics in packaging and consumer goods is nearly four times less than they would be if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. Environmental costs include more food and packaging waste, more fuel used in transportation, more litter, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. If we generate more waste, more litter and have higher GHG emissions because we use less plastic, are we helping to create a more sustainable world?
We applaud the U.N. for making ocean health a priority. But solving this issue will require us to look past token acts, to aim high, and to commit to lasting solutions—namely the urgent need for expanded waste management infrastructure.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/06/marine-litter-lets-stay-focused-on-solutions/
-
(ACC Mentioned) In Depth: WWF Circular Economy Initiative of Cascading Material Flows
Jun 13, 2017 | Waste Management World
By Ben Messenger
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has launched the Cascading Materials Vision, a circular economy platform that seeks to enable a global system of efficient materials management, creating markets that better the re-use of materials to reduce waste.
Grounded in a framework of guiding principles, WWF explained that the Cascading Materials Vision convenes industry and other stakeholders to help every business and industry source secondary materials, those that have already been used at least once in some form, to protect their profits, the environment and the future wealth of our natural resources.
Why?
According to the organisation, as global population rises, we face both resource scarcity, which affects our ability to produce goods, and increased waste disposal, which negatively impacts ecosystems and communities.Both challenges could be eased by the increased use of secondary materials. Businesses want to be part of the solution and use more secondary materials, but systematic barriers make acquisition and sourcing difficult at the quantity and quality needed.
How?
WWF said that through alignment and collaboration, the Cascading Materials Vision will engage stakeholders across both private and public sectors to minimise such barriers.The companies and organisations that sign onto the Cascading Materials Vision, which so far includes names such as The Coca-Cola Company, agree to abide by a set of guiding principles for decision making that align materials management practices, allow for greater collaboration across industry and create easier sourcing of secondary materials.
These principles range from systems thinking to evaluate the environmental impact of implementing solutions that work for today but can adapt to the future.
By aligning with stakeholders and collaborators around a common vision of a responsible future, WWF hopes to use this framework to influence relevant sectors toward achievable, sustainable and inclusive solutions that address the systemic issues that prevent creation, trade and use of secondary materials.
Who?
Businesses and organisations that have already signed on include: American Chemistry Council, AMERIPEN, Ball Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, European Bioplastic Association, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., The Materials Leadership Council (MLC), McCormick, McDonald’s, Nestlé, Ocean Conservancy, Pathway21, The Recycling Partnership, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Target.Comments
WWF said that the initiative marks just the beginning and the flagship companies and nonprofit organistions that have signed onto the Cascading Materials Vision are eager to grow the platform and to create a reliable and innovative network grounded in maximising environmental and social benefit and measuring impact.Erin Simon, deputy director, packaging and material science at WWF: “We can quite literally do more with less simply by using materials more than once. With clear interest and willingness from industry to embrace this concept, WWF saw an incredible and imperative need to act.
“By bringing stakeholders together onto one cohesive platform, the Cascading Materials Vision will help reduce the burden on our natural systems and enable creation of the global markets needed to make quality secondary materials accessible and reliable.
“We are inspired by the number of companies who have already spoken up about the need for a global market of secondary materials. “With some of the world’s largest and leading companies already committed to the Cascading Materials Vision, we’re confident that this platform will create the catalyst needed to jumpstart the secondary materials market, protect our natural resources and meet the production demands of our growing population.”
Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council: “We commend World Wildlife Fund for its vision and engagement with industry and policy leaders to promote and expand materials reuse and the availability of high-quality secondary materials.
Through this collaborative framework, ACC and its member companies look forward to working with stakeholders along the value chain to more efficiently use resources to reduce the environmental impacts of our operations and products, and to pursue initiatives that conserve materials and resources, and reduce waste through reuse and recycling.”
Nicholas Mallos, Director, Trash Free Seas Program, Ocean Conservancy: “Ocean Conservancy is working to protect the ocean from today’s greatest challenges, including the threats posed by marine debris.
“Scientists estimate that 80% of plastic waste entering the ocean starts on land, so we need to think about locally appropriate and resilient land-based solutions to address this issue.
“The Cascading Materials Vision outlines critical principles to help drive better waste management, which will not only keep trash out of the marine environment, but would help extend the use-life and inherent value of materials.”
Keefe Harrison, CEO, The Recycling Partnership: “While recycling feels universal, the truth is only half of Americans can recycle at home as easily as they can throw something away.
That inequality means that valuable materials are disposed, resulting in significant losses in potential GHG and water savings, at the same time depriving manufacturers across the globe of clean feedstock.
The Recycling Partnership is pleased to collaborate with WWF in this far-reaching initiative to build a better system.”
Lee Anderson, President, AMERIPEN: “The Vision includes many of the philosophies upon which our organisation is based, including science-based decision making, a systems approach, effective policies, and adaptability. We’re looking forward to helping deliver the progress needed to achieve it.”
John A. Hayes, Chairman, President and CEO Ball Corporation: “Ball manufactures billions of 100% and infinitely recyclable metal packages each year and we are working to maximise the recovery of these packages around the world.
We’re proud to be a part of the World Wildlife Fund’s Cascading Materials Vision, as it will allow us to work with other stakeholders to ensure that metal packaging, which is the most economically and environmentally sustainable of all packaging substrates, is collected and available to be reused for future generations to come.”
John Linc Stine, The Materials Leadership Council (MLC), Member; Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), President; and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Commissioner: “The Materials Leadership Council (MLC), a public-private partnership among state environmental commissioners and senior business representatives, praises the release of WWF's Cascading Materials Vision.
“States have a longstanding commitment to advancing SMM principals and their collaboration with businesses enables greater leverage to achieve resource efficiency while creating economic, environmental, and societal benefits.”
Michael Okoroafor, Vice President - Global Sustainability and Packaging Innovation McCormick and Company, Inc.: “WWF’s principles align closely with our 4R Framework (Reuse, Reduce, Recycle, Renew), and is reflective of our shared leadership role in creating a more sustainable world for future generations.”
Marco Bernasconi, Global Head of Packaging, Nestlé: “Continually improving the environmental performance of our packaging following a life cycle approach is a key driver in our product and packaging development process.
The guiding principles described in the WWF’s Cascading Materials Vision are therefore fully aligned with Nestlé’s ambition to prevent littering and packaging going to landfill.”
Adam Goldstein, President and Chief Operating Officer, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.: “As an intermediary between suppliers and consumers we have a responsibility to ensure our supply chain and waste management approaches help us achieve a more sustainable future.”
https://waste-management-world.com/a/in-depth-wwf-circular-economy-initiative-of-cascading-material-flows
-
(ACC Mentioned) New WWF Global Platform Seeks to Create Mainstream Market for Secondary Materials
Jun 13, 2017 | Sustainable Brands
Reliance on virgin raw materials to produce products has a significant, often detrimental, impact on both ecosystems and communities. A widespread shift towards a more circular model is essential to secure a more sustainable future, yet there exist systematic barriers to the acquisition and sourcing of high-quality, secondary materials. To reduce waste and encourage the reuse of materials, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has launched the Cascading Materials Vision, a platform that seeks to enable a global system of efficient materials management.
By engaging stakeholders across the private and public sectors, the Cascading Materials Vision aims to minimize barriers. Businesses and organizations that have already signed on include American Chemistry Council, AMERIPEN, The Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, European Bioplastic Association, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., The Materials Leadership Council (MLC), McCormick, McDonald’s, Nestlé, Ocean Conservancy, The Recycling Partnership and Target.
“We can quite literally do more with less simply by using materials more than once. With clear interest and willingness from industry to embrace this concept, WWF saw an incredible and imperative need to act,” said Erin Simon, Deputy Director of Packaging and Material Science at WWF. “By bringing stakeholders together onto one cohesive platform, the Cascading Materials Vision will help reduce the burden on our natural systems and enable creation of the global markets need to make quality secondary materials accessible and reliable.”
The companies and organizations that sign onto the Vision agree to abide by a set of guiding principles for decision-making that align materials management practices, allow for greater collaborations across industry and make it easier for companies to source secondary materials. The principles range from systems thinking to evaluating environmental impact and implementing flexible solutions that address current and future needs. By aligning with stakeholders and collaborators around a common vision of a responsible future, WWF hopes to use this framework to influence relevant sectors to develop achievable, sustainable and inclusive solutions that address the systematic issues that prevent the creation, trade and use of secondary materials.
“While recycling feels universal, the truth is only half of Americans can recycle at home as easily as they can throw something away,” said Keefe Harrison, CEO of The Recycling Partnership. “That inequality means that valuable materials are disposed, resulting in significant losses in potential GHG and water savings, at the same time depriving manufacturers across the globe of clean feedstock. The Recycling Partnership is pleased to collaborate with WWF in this far-reaching initiative to build a better system.”
“Scientists estimate that nearly 80 percent of plastic waste entering the ocean starts on land, so we need to think about locally appropriate and resilient land-based solutions to address this issue,” said Nicholas Mallos, Director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash-Free Seas Program. “The Cascading Materials Vision outlines critical principles to help drive better waste management, which will not only keep trash out of the marine environment, but would help extend the use-life and inherent value of materials.”
WWF and the flagship companies and nonprofit organizations that have signed onto on the Cascading Materials Vision are eager to grow the platform and work to create a reliable and innovative network grounded in maximizing environmental and social benefit and measuring impact.
“We are inspired by the number of companies who have already spoken up about the need for a global market of secondary materials,” Simon said. “With some of the world’s largest and leading companies already committed to the Cascading Materials Vision, we’re confident that this platform will create the catalyst needed to jumpstart the secondary materials market, protect our natural resources and meet the production demands of our growing population.”
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/sustainable_brands/new_wwf_global_platform_materials_management_seeks_mains
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Enviros Double Down On TSCA Priorities
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Industry and environmental groups wrapped up meetings with the Office of Management and Budget yesterday over their priorities for evaluating chemicals under the new Toxic Substances Control Act.
Last week, OMB met with the American Chemistry Council and Environmental Working Group, and this week the Environmental Defense Fund got its turn.
ACC and EWG said they reiterated previous comments for OMB, which is reviewing U.S. EPA's proposed rules. EDF declined to provide comment on the meeting.
"We met with OMB to reiterate points from the comments we submitted to EPA regarding its proposed rules for prioritization and risk evaluation processes under the [Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act] amendments to TSCA," said ACC spokesman Scott Openshaw.
ACC's comments in the Federal Register stressed that EPA officials should change the proposed rule to give the agency "broad and flexible" authority to list certain chemicals as low priorities for risk evaluations.
Under the new TSCA, EPA is required to prioritize and assess existing chemical substances and manage identified risks.
Tens of thousands of chemical substances were grandfathered into the original TSCA in 1976 without any health or environmental risk evaluations.
EWG's legislative attorney Melanie Benesh said the advocacy group is pleased with the proposed rules and wanted to check in on the process. Meetings with OMB are generally a listening format, she said, but EWG is eagerly waiting to see the final rules.
In EWG's comments in the rule docket, it stressed having a high bar for the low-priority designations and labeling a chemical as low priority only "when EPA has adequate information to be very confident that a chemical poses no unreasonable risks."
Benesh said EWG requested the meeting to, among other things, make sure EPA remains committed to "reviewing a wide range of chemicals" under TSCA.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/13/stories/1060055960
-
TSCA 30/30-EPA's Evolving Approach to "New" Polymers Under TSCA
Jun 13, 2017 | The National Law Review
Keller and Heckman LLP and Cardno ChemRisk present a webinar series on the changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) resulting from the June 22, 2016 passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act).
With the TSCA “polymer exemption” and favorable review under the TSCA section 5 PMN review process, commercialization requirements for “new” polymers under TSCA historically have been less onerous than for non-polymers. Last June’s enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, however, resulted in a significant change to EPA’s treatment of polymers. From initially requiring an “upfront” 90-day toxicity study, to four new polymer categories with tiered testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, Tom Berger and Marisa Krieder will discuss EPA’s evolving approach to new polymers under TSCA.
This webinar will dicuss:
Statutory Changes Impacting Polymers
PMN backlog issues
Issuance of New “Options” Letters
New Categories of Polymers of Concern to EPA
Testing and PPE Requirements
http://www.natlawreview.com/event/tsca-3030-epa-s-evolving-approach-to-new-polymers-under-tsca
-
US EPA Proposes Snur for Carbon Nanotube Substance
Jun 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed a significant new use rule (Snur) for a carbon nanotube substance that was subject of a pre-manufacture notice (PMN).
The substance – bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and other classes of carbon nanotubes (generic) – is intended to be used as a specialty additive, according to its PMN.
The EPA says it has identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity based on test data of analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates and nanocarbon materials. It therefore imposed a consent order on it.
To apply these protections to future users of the substance, the agency is now issuing a Snur. This proposes to designate as significant new uses the absence of the following protective measures, consistent with the consent order:use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE);submission of a dustiness test within six months of notice of commencement of manufacture (NOC);submission of certain physical chemical properties;use of the substance outside of those specified in the consent order, including an application method that generates a vapour, mist or aerosol (unless the application method occurs in an enclosed process); andreleases to water beyond those described in the PMN.
It has also recommended the development of certain test data.
The agency had previously issued the Snur as a direct final rule, but withdrew it following receipt of a notice of intent to submit adverse comment.
The commenter noted a discrepancy between the direct final Snur and the consent order: namely, that it designated as a significant new use any purposeful or predictable releases to surface water, whereas the consent order allowed limited releases. The EPA has aligned the requirements in this proposed Snur.
Comments will be accepted until 10 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56773/us-epa-proposes-snur-for-carbon-nanotube-substance
-
US House Passes Bill That Would Repeal Conflict Minerals Rule
Jun 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US House of Representatives has passed a financial regulatory bill that would fully repeal the conflict minerals reporting rule.
The far-reaching Financial CHOICE Act – like a bill of the same name introduced last session – seeks to overhaul the nation's financial regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act. Among many reforms, HR 10 calls for the repeal of section 1502 of the law, and that provisions affected by the section be "restored or revived as if [it] had not been enacted".
Dodd-Frank section 1502 requires publicly traded companies to conduct due diligence and report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on whether their sourcing of conflict minerals – tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) – is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), or neighbouring countries.
The Financial CHOICE Act passed the House along party lines, with just one Republican crossing the aisle to vote against it with all 185 Democrats.
The measure now heads to the Senate, where comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s financial regulations is expected to face significant hurdles given strong minority opposition. But even if the passage of the bill in its current form may prove challenging, there remains the opportunity for consideration of more targeted measures to reform certain aspects of the law.Pressure mounts against reporting rule
Passage of HR 10 comes amid a spike in scrutiny of the conflict minerals reporting rule.
Earlier this year, former acting SEC chairman Michael Piwowar directed staff to "reconsider" the agency’s implementation of the rule and welcomed feedback from affected parties.
And in April, Mr Piwowar issued a statement in which he suggested the SEC would no longer enforce the requirement that companies submit enhanced disclosure on their due diligence efforts.
Rumours have also swirled that President Trump would issue an executive order putting the rule on hold for two years.
While industry groups have been divided in their support for the reporting scheme, NGOs have remained vocal in reiterating the importance of its continued enforcement.
Writing in this month’s CW Global Business Briefing, the Enough Project’s Ian Schwab and Annie Callaway say "reversing the still fledgling progress made by this key supply chain transparency measure could spark a return to a situation in Congo, where armed groups once again control every mine through intimidation and violence."
"At a time when Congo’s political future remains unnervingly uncertain and violence is already on the rise, any additional fuel to the fire could have disproportionately devastating ramifications," they add.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56774/us-house-passes-bill-that-would-repeal-conflict-minerals-rule
-
Trade Bodies Seek EU Rules on Drinking Water Contact Materials
Jun 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Legislation on materials in contact with drinking water must be harmonised across the EU, an alliance of companies supplying products and materials for drinking water applications has said.
The European Drinking Water Initiative (EDW), which counts 30 trade associations as members, called for a revision of the drinking water Directive (DWD) to ensure that the safety of materials and products in contact with drinking water are dealt with at the EU level.
On drinking water contact materials, many member states currently have their own requirements and approval schemes in place, creating an unlevel playing field for industry, the industry coalition has said.
The Commission is conducting a review of the Directive, however, with a first proposal expected at the end of this year. Volker Meyer, EDW chairman, said "thresholds and limits" are likely to be imposed on contact materials.
The legislative framework should create a level playing field for industry, where a product has to demonstrate compliance with the harmonised requirements only once within the single market, Dr Meyer told Chemical Watch.
The Commission's directorates also need to reach a common understanding on contact materials, he said. "Materials and hygienic aspects should be fixed in the DWD. Product regulation should be solved by the construction products Regulation. So we need a combination of both acts."
The EDW has several working groups dedicated to the review. It is also supporting four member states - France, UK, the Netherlands and Germany - in helping the Commission develop a "workable" regulatory framework, which should follow a "unified and science-based approach", Dr Meyer added.
The call for harmonised legislation was issued at a symposium on 18 May on drinking water contact materials, organised by EDW, PlasticsEurope, the Copper Alliance and EurEau, an association representing drinking water and wastewater operators. Representatives from the Commission and national regulators also attended.
Article 10 of the drinking water Directive needs to be revised to have clearer and more specific requirements at the European level, Dr Meyer told the symposium. Article 10 simply states that member states should ensure materials in contact with drinking water do not reduce the protection of human health.
The Commission stressed to Chemical Watch that it is the construction products Regulation – not the DWD – that regulates products, such as pipes that are in contact with drinking water.
Although there are standard methods for testing whether water has been contaminated, said a Commission spokesperson, there are no specific standards for the products that come into contact with water. DG Growth is currently consulting on new mandates for standardisation work that should be adopted by a Commission implementing Decision. Three separate product mandates for metallic, organic and cementitious materials are proposed so that standardisation in one material group is not blocked by slow developments in another.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56783/trade-bodies-seek-eu-rules-on-drinking-water-contact-materials
-
Gas Industry Unveils Campaign to Counter Activist 'Assaults'
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
The natural gas industry has launched a national campaign beginning in Connecticut and Virginia to counter a growing "keep it in the ground" grass-roots movement aimed at halting the spread of gas production, infrastructure and exports.
The American Gas Association kicked off "Your Energy," a consumer education push about the benefits of natural gas.
The industry group on its website claimed a need to strike back at activists opposed to gas development and infrastructure and to tell the "truth" about gas.
"Your Energy was created to speak out against a misguided movement that assaults our way of life," the group wrote. "This movement is based on the simplistic belief that keeping our natural resources in the ground is the only solution to climate change. This isn't just false — it's dangerous to our quality of life, economy and energy security."
The website casts natural gas as the primary driver of emission reductions in the United States.
AGA's website also urges visitors to join its "movement" supporting natural gas.
"We have to fight back against those who want to deprive us of clean, affordable energy," the website says. "That's why we have Your Energy. Join us to support natural gas — the clean energy that makes our way of life possible."
The campaign, for which AGA declined to provide a cost, is first being launched in Virginia and Connecticut, two states where residents are facing the construction of natural gas pipeline projects that have drawn the ire of some landowners and made for tricky political footing in upcoming gubernatorial elections (E&E Daily, April 26).
AGA said that the campaign will include "community outreach, social media engagement, advertising, and other promotions" and that "resources for policy makers, elected officials, the media and consumers will also be made available via specific state based programming that will highlight the positive impact natural gas can have for families, communities and state economies throughout the country, beginning in Connecticut and Virginia."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/13/stories/1060055955
-
Law Profs Urge Court to Continue Fracking Rule Case
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dozens of law professors are urging a federal court to move ahead with a legal battle that calls into question the federal government's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
In a friend-of-the-court brief submitted yesterday, more than two dozen energy, public lands and environmental law experts urged the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to continue weighing a case stemming from the Obama administration's rule for fracking on public and tribal lands.
A Wyoming district court tossed the rule last summer, ruling that fracking is beyond the federal government's authority. The decision is on appeal at the 10th Circuit, but the case was sidetracked earlier this year when the Trump administration announced plans to reconsider the rule.
Twenty-nine law professors urged the court to continue the case and issue a decision reversing the lower court. They argued that freezing the case now — which the Trump administration has requested — would leave on the books a fundamentally incorrect decision.
"The Order contains fundamentally erroneous legal principles of statutory interpretation and administrative law," their brief said. "Yet under an abeyance and potentially drawn-out new rulemaking, the Order would remain extant and could solidify further incorrect precedent in other cases even if it were ultimately vacated and rendered moot."
They noted that litigants in an unrelated mining case have already used the lower court's fracking decision as ammunition against a regulation issued under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
Most of the same professors filed a similar brief last summer, arguing that the Wyoming judge misapplied relevant federal laws in the fracking rule case (Energywire, Aug. 18, 2016). The court ruled that the Safe Drinking Water Act and Energy Policy Act of 2005 effectively remove fracking from the jurisdiction of federal agencies, leaving regulation of the oil and gas production technique to the states.
The group includes many prominent environmental law scholars, including Vermont Law School's Patrick Parenteau, Columbia Law School's Michael Burger and many others. Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University professor who wrote a law review article that was cited in the Wyoming decision, helped organize the effort.
A group of former Interior Department officials also filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday urging the 10th Circuit to continue the case (Energywire, June 12).
Interior is expected to issue a proposed rulemaking to consider whether to rescind or revise the fracking rule today.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/13/stories/1060055927
-
EPA to Use 'Beyond the Fence' Legal Critique to Scrap CPP
Jun 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Some details are emerging about the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rollback proposal EPA sent for White House review last week -- suggesting the Trump administration will use a key legal critique of the Obama-era power plant greenhouse gas rule to scrap it.
According to a report from E&E News, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will hinge the CPP rollback on the claim that the rule unlawfully regulates “beyond the fenceline” of individual power plants in setting the CPP emissions targets.
CPP critics argue section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, under which the CPP was promulgated, only allows EPA to base targets on actions taken at the power plant facility -- or “inside the fence.” Only the rule's first “building block,” which called for heat rate improvements at coal-fired power plants, represents such a strategy.
The CPP’s other two building blocks -- encouraging fuel switching to natural gas and to renewables -- do not.
But even as EPA is moving ahead with repealing the CPP, Pruitt has not yet revealed whether he intends to replace the power plant GHG rule.
Already some industry attorneys are warning EPA could face legal risk if it repeals the CPP without an immediate replacement.
In addition, some utilities are looking for a replacement that does more than simply require heat-rate improvements at coal-fired plants. Abby Smith of Inside EPA gave our readers a first look at one utility coalition’s suggestions, which calls for EPA to write guidelines for states based on substantive and procedural criteria that the agency would then use to judge state plans.
Bill Bumpers of Baker Botts -- who represents the Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions, a group of 13 utilities -- says such an approach gives states greater flexibility to choose compliance plans based on their resource mixes and individual authorities than the current rule.
It is not clear, however, how the coalition would envision EPA setting GHG targets under such a rule, given that it sharply criticized the agency’s target-setting process for the CPP.
In other news:Southeast Energy News: As coal ash rules are challenged, activists worry about long-term monitoringManufacturing.net: Environmental group says EPA should ban chemical after Tenn. workplace deathE&E News (via Scientific American) Health Effects of Oil and Gas Emissions Investigated in TexasBay Journal: PA launches effort to write cleanup plan addressing Bay shortfall.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-use-beyond-fence-legal-critique-scrap-cpp
-
Investigators: EPA Had No Rules for Working at Risky Mines
Jun 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dan Elliot
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had no rules for working around old mines when the agency inadvertently triggered a massive spill from a Colorado mine that polluted rivers in three states, government investigators said Monday.
The agency started work on safety standards after the spill and expects to finish them Friday, investigators from the EPA’s Office of Inspector General said.
An EPA-led contractor crew was excavating at the inactive Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado in 2015 when a debris pile blocking the entrance collapsed. That released 3 million gallons of wastewater tainted with iron, aluminum, lead, copper, arsenic and other heavy metals into rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. Native American tribes in those states were also effected.
State, tribal and federal officials have criticized the EPA for not taking more precautions, such as drilling into the mine to determine how much water was pent up inside.
Like previous investigations, the inspector general’s report said the EPA knew the Gold King — one of scores of inactive mines in the mountains around Silverton, Colorado — posed a risk of a blowout. Even before the Aug. 5, 2015, spill, the mine was spewing out 200 gallons of wastewater per minute, or about 3 million gallons every 10 days, the report said.
Despite the risk, the EPA had “no specific standards for the level of care to be taken or how to assess a collapsed mine portal,” the report said. It said the EPA gives its employees in charge of such operations, known as on-scene coordinators, wide latitude in deciding how to work on old mines, and that both coordinators assigned to the Gold King were experienced and highly trained.
The inspector general’s report disputed one key element in a previous review of the Gold King spill, by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which was assigned to conduct an independent, outside assessment of what went wrong.
The Bureau of Reclamation said the EPA-led crew was attempting to insert a drain pipe through a debris pile blocking the entrance of the mine, and that the on-scene coordinator had pushed that work ahead despite the reservations of the other on-scene coordinator, who was not present that day.
But the EPA inspector general said the crew was excavating loose rock around the mine entrance to see if the underlying rock was solid, not trying to insert a drain pipe. The inspector general said the crew did only work that had been planned for that day and was not rushing the schedule.
Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Peter Soeth said he could not comment on the discrepancy, but he said the bureau stands by its version of events. EPA officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The inspector general said the Bureau of Reclamation engineer who lead the review “created the appearance of a lack of independence” because he had worked with EPA on plans for other mines near the Gold King. The engineer, who was not identified by name, was also scheduled to consult with EPA on the Gold King just 10 days after the blowout, and had gone to the scene to help stabilize the mine afterward.
But the inspector general concluded the Bureau of Reclamation’s report was still independent. “Bureau of Reclamation reviewers indicated they were able to do their work without any interference,” the inspector general report said.
Soeth said the bureau disclosed the engineer’s activities in its review, released in October 2015, and that bureau officials had no doubt about his independence.
The EPA inspector general also reviewed how the agency went about notifying state, local and tribal authorities after the spill. Some officials complained they learned about the spill hours afterward, and others said they never heard directly from the EPA.
The inspector general concluded the EPA had complied with all of its own rules for notifying downstream river users, but noted that the agency had taken steps to improve communications.
The report was at least the sixth review of the Gold King spill, including three by the EPA, one by the Bureau of Reclamation and one by federal prosecutors, based on information from the EPA inspector general.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Denver declined to charge anyone in connection with the spill, even though the EPA said last year it gave prosecutors evidence that an EPA employee may have violated the Clean Water Act and given false statements. The employee’s name wasn’t released.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/investigators-epa-had-no-rules-for-working-at-risky-mines/2017/06/12/bf1e6cf6-4fa4-11e7-b74e-0d2785d3083d_story.html?utm_term=.c47d4056897f
-
Colo. May Tighten Pipeline Testing, Impose Other Requirements
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Colorado oil and gas regulators are considering tougher pipeline testing rules, a mapping requirement and leak surveys using drones or ground vehicles in the wake of an oil-field-related explosion that killed two people.
The April 17 explosion in Firestone, Colo., was caused by a flow line that had been cut off just a few feet from a newly built home. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has already issued an emergency order requiring energy companies to verify the location of their flow lines and take other steps by the end of June (Energywire, May 3).
Those steps should prevent recurrences of incidents like the one in Firestone, and the state agency is considering other ideas to provide further protection, Director Matt Lepore said during a meeting of the commission.
The state already requires flow lines to be pressure-tested every year, but it exempts certain low-pressure lines. That exemption is one of several changes the COGCC is considering, Lepore said.
"Mapping the flow lines has been kind of foremost on everyone's minds," Lepore told the commission during its monthly meeting.
"We talked about drones, we talked about driving surveys, then you have to talk about resources and figure out which neighborhoods get to go first."
Lepore stressed that the incident was caused by an unusual combination of circumstances and there's no widespread danger to other homes. Colorado is one of only two oil-producing states that require periodic testing of flow lines, which are used to move oil, gas and waste fluids from well sites to storage tanks and other equipment (Energywire, May 5).
At the same time, Firestone, about 35 miles north of Denver, is one of several communities that were built near and around existing oil fields. The area has seen both a homebuilding boom as Denver's population grows and an oil boom as companies use the existing sites to drill into the Niobrara Shale.
The pipeline in Firestone was built to serve a gas well, known as the Coors V 6-14Ji, which was drilled in 1993. The well has had three previous owners and was acquired by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in 2014.
Beginning in about 1999, a subdivision grew up in the same area, and records show that the pipeline was scheduled to be removed, Lepore said.
The pipeline was likely cut as streets and utilities were built, Lepore said.
"You have these sewers being put in; probably the line is being cut as those happen," he said.
The National Transportation Safety Board, along with police in Firestone, is still investigating how and when the pipe was cut. An NTSB spokesman said the pipeline will be tested in the agency's laboratory and that it's too soon to determine the cause.
In 2015, a home was built 178 feet from the Coors well, and the pipeline was cut off a few feet from the home's basement. The pipeline may have avoided the pressure-test requirement because the well was shut down during 2016, a COGCC spokesman said.
The cutoff pipe was still connected to the Coors well when the well returned to service this year. Investigators said gas from the severed line seeped into the soil, then into the home's basement.
The explosion killed Mark Martinez and his brother-in-law, Joey Irwin, who were in the home's basement. Martinez's wife, Erin, was severely injured, and the couple's 11-year-old son was blown through a second-floor window but escaped serious injury, Lepore said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/13/stories/1060055938
-
No Injuries Following Chemical Spill at Indianapolis Plant
Jun 13, 2017 | The Associated Press (in The Sacramento Bee)
No injuries have been reported following a chemical spill at a plant in Indianapolis.
The Wayne Township Fire Department says the spill of a chemical used in automotive adhesive was reported early Tuesday at Vertellus Specialties on the city's southwest side.
Authorities say the spill doesn't extend beyond the plant, which manufactures chemicals, and there's no hazard to areas around the plant.
The cause of the spill is under investigation.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article155823329.html
-
U.S. Cities and States Want to Implement the Paris Climate Accord Goals. It’s Not That Simple.
Jun 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Audrey Comstock
President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement led many cities and U.S. organizations to pledge their own actions on climate change. But can cities and groups implement international law when the executive remains unsupportive?
When President George W. Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, cities, states and groups stepped in: Thirty-four states issued their own climate action plans. Despite the statements of support for the Paris accord by U.S. cities, states and other groups in recent weeks, these entities may find it difficult to implement the accord on a sub-national basis.
Here are three distinct challenges:
1) Presidential support pushes compliance with international law
In my research, I find that when countries face legislative barriers to ratification, they are usually able to work toward compliance after signing the treaty. Facing Senate opposition on the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), for instance, two U.S. presidents stepped in to advance ideals found in human rights law.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the CERD in 1966, and President Jimmy Carter sent it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratify in 1978. Both presidents led efforts in the executive branch to work against racial discrimination and signal that the commitment was serious — even without the Senate on board for ratification. The Senate eventually ratified CERD in 1994.
[Despite Trump, many cities and states are fighting climate change. Including Pittsburgh.]
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is another example. President Barack Obama signed the treaty, but in 2014, the Senate opposed ratification. Despite the lack of Senate support, Obama was able to implement the intent of the treaty via executive-level initiatives like expanding budget support for employment and education opportunities — and directing federal agencies to advance employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
How did the CRPD fare in other countries? In Nigeria, the National Assembly and domestic groups supported implementing the CRPD but the measure received no support from two consecutive presidents. So NGOs, city-level disability advisers and state-level and local offices brought Nigeria into compliance with some parts of CRPD — and disability experts commended these moves.
Despite these successes, many of the CPRD goals could not be implemented in Nigeria. Without presidential backing, groups pushing for disability rights confronted organizational, funding and governance constraints.
The United States and Nigeria differ across many categories, of course. Nigeria likely would have faced resource problems even with presidential support — without the president’s support, local groups were not able to achieve full treaty implementation. On climate change, U.S. cities and groups are likely to confront similar challenges.
2) Compliance problems may still exist for cities and other groups
International relations scholarship is full of explanations of why countries fail to comply with treaties. Beth Simmons, a professor of political science and international law, offers an overview of these explanations in a 2009 book, “Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics.”
Many compliance problems could carry over to sub-national coalitions seeking to implement the Paris accord.
Sometimes countries are “strategic ratifiers” seeking reputational gains or “expressive benefits,” with no real intention of actually implementing the agreement. This skeptical approach might expect that some U.S. cities, companies and universities are jumping on the bandwagon for gains in profit, branding, tourism, etc., without devoting resources to mitigating climate change. At the University of Pennsylvania, a student group accused the university of hypocrisy for maintaining investments in fossil fuels while supporting the Paris accord.
Sometimes countries simply can’t comply — they lack the required funds and capabilities. This was the case in a strong democracy like Australia, which noted in a treaty reservation that it was not able to ensure paid maternity leave, a requirement spelled out in Article 11 of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Even when focusing on the impact of NGOs, research finds that the higher the national GDP, the higher the compliance. So funding could be a big issue for some of the cities that have signed on to support the Paris accord. Smaller cities may have less financial wiggle room for major changes.
3) Climate change is a unique, cross-border issue
While climate change has some parallels with the implementation of human rights treaties mentioned here, implementation and compliance in the two areas are arguably different. This is important when thinking through how groups below the federal level will implement climate change vs. human rights law.
Human rights law governs a country’s treatment of people within its borders. Domestic groups are able to step up to address the health, well-being and rights of domestic peoples.
Climate change, of course, does not have borders. Acting without the support of the U.S. federal government will limit, but not eliminate, sub-national actors’ ability to work beyond their immediate jurisdiction.
[What is the Paris climate agreement — and what else do you need to know about climate politics?]
A number of U.S. entities are now working to address climate change through coalitions. The U.S. Climate Alliance has organized 13 members to date to advance the Paris accords at the state level. And states are beginning to negotiate with other countries as well. California just negotiated a green technology agreement with China aimed at addressing climate change. U.S. states and Canadian provinces already have a number of initiatives in place, and Canada announced plans for broader state cooperation.
Mapping out where city and state groups have committed to combat climate change reveals an unsurprising fact — the support is mostly in Democratic-leaning areas. The sub-national groups are trying to bridge policies across patches of the United States instead of implementing them across it as a federal-led initiative would do.
Cities and other groups will need to confront all of the hurdles countries face when seeking to comply with international law, and then some. What happens if the city or state relies on federal dollars to implement clean air or other environmental programs that the Trump administration no longer supports? Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by almost a third — including cuts to Superfund cleanup sites, environmental science programs and cleaning up the Great Lakes.
Meeting the Paris accord’s goal of reducing global increases in temperature was not guaranteed even with full U.S. support. For cities and states to have a meaningful impact in implementing the accord, they will need to ensure compliance, coordination and successful implementation.
And what happens if U.S. national policy explicitly contradicts the Paris accord? The Paris accord calls for countries to step up reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at a time when Trump is calling for removing restrictions on the U.S. coal industry.
These are just some of the questions and hurdles that the sub-national climate coalition may soon be forced to address.
Audrey Comstock completed her PhD in government at Cornell University in 2017 and will begin as a postdoctoral fellow at Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies in August 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/13/u-s-cities-and-states-want-to-implement-the-paris-climate-accord-goals-its-not-that-simple/?utm_term=.4fe5bcb48865
-
The Energy 202: Paris Climate Accord Divides Industrial Trade Group
Jun 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Eastman Chemical Company -- one of the largest chemical manufacturers in the United States, which like many U.S. firms supported the Paris climate accord -- discontinued membership in one of the few trade groups that publicly pressed the Trump administration to pull out of the landmark climate deal.
Leading up to President Trump's announcement in June, hundreds of businesses publicly pledged support of the Paris accord. But more discreetly, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America told the White House that Paris disadvantaged U.S. manufacturers, arguing in two letters sent to the Trump administration -- one in April and another in May -- that "IECA fails to see the benefit of the Paris Climate Accord."
But that was not the public position of every IECA member on the Paris agreement, including Eastman. In the case of Eastman, the disagreement was strong enough to warrant leaving the trade group.
"While we valued the IECA's work in areas unrelated to climate change, the organization's action is so at odds with Eastman's position that we also cannot reconcile continued participation in IECA with our commitment to sustainability," David A. Golden, a senior vice president and chief legal and sustainability officer at Eastman, wrote to the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, an international human-rights organization that queried Eastman and other IECA members about their Paris stance following IECA's lobbying effort.
"As such," Golden wrote, "this week we discontinued our IECA membership."
The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre published that and other letters it received from IECA members late Monday. The center made its inquiries after the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed outthe discrepancy between IECA's stance and that of some of its members on the Paris agreement earlier this month.
Eastman's decision to leave the trade association highlights the rift that has developed in the American business community over Trump's decision to exit the Paris accord. Many large consumer-facing companies, like Apple, Gap and Levi's, asked the Trump administration to remain in the climate agreement that is largely popular with its employees and customers, publicly pushing their position in full-page newspaper ads.
Meanwhile, some energy-intensive firms, which would bear the brunt of greenhouse-gas regulations, supported U.S. withdrawal from Paris, though most often less publicly.
The rift is playing out in trade groups like IECA, which represents a diverse set of chemical, metal, paper, glass and cement manufacturers, that find themselves caught in the middle of the two camps. It's unclear how many groups fall on either side of the divide within IECA, as it doesn't disclose its members.
"It reminds me of over 80 companies that left the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which similarly opposes any climate-based regulation," Gregory Regaignon, research director at the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, told me by email. "While some who left ALEC were mum about their reasons, Google, Enterprise, Shell, Unilever, Wal-Mart and others were explicit that they left over disagreement with ALEC’s policies such as opposition to climate-based regulation, to vote-suppressing voter ID laws, and to other worker rights, health care, and public safety laws."
Eastman was not the only IECA manufacturer that sought to clarify the record. Owens Corning, which manufactures insulation and roofing materials, distanced itself from the trade group after the Paris decision.
"We are members of many industry organizations that provide value to our company and our customers," Owens Corning told the human-rights nonprofit. "We virtually never find ourselves in alignment with all the positions of any industry organization, including IECA in this case."
International Paper, one of the largest pulp and paper companies in the world, also put itself at arm's length from IECA. Previously, the company had said it aims to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by a fifth from 2010 levels by the end of the decade,
"We were not involved in the development of the letter and do not agree with the organization's decision to send it," the company wrote. "We participate in IECA mainly to access the organization's vast reservoir of energy data and reports."
SABIC, or the Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation, a chemical manufacturer, also said that it "did not review or approve" the IECA letter sent directly to President Trump in May before it went to the White House. A majority of SABIC shares are controlled by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which ratified the Paris accord in November shortly before Trump's election.
IECA did not reply to a request for comment from The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/06/13/the-energy-202-paris-climate-accord-divides-industrial-trade-group/593edc18e9b69b2fb981dcf5/?utm_term=.f4f3ce5314b9
-
Tillerson: 'My View Didn’t Change' on Paris Climate Agreement
Jun 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told senators Tuesday that he still supports the Paris climate change agreement, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from it.
Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., was the most vocal voice in the Trump administration pushing the president to stay in the pact.
He told Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that he respects Trump’s decision but disagrees with it.
“My view didn’t change,” Tillerson said at a hearing on the State Department’s budget. “My views were heard out. I respect that the president heard my views, but I respect the decision he’s taken.”
He said Trump was “quite deliberative” in his consideration of the Paris pact. The president “took some time to come to his decision, particularly waiting until he had heard from European counterparts in the G7 on it,” Tillerson said.
The State Department is the chief agency responsible for international agreements and treaties. Under former President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry was the key point person in developing the Paris pact.
But Tillerson didn’t participate in Trump’s public events surrounding his decision earlier this month to pull out of the Paris deal, including a grand White House ceremony to announce the withdrawal.
Instead, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, an outspoken opponent of the Paris agreement, took the lead among administration officials in those events.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/337578-tillerson-my-view-didnt-change-on-paris-climate-agreement
-
Pruitt Supports 'Sustainable' Goals Connected to Climate
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The United States signed on to indirect international action on climate change at the recent Group of Seven environment ministers meeting, but it rejected explicit actions to address warming.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt briefly faced his counterparts in Bologna, Italy, over the weekend, about a week after President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. While Pruitt reiterated that the United States would immediately stop action to implement the accord, he did join the other environment ministers in a communiqué agreeing to work toward the United Nations' 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The 17 targets, first adopted by countries in 2015, include efforts to clean up the world's oceans, reduce food waste and make clean energy more affordable.
Climate change is an implicit and explicit issue throughout all the goals, said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
"Given that the SDGs treat climate change as one of the defining problems of our time, and they treat climate action as an opportunity for sustainable economic development, it does seem somewhat incongruent that the Trump administration was willing to sign on to the communiqué," Burger said.
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, speculated that the United States signed the SDGs so as not to be completely left out of the communiqué. He noted that addressing climate change was one of the 17 targets.
"If you don't deal with climate change, it will overwhelm your ability to deal with agriculture or public health, with water supplies, or conservation, everything is integrated in there," he said.
"You can't say, 'Don't do anything on climate change,' and assume that things would be achieved, because they wouldn't be," Meyer added.
In the communiqué released by G-7 members, environment ministers and European commissioners agree to "work on integrating the economic, social and environmental dimension of sustainable development, with the aim of leaving no one behind, for the benefit of the people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership, and exchange respective experiences."
They state that they will all agree to implement the environmental dimension of the 2030 agenda, which includes cleaning up ocean litter, increasing people's awareness of food waste and using resources efficiently.
The United States also joined the other participants in pledging to make "further significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions," according to a statement from German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks.
"I was pleased the United States also made this commitment," she said.
But the United States broke from the United Kingdom, Japan, England, Germany, France, Canada and the European commissioners on their reaffirmation of the Paris Agreement. The United States says in a footnote that it will "continue to engage with key international players in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and healthy environment."U.S. withdrawal sparked 'unity'
The other nations expressed their disappointment and regret at the United States exit from the Paris accord. In a statement, European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete said the United States triggered a "remarkable show of unity" around the climate accord by quitting Paris.
"Let me be very clear on the point of the irreversibility of the Paris Agreement. The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement. ... With the exception of the U.S., we are all determined to move forward and implement the Paris Agreement swiftly and effectively," he said.
Cañete met with Pruitt on the sidelines of the G-7 meeting. The pair discussed the topics on the meeting agenda, including the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, according to a spokeswoman, Anna-Kaisa Itkonen.
Pruitt cut short his participation in the two-day meeting, leaving after a few hours of meetings Sunday. In a statement, EPA spokesman Lincoln Ferguson said Pruitt returned early to Washington to attend a full Cabinet meeting yesterday, but senior staff members would remain in Bologna to continue discussions with their international counterparts.
Both the president and Pruitt have said the United States could help reduce global emissions through sharing energy technology for horizontal drilling and clean coal technology.
But those approaches could have limited effectiveness for the rest of the world, said Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
While natural gas has been a "star player" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, a similar approach won't necessarily work elsewhere in the world, particularly in countries not already using a lot of coal, he said.
Other nations do not have the resources to develop the infrastructure for natural gas or buy the technology needed for developing and producing it. Countries interested in developing their own domestic energy sources might not have the right geology for natural gas development. The United States could export natural gas to other nations, but that, too, could face significant infrastructure hurdles, since recipients would need port access to take in the fuel.
"Molecules are easier to move than technology, and even then it takes money to buy our molecules," Book said.
Encouraging the adoption of cleaner coal technology comes with another set of challenges.
"It's possible to create lower-cost production for coal by rolling back regulations, but it's hard to produce more opportunity for coal without a price on carbon," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/13/stories/1060055925
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested