Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/16/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Most North American Commodity Resin Prices Melt in May
Jun 16, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Summer vacation started early for North American commodity plastics, with prices for most of those resins dropping in May. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Water Utilities Seek Changes in TSCA Framework Rules
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental groups and water utility officials are looking for changes in the framework rules due for finalization June 22 that will implement the reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as signed into law last summer, with environmentalists fearing industry influence and utilities looking for EPA to describe an approach to prioritization. -
EPA Toxics Director Seeks 'New Chemicals' Program Fixes Beyond Backlog
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA toxics managers are working on a series of fixes to the agency's new chemicals program, which are intended to address the backlog of applications to commence production, prevent a similar backlog, and address related issues. -
EPA Submits TSCA Risk Evaluation Guidance to OMB
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted a guidance document for developing risk evaluations under TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. -
MSC Agrees BPA is an Endocrine Disruptor
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) has agreed with a proposal from France that bisphenol A (BPA) is a substance of very high concern (SVHC) due to its endocrine disrupting properties that cause probable serious effects to human health. -
EPA Schedules Peer Review for Two IRIS Assessments
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has announced plans to peer review a pair of draft assessments of the human health risks of two petro-fuel chemicals, the first such peer review that will be conducted during the Trump administration -- and the continuation of a risk analysis program the administration had once proposed eliminating in the fiscal year 2018 budget. -
Echa's Rac Prepares for EDC Authorisations
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) is preparing for authorisation applications for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The committee's EDC discussions are likely to focus on whether or not thresholds exist for these substances. -
EPA Head Met with Multiple Energy Execs in His First Weeks
Jun 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) often met with executives of fossil fuel and energy companies in his first weeks in office. -
Energy Department Aims to Close International Clean Energy Office
Jun 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Energy Department (DOE) has shuttered its office that focuses on developing clean energy technology internationally. -
EPA Urges Court Not to Lift Stay of Methane Rule for New Oil, Gas Wells
Jun 16, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today urged the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals not to reverse its decision to pause leak detection and repair requirements and other key parts of the agency's rule limiting methane emissions from new oil and gas wells. -
Texas Power Plants Among Nation's Top Emitters of Carbon Dioxide
Jun 16, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Power plants in Texas are among those that lead the nation in emissions that contribute to global warming and pollution, according to a new report. -
A U.S. Grid Clear of 2016 Attacks is Hardly Worry-Free — NERC
Jun 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The interstate grid's top regulators want a closer look at threats that could penetrate power companies and smart grid networks. -
Trump is Dropping Out of the Paris Agreement, but the Rest of Us Don't Have To
Jun 16, 2017 | Los Angeles Times
By The Times Editorial Board
The gap between President Trump’s climate change policy and the science-based needs of the world grows wider by the day. -
How Should World Leaders Punish Trump for Pulling Out of Paris Accord?
Jun 16, 2017 | The Guardian (via Real Clear Energy)
By Wael Hmaidan
World leaders’ response to Donald Trump’s announcement that he would withdraw the US from the Paris agreement was strong and unified.
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 Mentioned) Most North American Commodity Resin Prices Melt in May
Jun 16, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Summer vacation started early for North American commodity plastics, with prices for most of those resins dropping in May.
North American prices for polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene and PET bottle resin each were down for the month. PP prices were down 7.5 cents, with PE down 3, PS down 2 and PET down 1.
The 7.5-cent PP decline came after prices for the material had dropped 6 cents in April. This two-month, 13.5-cent downturn comes after prices rose an average of 20.5 cents in the first three months of the year.
North American PP sales haven't been strong in the first four months of 2017, slipping more than 1 percent vs. the same period in 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic PP sales fell almost 2 percent in that period, while export sales jumped 21 percent.
Looking ahead, PP prices are likely to continue to fall, reflecting lower propylene monomer prices, but profit margins will still be strong, according to Robert Bauman, a market analyst with Polyolefins Consulting International in Spring, Texas.
At the PetroChem Wire consulting firm in Houston, market analyst David Barry said that "there are growing signs that the [PP] price downtrend of the past 2-3 months is ending."
A 3-cent PE drop for May came after prices had been flat in April and wiped out a 3-cent hike that had taken hold in March.
"All the drivers that influenced the first quarter increases have been reversed in April and May," market analyst Mike Burns said in a May 30 email.
Burns, who's with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas, said PE export volumes were back to average in May and North American processors had built 360 million pounds of inventory. Production disruptions also have been resolved, he added, and there was little or no pre-buying from announced increases.
The regional PE market also is under pressure from low-priced finished PE bags coming in from China, Burns said.
As in the PP market, regional sales of PE weren't robust in early 2017. U.S./Canadian sales of high density PE were down almost 6 percent in the first four months of the year, as a domestic sales gain of 1.5 percent was wiped out by a drop of almost 30 percent in export sales.
Low density PE sales in the region slipped almost 1 percent in that period, with a domestic sales drop of more than 2 percent lessened by an export sales gain of almost 4 percent. In linear LDPE, regional sales grew almost 1 percent, as domestic growth of almost 4 percent was lowered by a 9 percent drop in export sales.
Those low PE sales results might be cause for concern, according to Bauman at PCI.
"I've been very conservative on demand growth of about 2 percent for polyethylene from 2015 to 2020," he said in an email. "Even at 3 percent, the business will be in trouble with the surge in PE capacity coming on stream during the next 24 months."
In PE feedstocks, West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices began May around $49 per barrel and ended the month around $49.50, for a gain of only 1 percent. Regional prices for natural gas — used as a feedstock in most North American PE and PVC — started the month at $3.30 per million BTUs but were at $3.15 in late trading May 30 for a decline of 4.5 percent.
PS, PET both drop
For PS, the 2-cent May decline was the second consecutive such move. Some buyers reported seeing a 3-cent drop, but most saw the 2-cent decrease, which had been announced by PS maker Americas Styrenics.
PS prices had fallen by 5 cents in April after increasing by 6 cents in March. These moves have been driven by price volatility for benzene feedstock, which is used to make styrene monomer.
North American PS sales are off to a rough start in 2017, falling almost 4 percent through April. Sales of PS into consumer and institutional uses were down almost 10 percent in that period. PS sales into the electrical/electronic sector provided a bright spot, increasing almost 5 percent in those four months.
The 1-cent PET decline for May came as a result of lower feedstock costs and overcame higher demand for bottle resin from the beverage market as warmer weather arrives. Regional prices for the material now have declined for three straight months after slipping a total of 2.5 cents in March and April.
PTA and MEG feedstocks have been under downward pricing pressure, sources said. Prior to March, regional PET prices had increased for six consecutive months, with those increases totaling 9.5 cents per pound.
PVC remains flat
PVC was the only commodity resin to see flat pricing in North America for May. That marked the second consecutive month that prices for the material hadn't moved, following a total of 6 cents in increases that had taken hold in February-March.
Through April, U.S./Canadian PVC sales were down more than 1 percent. Domestic sales grew more than 1 percent but were eclipsed by an export sales drop of more than 7 percent.
PC, nylon climb
In non-commodity resin markets, regional prices for all grades of polycarbonate resin are up an average of 14 cents per pound since Jan. 1, as a result of higher prices for benzene and other feedstocks. Prices for nylon 6/6 resin in the region have increased an average of 6 cents per pound since March 1, also resulting from higher feedstock costs. Prices for that material already had increased a total of 12 cents per pound on average in January and February.
Recycled resin prices continue to fall
For recycled resin markets for North America, average selling prices for recycled HDPE are down 4 cents per pound since March 1, with recycled PET bottle resin prices down an average of 2 cents per pound since then as well. Both price decreases are connected to lower demand, market sources said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170616/NEWS/170619924/most-north-american-commodity-resin-prices-melt-in-may
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Water Utilities Seek Changes in TSCA Framework Rules
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental groups and water utility officials are looking for changes in the framework rules due for finalization June 22 that will implement the reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as signed into law last summer, with environmentalists fearing industry influence and utilities looking for EPA to describe an approach to prioritization.
While the law requires EPA to consider proximity to drinking water sources when prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluation, the draft version of the prioritization rule released in January for public comment did not include implementation language. Such a provision in the final rule would be novel, an industry source tells Inside EPA.
“It's part of prioritization [in the TSCA reform law] but EPA never said how they'd do it,” the source says. How to implement the concept is more challenging than it may appear, the source adds. “From a surface water perspective, you can do the geographic proximity . . . but how do you deal with aquifers? It becomes very complicated.”
EPA staff have been working to meet a series of deadlines laid out in the TSCA reform act, which requires the agency to establish a process for and begin assessing existing chemicals, those that were on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976. The three framework rules establishing how EPA will update the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals, prioritize those chemicals for assessment and evaluate them are statutorily required to be finalized by the reform law's first anniversary -- June 22.
The reform law's passage regarding prioritization, TSCA section 6(b)1(A), states that EPA must formulate by rule “a risk-based screening process, including criteria for designating chemical substances as high-priority substances for risk evaluations or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time.”
The statute then lays out a series of conditions EPA must consider in the screening process, including “consideration of the hazard and exposure potential of a chemical substance or a category of chemical substances (including consideration of persistence and bioaccumulation, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and storage near significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of use or significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical substance, and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the chemical substance manufactured or processed.”
The prioritization and evaluation rules are undergoing White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review before their final release. The third rule, the inventory update rule, has been exempted from this review because it was deemed not significant. EPA officials say they are confident the rules will be finalized by June 22.
Source Water Protection
In comments on the draft prioritization and evaluation rules, the American Water Works Association (AWWA), which represents drinking water utilities, explains in March 13 comments the importance of protecting drinking water sources and suggests approaches EPA could take to address the proximity requirement.
“Accidental spills and releases into surface and groundwater sources are a continuing hazard for water systems. Even when water systems have access to high quality sources, chemical contamination through spill events and incremental contributions through chemical use and/or disposal place the public’s health at risk,” AWWA says. “To date, the burdens of removing harmful chemicals from drinking water rests on water utilities. Pollution prevention is a more sustainable long-term solution with a lower cost as compared to the high cost of treatment or contaminant removal."
The group recommends that EPA use the opportunity provided by TSCA reform to “support source water protection to safeguard America’s drinking water supply.” The group urges the agency to consider defining the concept in the statute broadly, by, for example, including consideration of both groundwater and surface water sources and “the volumes of chemicals that are in transport via rail, barge and pipeline.”
AWWA also asks EPA to “consider” aquifers and water bodies that may in the future be drinking water sources, noting that “[f]resh water is an increasingly scarce resource.” The TSCA program should weigh the concerns managed through the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control Program in both the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, AWWA says.
The group reminds EPA it will need to craft a way to collect information regarding chemical storage within source protection areas “to support chemical prioritization and subsequent chemical evaluation” but warns that collecting this data may be challenging.
“At present consistent data is only available for petroleum products subject to risk management controls under the Clean Water Act section 311 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements,” AWWA says.
Tier 2 reports required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) “may be the best available data for chemical prioritization,” the group adds. But because this data is held by states and is submitted to the state in multiple formats, aggregate analysis even at the local/regional level to support source water protection planning efforts is challenging, AWWA says.
Water Treatment
AWWA continues by recommending that EPA consider “source water protection criterion . . . throughout the risk evaluation process put forth in the proposed rule.” The group calls on EPA, among other things, to “remove chemicals in common water treatment processes from evaluation” because SDWA requirements already “assure that drinking water treatment safeguards the public from toxics.”
The group also asks that EPA “determine if there are any sampling methods available for the chemical in a water matrix. This would also include methods for remediation that could be implemented to mitigate exposure during a potential response action. The absence of such information and methods was a significant limiting factor that impeded the timeliness of response to the Freedom Industries spill in Charleston, West Virginia [in 2014] that impacted the water supply of 300,000 residents. The risk evaluation process should take this into account when weighing the need to promulgate a risk management measure.”
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), which represents wastewater utilities, raises similar concerns in its March 20 comments to EPA on the prioritization rule. The group suggests that EPA add to the final rule language “to address chemical risks that concern wastewater utilities. This language could be modeled on California's Safer Consumer Product Regulations, which allows prioritization based on a chemical’s adverse effects on a utility’s effluent quality, wastewater treatment processes, and ability to reuse or recycle materials resulting from wastewater treatment, such as recycled water and biosolids. These factors could also be specifically addressed in the screening review process described in Section 702.7(c).”
NACWA also encourages EPA's toxics office to develop a process for collaborating with the agency's water office when prioritizing chemicals.
OMB Meetings
Several stakeholders have already met with OMB staff to lay out their cases for the changes they would like to see to the rules under review, which involves interagency review as well.
Representatives of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) met with OMB staff June 7, largely to discuss points made in the group's written comments, an EWG source says. “We’re all going to be watching very closely. We and the rest of the [non-governmental organization (NGO)] community are fairly happy with the rules as proposed. One thing we did say is that we’ll be looking closely at any changes, to see if any are significant [enough] to request re-proposal,” the source says.
The source adds that EWG is concerned specifically about changes regarding how chemicals' conditions of use are evaluated, because of industry comments.
EWG and other NGOs consider it important that EPA consider all conditions of use in prioritization and evaluation, but many industry representatives have argued that such an all-encompassing approach is impractical and cannot be conducted in a reasonable amount of time.
Similarly, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) met with OMB June 6. “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 [2016] amendments to TSCA,” an ACC spokesman says.
And the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) met with OMB regarding the framework rules June 12. An EDF official declined to comment on the meeting.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-water-utilities-seek-changes-tsca-framework-rules
-
EPA Toxics Director Seeks 'New Chemicals' Program Fixes Beyond Backlog
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA toxics managers are working on a series of fixes to the agency's new chemicals program, which are intended to address the backlog of applications to commence production, prevent a similar backlog, and address related issues.
The ongoing delays in EPA's ability to review and process pre-manufacture notices for new chemicals in a timely way has been one of the surprising and perhaps unanticipated outcomes of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which made sweeping changes to many aspects of the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) when signed into law last summer by former President Barack Obama.
The law provided no transition time for EPA's new chemicals program, creating a nearly instantaneous backlog when the new law was signed June 22, 2016. Since then, EPA has struggled to address the backlog -- a major concern to the chemicals industry -- while adapting to the new requirements of a reformed TSCA.
Jeff Morris, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), described some of the ongoing efforts he hopes will prevent further backlogs while speaking during a June 12 webinar sponsored by the law firm of Bergeson and Campbell. Morris' remarks follow June 1 remarks from acting EPA toxics chief Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who indicated that the backlog would be eliminated by the end of July.
Important elements to Morris' plans are developing a pre-submission consultation process to iron out potential issues in pending pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), and a guidance document for companies on what EPA is looking for in PMN applications in the new TSCA world.
“Another important aspect of our look at how we're doing in the new chemicals program is related to the issue we've faced in the past for a number of years. Because the new chemicals program doesn't require that data be generated for PMN submission, we got a lot of PMN submissions with not a lot of data,” Morris said. “Whereas in the past we were able to handle this back and forth with fewer orders being generated, now there is just not the bandwidth for it.”
Morris said that staff is “developing a points to consider document” to assist companies in preparing their submissions. “We can make decisions within the 90-day period” for PMN review mandated in TSCA, but it will “only work if that's coupled with a robust pre-submission consultation process to answer any questions about the points to consider,” he said.
In response to questions, Morris said that he intends to solicit comments on a draft version of the guide, and is also considering doing some kind of beta testing of the guide as well. Industry representatives on the webinar suggested that Morris would have many volunteers to participate in such testing. Morris did not provide a time line for the guidance.
Two-Step Process
Like Cleland-Hamnett, Morris outlined EPA's new approach to assessing PMNs generally, as changes to the law require that EPA now make an affirmative finding on whether each PMN meets the TSCA risk standard. The statute also requires that EPA consider all reasonably foreseeable uses of a chemical, and so EPA has applied that to its PMN review process -- changes that Cleland-Hamnett pointed to as drivers for the backlog.
EPA is now using a two-step process to approve some new chemicals, where some but not all of the uses are potentially concerning. It includes combining a consent order and a significant new use rule (SNUR) that limits approval to certain uses and requires EPA approval through the PMN process for any future additional uses.
Morris explained that “in order for this to work, both the process and timing are important. . . . It's important that SNUR be out there in effect prior to the PMN substance going on the market so another manufacturer or [even the same] manufacturer cannot commence uses outside the PMN before the SNUR is out. So we are trying to align the [consent order] and the SNUR so that is environmentally protective.”
This is important because once a use is active, EPA cannot control it with a SNUR.
Morris also described other policy changes to address issues that have arisen since the passage of Lautenberg, such as with certain polymers that have traditionally received an exemption from the PMN process. EPA had last altered its polymer exemption policy in 1995, according to its website. The policy sought to incentivize the development of certain types of low risk polymers by allowing polymers that met EPA's criteria to go into production without undergoing the PMN process. In exchange, companies were required to maintain some records and submit an annual report to EPA.
Morris said that in some cases, submitters would present PMNs for polymer exemption-qualified chemicals because they wanted to place the substances on the TSCA inventory -- with the agency thus recognizing the polymer as an existing chemical, rather than a new chemical.
Since Lautenberg's passage, TSCA section 5 requires EPA to make one of three affirmative findings about each PMN submission before the chemical can be produced for sale. The agency may find that the chemical is not likely to present a significant risk; it may find that there is "insufficient information" to make a safety determination or that it may present an unreasonable risk.
Morris explained that with polymers undergoing the PMN process, OPPT staff originally thought they would have to issue a may present an unreasonable risk finding for some after looking at uses identified in the PMN and all reasonably foreseen uses.
More recently, Morris said, officials decided that they can issue protective findings of not likely to present a significant risk for some polymers by putting “a regulatory flag on it, to avoid [future uses of the chemical that] chang[ed] aspects of the substance to avoid changing the monomer to polymer ratio.”
Another panelist on the call, Richard Engler, a senior chemist with Bergeson & Campbell, encouraged Morris to expand the scope of chemicals to which such a flag could be applied beyond polymers, to other types of low hazard substances.
Morris responded that he is “open to considering it. It's thinking like that will get us to the right place in the program.”
Low-Volume Chemicals
Another panelist on the conference call, Beth Bosley, raised concern with EPA's handling of another PMN exemption since the Lautenberg Act's passage, that for low volume chemicals. Bosley, president of small specialty chemical manufacturer Boron Specialties, questioned Morris about changes to how EPA addresses the low volume exemption to the PMN process.
Before Lautenberg, the exemption allowed for certain types of substances where the company intends to manufacture 10,000 kilograms or less per year can undergo a shortened 30-day PMN review process, and a user fee is waived, according to EPA's website.
“The exemptions were meant to be preserved in new TSCA. As we've heard earlier, the polymer exemption does not appear to be working well,” Bosley said during the webinar. “Generally those PMNs would just be dropped, though now they're being regulated even though the very talented scientists at EPA looked at these as low risk.”
Bosley then pointed to the low volume PMN exemption. “Generally it was a very quick review. [Such applications are] usually submitted by people innovating quickly and need to get to market quickly. So that's causing some trouble.”
Bosley said that she had contacted about 15 other small chemical makers, who told her of similar observances. The low volume exemption process is “really different now. The review process is slower. The agency's approach to volume triggers and delays in review is just different. . . . I don't think it's coincidental it's happening now. Given that [low-volume exemptions] are smaller provision, maybe once the PMN backlog is down we can have a real serious conversation” about how to address the issue.
Morris acknowledged the concern, saying that EPA staff is beginning to work with individual companies on the low volume exemption issues. “We definitely need to address some of the larger issues raised,” he said. “Given that it's a pretty large part of the program, areas where innovation and quick turnaround [matter] . . . it definitely merits some focused attention. I'm very willing to engage on the topic.”
Morris also discussed a change to instances where staff are unable to reach a finding of not likely to present unreasonable risk because of insufficient information, often because of “lung effects because of lung overload or surfactancy.” In the past, when such substances raised alerts in the new chemicals' structural modeling software, EPA did not have the information to assess the concern or gather that information. But “because now we are required to make a finding of some sort, because of the concerns that were raised for lung effects, we believe we need to find a path forward to find the information.”
The approach OPPT has developed involves consulting with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop “tiered testing and [personal protective equipment] approaches that we believe will allow us to be protective while we gather information on these groups of substances while we make a reasoned decision. Letters have gone out to these companies.”
Morris added that OPPT is working to group such chemicals by category to make OPPT's evaluations and decisions both protective and efficient.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-toxics-director-seeks-new-chemicals-program-fixes-beyond-backlog
-
EPA Submits TSCA Risk Evaluation Guidance to OMB
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted a guidance document for developing risk evaluations under TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
The document – Guidance to assist interested persons in developing and submitting draft risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – was submitted to the business division of the president's executive office on 13 June.
A final rule for conducting risk evaluation under the reformed TSCA is also under review at the OMB. The Lautenberg Act calls for this to be finalised by 22 June – one year after the law's passage.
The EPA did not respond to a request for more information on the guidance by our deadline.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56935/epa-submits-tsca-risk-evaluation-guidance-to-omb
-
MSC Agrees BPA is an Endocrine Disruptor
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) has agreed with a proposal from France that bisphenol A (BPA) is a substance of very high concern (SVHC) due to its endocrine disrupting properties that cause probable serious effects to human health.
BPA – which is used in common consumer goods such as water bottles, CDs and food and beverage cans – is already on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs because it is toxic for reproduction.
In May this year, trade association PlasticsEurope filed court action against Echa over its decision, saying that the vast majority of uses are as an intermediate, which is excluded from REACH.
This week, the MSC unanimously agreed on the substance's additional identification because of its endocrine disrupting properties, the effects of which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction (CMR 1A or 1B) substances.
According to French authorities, evidence shows BPA can cause disruption of the oestrogenic pathway and alter reproductive function, mammary gland development, cognitive function and metabolism.
PlasticsEurope says it is highly concerned and does not understand the MSC's position. "The decision is in contrast with our thorough assessment of the scientific data on BPA," the body's Jasmin Bird says. She adds that it contradicts the conclusion of an independent European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) expert panel which cited WHO criteria stating BPA "is not an endocrine disruptor".
The MSC's decision "weakens the strong principle of science-based regulatory decisions in the EU, and will result in further uncertainty without providing benefit to the safety of consumers," Ms Bird says.
'20-year fight'
NGOs say that BPA has been suspected of disrupting the hormonal system, as well as having serious dangerous effects on human health and the environment, for more than 20 years and is "the most widely studied" hormone disruptor to date, according to ClientEarth.
Alice Bernard, a lawyer at the environmental law firm, says the EU and national governments must act fast to limit the "irreversible" damage the substance does.
Dolores Romano, from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), says all bisphenols have similar toxicity concerns and she urges prompt action on the group as a whole.
The 'difficulties' in getting the substance recognised as an endocrine disruptor is "yet another reminder of the critical importance to get the proposed EDC criteria right in the EU pesticides committee in the coming weeks," Health and Environmental Alliance's (HEAL) Natacha Cingotti says. HEAL is urging France to "hold its line" and encourages other member states to provide support in favour of strong criteria and reject the current proposal discussed in the context of the pesticides law.
Echa says MSC's agreement should be published by 22 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56937/msc-agrees-bpa-is-an-endocrine-disruptor
-
EPA Schedules Peer Review for Two IRIS Assessments
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has announced plans to peer review a pair of draft assessments of the human health risks of two petro-fuel chemicals, the first such peer review that will be conducted during the Trump administration -- and the continuation of a risk analysis program the administration had once proposed eliminating in the fiscal year 2018 budget.
A notice scheduled to publish in the June 16 Federal Register announces that EPA's Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) will hold a conference call and a peer review meeting over the summer to begin peer review of the agency's draft toxicological assessments of the chemicals ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) and tert-butyl alcohol, also known as tert-butanol (TBA).
The CAAC, augmented by experts on the individual chemicals, will hold its conference call July 11 and a public meeting in Arlington, VA, Aug. 15-17.
The notice does not mention the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the EPA program that released drafts of the two assessments last year.
IRIS assessments are widely considered influential but they are often controversial with regulated entities who charge they assess risk too conservatively.
Last spring, the administration proposed to eliminate the program in a leaked March 21 memo from David Bloom, the agency's acting chief financial officer, which detailed how officials planned to implement the administration's proposal to cut EPA's FY18 funding by more than $2 billion -- or 31 percent -- compared to FY16 levels.
But when President Donald Trump's FY18 proposed budget was released in May, it sought instead to preserve a smaller version of IRIS, signaling the program will be devoted in part to assessing substances under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act and other mandatory regulatory programs.
Any peer reviews of the two risk assessments is likely to be controversial as petrochemical industry representatives questioned EPA's rationale for conducting IRIS assessments of both chemicals.
They argued at public meetings that the fuel oxygenator ETBE and its metabolite, TBA, should not undergo IRIS scrutiny because ETBE was not used in the U.S. and TBA is a chemical intermediate to which there is not broad exposure.
TBA, however, is also a metabolite of ETBE as well as another fuel oxygenator, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), which was widely used in the U.S. in the 1990s to meet Clean Air Act standards. Groundwater contamination from leaking fuel storage tanks prompted dozens of states to ban MTBE's use in gasoline and liability concerns caused refiners to stop using it in the 2000s. And ETBE has been found at cleanup sites and in some groundwater sources.
IRIS officials after discussing with colleagues in other EPA offices, concluded that there was a need for the ETBE assessment and it should go forward.
EPA released its most recent draft IRIS assessment of ETBE last September, and sought public comment. The agency had released an earlier draft in 2009, but withdrew it after concerns regarding the research of an Italian lab that EPA cited in that earlier draft.
The new draft echoes its 2009 predecessor by concluding that ETBE presents “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,” though it uses as the basis for the conclusion a different study, one from the Japan Petroleum Energy Center industry research group, rather than the Italian Ramazzini Institute.
EPA's 2009 draft reached the same conclusion regarding ETBE's carcinogenic potential, but declined to calculate a cancer risk estimate for ETBE due to limitations of the study on which it based its cancer assessment. EPA in the new draft assessment goes further by calculating those risk estimates, or estimates of cancer potency, for ETBE. The agency explains that it “concluded that the main study was well conducted and quantitative analyses could be useful for providing a sense of the magnitude of potential carcinogenic risk.”
EPA released its draft assessment of TBA in May 2016, and it quickly drew industry ire for proposing to classify the substance as showing "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential" and calculating a cancer risk estimate, arguing that agency risk assessors have misinterpreted toxicity data.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-schedules-peer-review-two-iris-assessments
-
Echa's Rac Prepares for EDC Authorisations
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) is preparing for authorisation applications for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The committee's EDC discussions are likely to focus on whether or not thresholds exist for these substances.
After two years of intensive work on authorisation applications, the Rac has some breathing space before discussing the next set, which will include nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates.
In December 2016, the European Commission made clear that authorisation applicants were responsible for demonstrating whether EDCs have thresholds below which no adverse effects are expected to occur. They should also determine the threshold, "even though this might be particularly difficult for [EDCs]", the Commission said in a review of how EDCs should be treated under REACH.
"It is up to [Rac] to assess the validity of the assessment and ultimately decide on the possible existence or not of this threshold," it added.
On a case-by-case basis, the Rac can set reference Dnels for threshold substances or reference dose-response curves for non-threshold substances. Industry can then use these when applying for authorisations. "This practice applies for [EDCs] as for other substances," said the Commission.
"We will use the pause to review the process, talk to a lot of people and see how in general tools can be developed for the next round," said Rac chair Tim Bowmer.
At its June meeting, the Rac agreed on 14 draft authorisation opinions for: chromium (VI) substances; 1,2-dichloroethane, bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (diglyme); and 2,2’-dichloro-4,4’-methylene-dianiline (MOCA). The opinions will now be sent to applicants for comments before final adoption.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56929/echas-rac-prepares-for-edc-authorisations
-
EPA Head Met with Multiple Energy Execs in His First Weeks
Jun 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) often met with executives of fossil fuel and energy companies in his first weeks in office.
The EPA released Scott Pruitt’s first calendars under the Freedom of Information Act late Thursday, initially to E&E News.
In the time period covered — Feb. 21 to March 31 — Pruitt had meetings, phone calls and speeches with leaders in oil, natural gas, coal, the automotive industry, utilities, agriculture and others who would benefit from the Trump administration’s aggressive deregulatory agenda.
The disclosures are likely to reinforce the argument from Democrats and environmentalists that Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, is a close ally of fossil fuel industries and committed to helping them by reducing regulatory protections, scaling back enforcement and more.
Pruitt’s meetings in those initial five weeks included executives from oil giant Chevron Corp., BHP Billiton, BP and coal producer Murray Energy.
He attended a March 22 meeting of the executive council of the American Petroleum Institute at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., with 45 oil and gas CEOs. The hotel is next to the EPA’s headquarters building, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also attended.
Electric utilities were also the subject of numerous meetings. Pruitt spoke with leaders from Duke Energy Corp. and gave a speech to a meeting of the Edison Electric Institute.
He met multiple times with agricultural interests, including leaders from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and American Farm Bureau Federation, whose priorities include repealing the Waters of the United States rule meant to reduce water pollution.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman defended Pruitt’s schedule, saying it fits with the agency’s missions.
“Each meeting, phone call or discussion that the administrator has is focused on the Agency’s work to employ a positive environmental agenda,” she said in a statement.
“The administrator and his staff have discussions daily with our country’s businesses, as well as Democrat and Republican government leaders about how we can work together as a country to achieve clean air, land and water.”
The February and March calendar entries do not show any meetings with environmental or conservation organizations.
But Pruitt did meet with some green groups the next month. He attended an Earth Day event in Texas and met with the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, the EPA announced in a statement that day.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/338123-epa-head-met-with-numerous-energy-execs
-
Energy Department Aims to Close International Clean Energy Office
Jun 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Energy Department (DOE) has shuttered its office that focuses on developing clean energy technology internationally.
An agency spokesperson said DOE is “looking for ways to consolidate the many duplicative programs that currently exist within DOE,” and that the Office of International Climate and Technology would close.
The New York Times first reported the closing on Thursday. The Times reports employees were told earlier this month that their positions were being eliminated.
The office — consisting of 11 workers — opened in 2010 as a way for the U.S. to work with international allies on energy sector technology to reduce greenhouse gases.
Employees in the office work with international partners on the Clean Energy Ministerial, an annual gathering of high-polluting nations that focuses on greening the energy sector.
DOE spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said other offices within the department have international teams that could shoulder the work of the closed office.
“The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has an International Affairs team, while the International Affairs Office has a renewables team,” she said.
“The Department is looking for ways to eliminate this kind of unnecessary duplication — just like any responsible American business would.”
News of the office’s closing comes as the Trump administration moves away from climate change work, both internationally and domestically.
Trump this month said he would pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal, an international agreement to cut energy sector greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in April, held up a pronouncement from Group of Seven (G-7) energy ministers because of its language on climate change. The U.S. also did not endorse language in a G-7 environmental minister declaration that noted the group’s efforts to confront climate change.
Trump’s 2018 budget proposal slashes funding for both DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including cuts for climate change initiatives and research efforts. Congress has to vet that budget and will pass funding bills on its own.
Environmentalists criticized the decision to close DOE’s international office.
“Willfully ignoring the climate crisis is recklessly and unnecessarily dangerous for families and communities across the country, and it’s clear that Trump will stop at nothing to completely isolate the United States and irreparably damage our reputation with the rest of the world,” said John Coequyt, the global climate policy director at the Sierra Club.
“Ignorance is not diplomacy, and if Trump were acting like a leader, he would know that.”
Hynes, though, said the Trump administration is not ceasing its clean energy efforts, noting Perry’s support for carbon capture storage and nuclear energy efforts at a recent Clean Energy Ministerial.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/338027-energy-department-closes-international-clean-energy-office
-
EPA Urges Court Not to Lift Stay of Methane Rule for New Oil, Gas Wells
Jun 16, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today urged the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals not to reverse its decision to pause leak detection and repair requirements and other key parts of the agency's rule limiting methane emissions from new oil and gas wells.
Environmental groups sued last week and filed an emergency motion seeking the court’s reversal of EPA’s stay. The agency this week proposed a two-year delay of those requirements, increasing this lawsuit’s tension.
"There is no emergency," and the environmental groups cannot meet the requirements to obtain court action, EPA argued in its brief today.
The leak detection requirements would prevent just 0.046 percent of annual oil and gas industry methane emissions, according to EPA. And pausing other requirements dealing with equipment and certification requirements does not present any imminent harm, the agency said.
EPA called the green groups’ request “a sideways effort to attack EPA’s decision to convene reconsideration proceedings” on the methane rule.
The public interest goes beyond environmental concerns to include economic growth and "productive capacity," the agency argued.
"EPA’s short-term stay strikes a balance among these interests by allowing the Agency to consider whether to refine aspects of the 2016 Rule to better account for issues that the Agency did not consider and concerns among the regulated community that EPA did not foresee,” the agency wrote.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Texas Power Plants Among Nation's Top Emitters of Carbon Dioxide
Jun 16, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Power plants in Texas are among those that lead the nation in emissions that contribute to global warming and pollution, according to a new report.
The report, "Benchmarking Air Emmissions," compiled by M.J. Bradley & Associates, a Massachusetts energy consulting firm, examines air emissions from plants owned by the top 100 merchant power companies in the U.S. Houston's Exelon is fourth; NRG Energy is eighth; Calpine Corp. is tenth and Dynegy is eleventh.
Many power plants, particularly those that are coal-fired, produce sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to pollution, global warming and respiratory problems. As of 2015, power plants accounted for more than half of the sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. and 38 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions, according to the study.
Most the country's emissions from power plants came from a handful of the top companies -- nearly a quarter of the power industry's sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions came from companies in the top three or four producers.
In 2015, NRG was the top producer of sulfur dioxide, according to the report. The company was also among the top 10 producers of mercury, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Last year, NRG cut its sulfur dioxide emissions by 49 percent, according to the company's sustainability report.
Earlier this year, NRG completed the transformation of one of its coal-fired power plants into a carbon capture plant, which puts carbon emissions through a chemical process and re-purposes them for oil and gas drilling. The project largest carbon capture plant in the world.
Overall, Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, which have been connected to global warming. More than 70 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by power plants that are coal-fired; just under 30 percent comes from natural-gas fired plants.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Texas-power-plants-among-nation-s-top-emitters-of-11223770.php
-
A U.S. Grid Clear of 2016 Attacks is Hardly Worry-Free — NERC
Jun 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The interstate grid's top regulators want a closer look at threats that could penetrate power companies and smart grid networks.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp., in its "State of Reliability 2017" report, noted there were no cybersecurity attacks that took down parts of the U.S. grid in 2016, but NERC officials took little comfort in the conclusion.
"Nonetheless, grid security, particularly cyber security, is an area where past performance does not predict future risk," the report said. "In fact, the number of cyber security vulnerabilities continues to increase as does the number of threat groups" (Energywire, June 14).
NERC Vice President James Merlo told reporters yesterday that while the U.S. power sector remains unscathed, "the threat is greater than it's ever been."
"The risk is really increasing every day," he added.
This year's report notes the risk that attackers could enter power utility systems through front-office computers and then steal employee identities to pivot into the control rooms or other operating arenas. That was the strategy attackers used to take down three Ukraine power utilities in 2015 (Energywire, July 18, 2016).
Merlo said the mandatory cybersecurity rules overseen by NERC require the absolute separation of regulated power company operating systems from business systems to prevent a crossover cyber contamination.
Regulated companies are also required to report cyberattacks that trigger power losses.
But the report notes, "The mandatory reporting process does not create an accurate picture of cyber security risk since most of the cyber threats detected by the electricity industry manifest themselves in the enterprise environment (email, websites, smart phone applications, etc.), rather than the control system environment where impacts could cause loss of load and result in a mandatory report."
NERC said occasionally its cyberthreat-sharing portal, the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, gets voluntary notifications that malicious code was found on a power company employee's workstation or that an attack was detected against a company website.
The next step, NERC says, is the rollout of its Cyber Automated Information Sharing System (CAISS), now in pilot testing. Developed with the Energy Department and its national laboratories, it is intended to capture, screen and compare computer system data from both corporate business and control systems to detect malware, NERC said. CAISS is an automated, machine-to-machine program for sharing cyberthreat signatures among authorized industry companies. It is scheduled to be operational at the end of this year, NERC said.
The "State of Reliability" report is a backward look at the interstate power grid's performance in keeping power flowing, with analyses of outages due to weather, operator error, physical or cybersecurity attacks, or other events.
Another NERC report issued last November looked ahead at trend lines in various risks to grid reliability.
In preparing this report, a NERC advisory committee queried industry executives' views of emerging threats and issues demanding more attention.
"Many utilities commented that natural gas currently serves as the base load fuel for their areas, heightening the need for greater focus on gas infrastructure in order to identify potential risks to the BPS [bulk power system]," NERC said.
"Although several industry leaders acknowledged that NERC has no jurisdiction over markets, there is a growing concern that the existing markets do not accurately reflect products necessary to support the new resources being integrated today," the report said.
For example, several U.S. grid regions where renewable power is replacing fossil or nuclear plants may not have adequate market incentives to ensure availability of essential grid services like emergency generation ramp-up, or voltage and frequency stability that the older plants now provide, according to the report.
"A continued theme from 2015 is some leaders are concerned about a workforce shortage, such as protection and control engineers. The aging workforce has been a consistent theme throughout the years, and some leaders provided support for continuing to monitor this risk," the report said.
A shortage of trained engineers and technicians could be a critical factor in a cyberattack that disabled communications between control rooms and substations, forcing operators to bring power back up manually (Energywire, June 12).
Some industry leaders urged NERC to give a greater priority to defenses against an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, particularly an atmospheric nuclear explosion delivered by missile or satellite that could cause widespread grid outages, the organization's report said. NERC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have developed and approved a defense program against damaging ground currents from a massive solar flare, but not from a similar, potentially much more damaging EMP attack.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/16/stories/1060056137
-
Trump is Dropping Out of the Paris Agreement, but the Rest of Us Don't Have To
Jun 16, 2017 | Los Angeles Times
By The Times Editorial Board
The gap between President Trump’s climate change policy and the science-based needs of the world grows wider by the day. But if there’s a silver lining to the president’s rash and dangerous decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, it’s that it has reinvigorated the environmental ambitions of a wide range of local, state and foreign governments, as well as businesses — persuading them not only to carry on with their existing efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but to create broad coalitions to achieve even bigger gains.
You could see the manifestation of that in the photos of California Gov. Jerry Brownsitting recently with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, discussing ways California can work with China, the world’s biggest carbon emitter, to reduce greenhouse gases. Trump’s policy be damned, the picture implies; the American people will continue to work with the rest of the world.
State and local governments — with the assistance of forward-looking market forces — already were reducing emissions when Trump won the White House. Brown’s Under2 MOU, a 2015 agreement of subnational governments around the world to reduce emissions, now has more than 170 signatories representing more than 1.1 billion people and 39% of the global economy. Nearly 300 U.S. mayors, led in part by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, have joined together to reduce carbon emissions within their jurisdictions. Businesses have been moving in a similar direction.
These are more than “Kumbaya” steps. Local and state governments are economic engines that can expand demand for renewable energy by helping drive down the costs for nongovernmental consumers. This is one way around Trump’s fossil fuel-burning agenda. In March, Los Angeles joined 30 other cities in asking the automotive industry about the feasibility of buying a combined 114,000 electric vehicles for their fleets, a potential $10-billion deal that would reduce city fleet emissions and drastically expand the market for such vehicles. Last year, only 159,139 electric vehicles were bought, a tiny fraction of the 17.55 million total vehicles sold.
California and 10 other states already have a mandate in place setting specific goals and applying pressure to auto manufacturers to increase sales of zero-emissions vehicles. In another arena, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced last week that it is postponing a $2.2-billion investment in renovating aging natural gas-fired power plants in the face of a statewide supply glut, and that it would search out renewable sources to help meet a state mandate that half of California’s electricity must come from clean energy sources by 2030. At the same time, Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) is seeking to push that mandate to 100% renewables by 2045.
Of course, setting goals is one thing and meeting them is another. But even officials with firms such as Sempra, which is heavily involved in natural-gas power generation, and the California Independent System Operator, which oversees about 80% of the state power system, see the 100% renewables goal as attainable.
It’s not just California making these inroads. Washington recently announced a plan to make at least 20% of its state fleet of motor vehicles electric-powered. Houston, of all places, is the nation’s largest municipal user of renewable energy, with wind and solar providing 89% of its power. Minneapolis works with two investor-owned utilities to analyze usage data and target energy-saving programs to non-complying buildings. Across the Pacific, smog-choked Beijing is looking to replace nearly 70,000 taxis with electric vehicles.
Businesses have taken steps too, recognizing that there is money to be made and saved through reduced carbon emissions. Many major corporations publicly lobbied Trump to remain in the Paris agreement, arguing that their interests are “best served by a stable and practical framework facilitating an effective and balanced global response.”
What subnational governments and corporations do now could have a significant impact on where the world winds up (businesses could help more if they stopped donating to the campaigns of climate-skeptic politicians). Yes, much more needs to be done and the effort would be far more effective if it were made in tandem with the U.S. government. But that Trump has turned his back on a habitable planet doesn’t mean the rest of us should. Or can.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-paris-climate-government-los-angeles-beijing-20170616-story.html
-
How Should World Leaders Punish Trump for Pulling Out of Paris Accord?
Jun 16, 2017 | The Guardian (via Real Clear Energy)
By Wael Hmaidan
World leaders’ response to Donald Trump’s announcement that he would withdraw the US from the Paris agreement was strong and unified. But did it sting the president and his administration? To deter other potential backsliders and maintain the integrity of the Paris agreement, the perpetrator of a defection of this magnitude should be made to feel the pain. But how?
Trump – and other leaders that may later try to wiggle out of their commitments – must be shown that there will be real consequences to their credibility and influence and relations with other countries.
Ensuring the vitality of the agreement requires countries to show Trump that his ability to achieve other core diplomatic objectives will depend on honouring US commitments, and that he must consider more than the parochial interests of his most extreme supporters in determining how he will contribute to the global effort. If countries fail to offer a strong response, it risks setting the disastrous precedent that commitments can be treated as provisional, progression is not expected, and free-riding will not entail significant costs. This will only invite further defection.
In an important 2007 essay, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance Michael Liebreich proposed a strategy for countries to deter defection and achieve strong international climate outcomes. Liebreich argued that the best approach is for countries to be “nice, retaliatory, forgiving and clear”. That is, they should unilaterally offer to do as much as possible, retaliate against those who do not reciprocate, reward recalcitrant countries when they do step up, and let other countries know in advance that this is their strategy.
Since the US election, most countries have bent over backwards to be nice to Trump. Even as Trump wavered, more than 40 countries have joined the agreement and numerous others have reconfirmed their pledges. Few countries have called him out for his aggressive efforts to reverse Obama-era climate policies. Now that he has said he will withdraw, leaders have clearly expressed their dismay at this decision. But these words surely will not be enough to persuade him to change course, or to deter others from weakening their commitments. Where is the retaliation?
Many have suggested that border carbon adjustments on American goods might be an appropriate response. And for good reason: no country wants to expose its manufacturers to competition from countries that are free riding on its efforts. But since trade sanctions can be a blunt and self-defeating tool, countries should also seek leverage points in other areas of concern to the administration.
One obvious and immediate step would be to curtly decline his invitation to renegotiate the agreement, followed by an effort to isolate the US within the ongoing Paris negotiations. Because the Trump administration cannot leave the agreement until November, 2020, the administration could muck up the development of the “rulebook” that will guide its implementation. Arguably, with one foot out the door, the US may not retain much influence in these discussions.
But the US also negotiates in concert with the Umbrella Group, an informal bloc of countries that includes Japan, Canada, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand. By suspending collaboration with the US and declining to coordinate common positions, these countries could signal both their ongoing commitment to the agreement and their displeasure with Trump’s decision, while limiting the administration’s ability to make mischief in the rulebook negotiations.
Countries could also seek leverage outside of the climate policy space, focusing on issues of particular concern to the Trump administration. Consider Nato financing. As with the Paris agreement, Trump feels aggrieved that Nato is profoundly unfair because he believes that the US pays a disproportionate share of the costs. At the same time that he has refused to contribute the “billions and billions and billions” that he bizarrely claims the Paris agreement obliges the US to pay in climate assistance, he has demanded that the other Nato members shoulder more of the costs of the alliance.
Linking these two issues provides an opportunity to gain leverage. Nato members could reiterate their willingness to contribute more to collective security, but make clear that they view climate stability as critical to that security. They could then say that if the US will not address the climate dimensions of their common security challenges, they will need to pick up the slack, and that that may not leave much room for increased military expenditures. In fact, Angela Merkel has already made a similar argument with regard to Germany’s willingness to absorb a disproportionate share of the costs of ameliorating the ongoing refugee crisis.
Such cross-issue linkages are common in other areas of international relations, but have not been widely used to advance climate action. No doubt, it will not be easy for countries, even in coalition, to implement such an assertive climate diplomacy against the Trump administration. Confronting a bully never is. But because the precedent they will set in responding to Trump’s attack on the agreement may well determine whether the ambition mechanism can work as planned, nothing less than the integrity of the Paris agreement depends on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/15/how-should-world-leaders-punish-trump-for-pulling-out-of-paris-accord?CMP=share_btn_tw
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