Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/7/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) DC Circuit Strikes down Parts of Obama-Era EPA Rule on 'Sham Recycling'
Jul 10, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled 2-1 to roll back portions of a 2015 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that was intended to limit "sham recycling" of hazardous waste materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Court of Appeals Strikes Down Parts of EPA’s “Sham Recycling” Rule
Jul 10, 2017 | Waste360
The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit on Friday struck down portions of a 2015 EPA rule meant to cut down on “sham recycling.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Rising Tide of Plastic Changing Southern N.E.'s Landscape
Jul 10, 2017 | EcoRI
By Frank Carini
There’s an estimated 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the world’s oceans. Some 8 million tons of plastic enter the sea annually. -
US EPA Changes Approach for Extending Formaldehyde Emissions Deadlines
Jul 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will have to complete a formal rulemaking process to extend the compliance deadlines for formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products. -
(ACC Blog) BPA and Glyphosate – a Cautionary Tale
Jul 10, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, PhD
Although you may not recognize the name glyphosate, you probably do recognize the name Roundup. -
US EPA Received 47 PMNs in April
Jul 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 47 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in April. Of these, 23 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI). -
PFHxS Added to REACH Candidate List
Jul 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has added perfluorohexane-1-sulphonic acid and its salts (PFHxS) to the REACH candidate list because of very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties. -
Enviros Push Back on Rollback in White House Meetings
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Green groups continue to head to the White House as the Trump administration readies its rollback of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Greens Slam Senate's Energy Policy Bill
Jul 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Blog
By Timothy Cama
Environmental and progressive organizations are uniting to oppose the Senate’s broad energy legislation as it heads for a potential vote. -
EPA Requests More Time to Comply with Methane Order
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is seeking to avoid "immediate compliance" with a federal court's order last week vacating a decision to delay an Obama-era rule curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. -
Cap and Trade Is Alive, and It Might Grow under Trump
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative once labored in the shadows of President Obama's Clean Power Plan. No longer. -
World Leaders Voice 'Dissent' against U.S. Climate Position
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Nineteen countries with major economies reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement over the weekend, highlighting U.S. isolation a month after President Trump pulled the United States out of the deal. -
Brown and Lawmakers Haggle over Details of Carbon Market
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Top California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) are still hammering out language to extend the state's cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases in an effort to reach a deal by the end of next week.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) DC Circuit Strikes down Parts of Obama-Era EPA Rule on 'Sham Recycling'
Jul 10, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled 2-1 to roll back portions of a 2015 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that was intended to limit "sham recycling" of hazardous waste materials. The rule was challenged by industry groups including the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute, as reported by Law 360.
The July 7 court decision largely sided with industry arguments that questioned the EPA's attempt to expand Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definitions of waste and recycling to include residual hazardous materials. The court ruled against this definition provision and another regarding permit requirements for any secondary material sent to third-party recyclers. The latter decision effectively reinstates Bush-era policy from 2008, as reported by E&E News.
The court dismissed a challenge by multiple environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, that said the 2015 EPA rule wasn't strong enough. In particular, they criticized the new rule for providing too many exemptions around the processing and storage of secondary hazardous materials.
Dive Insight:This rule, finalized at the end of 2014 and officially registered in 2015, was billed as a "major environmental justice milestone" by the EPA when initially released. The intent was to limit mismanagement of hazardous waste materials that could create the risk of fires, explosions and accidents. According to the EPA, these risks were higher for low-income and minority communities because of their proximity to more industrial areas where these facilities may be located. The 2015 rule was written to correct perceived gaps in the 2008 rule, because "the economics of commercial recycling contain market disincentives that encourage over-accumulation and mismanagement of hazardous secondary material."
Yet in the eyes of the two deciding judges on the court, this rule created "draconian" paperwork requirements and ran into trouble on RCRA definition interpretations. The 40-year-old law wasn't seen as taking a definitive stance on the true nature of when a material becomes "solid waste" in the context of residual material from hazardous waste handling. Further complicating an already complex situation, environmental groups weren't supportive of the EPA's attempts to limit "sham recycling" because they felt it had already undermined RCRA by granting too many exemptions over the years.
This decision is expected to affect a range of industrial sectors, including mining and agricultural businesses, that deal with hazardous residual materials such as metals, chemical solvents and sand. While the industry trade associations can largely take this as a victory, it remains unclear how the environmental groups will respond.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/dc-circuit-strikes-down-parts-of-obama-era-epa-rule-on-sham-recycling/446687/
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Court of Appeals Strikes Down Parts of EPA’s “Sham Recycling” Rule
Jul 10, 2017 | Waste360
The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit on Friday struck down portions of a 2015 EPA rulemeant to cut down on “sham recycling.”
The American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute had challenged parts of the rule.
The issue stems back further—all the way to 1985—when the EPA was setting definitions of solid waste. Subsequent efforts to refine the definitions led to the 2015 rule.
According to blog Environmental Law Next:
Fast forwarding to 2015, EPA addressed head-on the sham recycling question and set forth four criteria to tell a sham from the real thing. Importantly, the fourth criterion effectively replaced the old “along for the ride” criterion. See 40 C.F.R. 260.43(a)(4); 80 Fed. Reg. at 1725-28. This new criterion requires that the “product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate,” and gives a recycler three options for satisfying it.
Where there is an “analogous” product, the recycled product is comparable if (a) it does not exhibit a hazardous characteristic not exhibited by the “legitimate” product; and (b) the two products have comparable levels of hazardous constituents. Where there is no “analogous” product, the two products are comparable if the product of the recycling process meets “widely recognized commodity standards and specifications[.]” Last, even if the product has high levels of hazardous constituents as compared to the raw material, the recycling can still be legitimate if recycler carries out certain health and environmental studies to show the toxic constituents are not harmful. 40 C.F.R. 260.43(a)(4)(iii).
But Factor 4 is no longer part of EPA’s regulations. In the just-published case of American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, (No. 09-1038), the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated Factor 4, finding that EPA failed to articulate a concrete standard for determining at what contaminant level a recyclable material was “significant in terms of health and environmental risks.”
http://www.waste360.com/legislation-regulation/dc-court-appeals-strikes-down-parts-epa-s-sham-recycling-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rising Tide of Plastic Changing Southern N.E.'s Landscape
Jul 10, 2017 | EcoRI
By Frank Carini
There’s an estimated 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the world’s oceans. Some 8 million tons of plastic enter the sea annually. How much is floating in local marine waters remains a mystery. An answer may be forthcoming, though, as researchers will spend five days next week scouring Narragansett Bay for plastic.
The July 18-22 trash trawl is being conducted by the Rhode Island chapter of Clean Water Action (CWA) to raise public awareness about the most invasive “species” in the ocean: plastic.
Johnathan Berard, state director of CWA Rhode Island, was the policy director at Blue Water Baltimore when the organization partnered with Trash Free Maryland a few years ago to conduct a similar trawl of Chesapeake Bay. While the amount of visible plastic collected was “striking,” the four-day effort also captured a “great deal” of micoplastics — likely photodegraded pieces of plastic bags and wrappers — fishing line, and cellophane rip-strips from cigarette packs.
The Chesapeake Bay trawl and a similar one done on the Hudson River were for scientific research. The Narragansett Bay trawl is more of an advocacy project.
“We want to get elected officials, the press and advocates face to face with the problem,” Berard said. “A jar of Narragansett Bay water filled with plastic is a powerful image.”
Next week’s five-day sweep will employ an ultra-fine mesh net designed to capture micorplastics, microbeads and micofibers. These tiny plastic particles represent the planet’s next big environmental and public-health concern.
Microfibers from polyester fleeces and other synthetic clothing are an emerging concern when it comes to the quality of drinking water. Neither washers nor wastewater treatment facilities are designed to remove these accumulating bits of plastic.
“We can’t keep pushing plastic into the economy,” Berard said. “It wreaks havoc once it’s out in the environment. We find this stuff in our water. It’s in the fish we eat. On our beaches. It’s going to get to a point when it will be too gross to go to the beach or eat fish.”
Throwaway economy
The United States alone tosses out 25 billion Styrofoam cups annually, more than 300 million straws daily, and some 3 million plastic bottles every hour of every day. Few of these items are recycled or reused.“The current system pumps tons of plastic into the economy and environment,” said Jamie Rhodes, program director for UPSTREAM. “The scope of the problem is huge. We can’t burn or recycle our way out of this problem.”
Southern New England is certainly home to its share of plastic pollution. But how much? No one ecoRI News spoke with for this story has any idea, and while they all would be interested in finding out, their bigger concern is how to lessen the local impact of a global problem.
But, as Rhodes, former chairman of the Environmental Council of Rhode Island, noted, we can’t simply ban plastic. “Plastic has raised people out of poverty. I, for one, don’t want a computer made of iron,” he said. “But it’s overused. We need to use it more wisely.”
What is considered a “wise use,” however, can be subjective. One person might think wrapping a cucumber or apple in plastic is a ridiculous waste of resources and feeds the growing waste stream. Another person might argue that such a use of plastic prolongs shelf life and reduces organic waste.
What can’t be debated is the amount of plastic litter collected at beach cleanups in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, roadside debris seen through moving windows, and the flotsam and jetsam that bob in the region’s waters.
“Plastics suck in chemicals. That’s what they’re good at,” Rhodes said. “What’s the long-term impact on humans, on the environment?”
Dave McLaughlin, executive director of Middletown, R.I.-based Clean Ocean Access, noted that “we don’t know the implications of the bioaccumulation of plastics in humans.”
“They’re endocrine disruptors and that is some scary stuff,” he said. “It’s important that we understand the severity of the issue.”
Plastic bags float in Buzzards Bay, Long Island Sound and Narragansett Bay like jellyfish. Turtles, whales and other marine animals often mistake them for food, causing many to starve or choke to death. In fact, all of southern New England’s fresh and salt waters, from hidden brooks to popular beaches, are touched by plastic — a toxic problem that threatens wildlife and public health.
Adult seabirds inadvertently feed small pieces of plastic to their chicks, often causing them to die when their stomachs become filled with petroleum byproducts. As plastic breaks down into smaller fragments — microplastics that may contain toxic chemicals as part of their original plastic material or adsorbed environmental contaminants such as PCBs — fish and shellfish become increasingly vulnerable to the toxins these polluted particles collect.
At least two-thirds of the world’s fish stocks are suffering from plastic ingestion, according to estimates, as much of the planet’s plastic pollution eventually makes its way into the ocean. Local seafood favorites such as stripers and quahogs, for example, are vital to southern New England’s marine food web and the region’s economy.
The countless plastic bags, plastic bottles and plastic wrap strewn along southern New England’s coastline, swimming in the region’s rivers, ponds and lakes, waving from trees, and loitering in parks were each likely used only once, and for just a few minutes. These petroleum byproducts, however, don’t biodegrade. They remain in the environment for centuries. Their long-term impact on environmental and public health is not yet fully understood, and barely studied.
“We’ve plasticized the entire biosphere, including our bodies,” Marcus Eriksen, research director and co-founder of the 5 Gyres Institute, said during a March panel discussion at Brown University titled “The Plastic Ocean.” “The impact of plastic is widespread.”
The world’s plastic problem was first acknowledged in the 1970s. A 1973 survey of the plastic materials accumulating on a private beach on Conanicut Island in Narragansett Bay, for instance, found that the plastic pollutants “were mainly a by-product of recreational activities within the bay and not household, industrial or agricultural refuse.”
The study also noted that “plastic objects manufactured from polyethylene made up the bulk of the flotsam on the beach.” Among the plastic items collected were milk-shake tops, beer-can carriers, fish-hook bags, straws, bleach containers and shotgun pellet holders.
In 1987, the United States eventually responded to the growing plastic problem, with the passage of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act. The law, which went to effect Dec. 31, 1988, made it illegal for any U.S. vessel or land-based operation to dispose of plastics in the ocean.
However, this act and other laws like it, such as the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, can’t compete with mass consumption in a throwaway society. Their effectiveness is further limited by Washington, D.C.’s relentless assault on environmental protections, and by non-existent or lax waste-management practices in much of Southeast Asia and in developing countries.
Some four decades since the problems associated with plastic manufacturing and use were first identified, apathy, ignorance, convenience and profit have led to an addiction that is trashing the planet and putting human health at risk.
While our plastic reliance, especially for single-use items, grows, the reuse and recycling of this material has essentially flatlined. Waste-management practices can’t keep pace with the volume of production and the relentless tidal wave of new plastic packaging.
Currently, less than 15 percent of plastics packaging is recycled worldwide, according to As You Sow, a nonprofit foundation chartered to promote corporate social responsibility.
As You Sow is one of about 800 organizations worldwide, including UPSTREAM and the Story of Stuff, united in the goal of dramatically reducing the production of single-use plastic packaging, containers and bags. It’s known as the Break Free From Plastic movement.
Since most plastic is made from fossil fuels, the issue of plastic manufacturing, use and waste is also one of climate change.
“It’s fuel early on, a kid’s juice pouch in the middle, and a fuel at the end,” UPSTREAM’s Rhodes said.
Local impact
Plastic pollution doesn’t just ruin beach getaways and picnics in the park. It also harms the limited exposure many urban children have to nature, according to Leah Bamberger, Providence’s sustainability director.Last year, the city had a study done to better understand how Providence residents, most notably children, perceive nature and how they use the city’s parks and open spaces. The study found that among the main concerns of children and their parents was the cleanliness of outdoor spaces, particularly litter in parks.
“Litter was the number one barrier that kept kids from enjoying nature and our parks,” Bamberger said. “It debunked the myth that urban kids don’t care about nature.”
Dealing with the region’s litter problem, much of which is some form of plastic, requires taxpayer funding and the ample use of unpaid time.
Staff and volunteers of Clean Ocean Access (COA) have spent the past 11 years cleaning up the Aquidneck Island shoreline. In that time, volunteers have worked nearly 14,000 hours and picked up some 95,000 pounds of debris, much of it plastic, according to McLaughlin, the nonprofit’s executive director.
“There’s litter that’s preventable — the stuff that blows out the back of pickup trucks — and then there’s illegal dumping that’s intentional,” he said. “Most of the plastic we find is from the society of convenience, like packaging and single-use items. A small piece of plastic has a pretty big impact.”
Of the 94,487 pounds of debris collected during 457 cleanups held between 2006 and 2016, much of it was plastic-based, such as bottles, food wrappers, fishing line, straws and cigarette filters, according to the 10-year anniversary report released by COA earlier this year.
All those cigarette butts nonchalantly flicked from car windows and haphazardly dropped on the ground, along with tobacco packaging and plastic lighters, represent one of the main sources of marine debris worldwide. Cigarette buttsare made from a plastic called cellulose acetate. It doesn't biodegrade, and can persist in the environment for a long time. This plastic also contains toxins that can leech into water and soil, harming plants and wildlife.
On World Oceans Day, June 8, COA held a coastal cleanup at Easton’s Beach in Newport. Seventy-two volunteers collected 160 pounds of debris, including 1,700 cigarette butts.
Unsurprisingly, plastic bags also make up a good chunk of the organization’s shoreline hauls. Between 2013 and 2016, for example, volunteers picked up 11,874 bags.
The Aquidneck Island coastline, however, isn’t the sole domain for litter. The waters off Newport, Middletown and Portsmouth are also teaming with debris, most notably Newport Harbor. The Rozalia Project has documented a concentration of trash in the historic harbor at 41 million pieces of litter per square kilometer. Trash covers 25.2 percent of the harbor’s seafloor. It’s been dubbed Beer Can Reef, although much of the debris is plastic bottles and cups.
The Long Island Sound Study notes that marine debris is a nuisance and hazard for boaters. For instance, floating lines can foul a boat’s propellers, and chunks of plastic or plastic bags can block an engine’s cooling-water intake.
“While floatable debris in the open waters of Long Island Sound is less concentrated than in the neighboring New York-New Jersey Harbor estuary and in western Long Island Sound embayments, it is present in great enough quantities to mar the aesthetic enjoyment of the Sound,” according to the program that was started in 1985 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the states of New York and Connecticut to improve and protect the water quality of Long Island Sound. “Debris floating in the waters of the Sound can accumulate along with detached seaweed and marsh grass into large surface ‘slicks.’ These slicks can wash ashore fouling beaches and the coastline.”
Plastic caught in fences, lying on beaches, blowing around open spaces and carried by stormwater runoff into the region’s sensitive estuaries is much more than an eyesore. It’s pollution, and it has economic, ecological and public-health impacts. It’s a macro-, micro- and nano-scale problem.
To get a rough idea of the amount of litter accumulating in Rhode Island, McLaughlin did some conservative guesstimating. He figured if 5 percent of the state’s 1 million residents littered once a month, accidental or not, Rhode Island would see 600,000 new pieces of wind-blown trash annually. If 5 percent of the Ocean State’s 3.5 million annual visitors did the same, another 2.1 million pieces would be added to the landscape.
Collectively, southern New England taxpayers spend millions of dollars annually to clean up and prevent litter, much of which is of the plastic variety. Providence and other cities have to spend time and money notifying businesses to keep their Dumpsters closed, so trash doesn’t blow away or get spread about town by animals. DPWs have to clean vacant lots of trash and clear clogged storm drains and catch basins.
It also costs taxpayers when loads of municipal recycling are contaminated — plastic bags are one of the biggest contaminators; biodegradable and compostable plastics are also problem contaminants — and the collected material must then be buried or burned, instead of sold to recyclers.
No one pays Bonnie Combs to pick up after others. The Blackstone, Mass., resident is a relentless reuser and recycler. She conducts daily one-woman cleanups, at Stump Pond in Smithfield, R.I., up and down the banks of the Blackstone River and in her neighborhood, to name just a few spots. She founded Bird Brain Designs by Bonnie to repurpose animal feed bags into reusable shopping bags.
The marketing director for the Blackstone Heritage Corridor (BHC) manages the organization’s Trash Responsibly program. She also started the BHC’s Fish Responsibly program, which works with businesses, such as Ocean State Tackle in Providence and Barry’s Bait & Tackle in Worcester, and the Audubon Society to make sure monofilament fishing line and spools are recycled properly.
Combs regularly sees firsthand the pervasiveness of southern New England’s plastic problem. She said nips are a “huge problem.” She picks up plenty of iced-coffee cups wrapped in both Styrofoam and plastic, and sees discarded plastic packaging everywhere.
“It’s becoming harder and harder to buy everyday products in recyclable packaging. It’s really frightening,” Combs said. “We have a waste problem. We need to go on a waste diet.”
Since this month is Plastic Free July, perhaps southern New England should start dieting now. But dieting is hard. Much of the world’s food and drink, from coffee to baby food, is now wrapped and shipped in plastic.
Addressing the region’s plastic problem, however, is complicated and will require more than avoiding plastic utensils, plastic bags, plastic water bottles, plastic straws and mylar balloons for a month. McLaughlin, of Clean Ocean Access, said the issue demands a three-pronged approach: policy, which he called “the stick;” technology/innovation, “business taking the lead;” and engagement, “the carrot.”
McLaughlin believes, at this moment at least, all three legs are a little too short.
“It starts with people becoming educated, connected and stewards of the environment,” he said. “We just can’t ban our way to a healthy ocean.”
Policy improvements
Since the late 1960s, plastic shopping bags have been clogging storm drains, degrading marine ecosystems, choking animals, littering beaches and leaching estrogenic chemicals, but the Ocean State and its two southern New England neighbors lack the political will to enact statewide bans. The American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute and other lobbyists hold more sway than in-your-face environmental degradation and public-health concerns.The environmental/public-health impacts associated with plastic manufacturing and disposal include greenhouse-gas emissions, and water and land pollution. For instance, a billion discarded plastic bags is the equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil. These costs are largely ignored.
Lobbyists from D.C. and parts unknown descend whenever a statewide ban or local one is discussed in Connecticut, Massachusetts or Rhode Island. They argue that consumers benefit from the use of plastic bags, because they can easily carry goods without the burden of lugging around reusable bags. They note that plastic bags handed out by retailers are reused as pet-waste containers or to line household trash receptacles. They say properly collected and recycled plastic bags — they shouldn’t be placed in curbside recycling bins and instead be brought back to stores for collection — are made into a composite product used as a wood substitute for decks and stairs.
Unfortunately, only a small percentage of plastic bags are actually recycled. In Rhode Island alone, some 190 million plastic bags are consumed annually, according to a 2006 Brown University study, and only about 9 percent are recycled.
Lobbyists, however, have failed to sway some local municipalities. Three Rhode Island communities — Barrington, Middletown and Newport — have passed bans on plastic retail bags. About 35 municipalities in Massachusetts have similar bans. The first municipality in New England to ban plastic checkout bags was Westport, Conn., in 2008.
While lawmakers in southern New England’s three states have been slow to adequately address the region’s role in the world’s plastic problem, a few western states have attempted to change the paradigm. California enacted a statewide plastic-bag ban last year, despite intense lobbying by plastics manufacturers. A 2013 study of San Jose’s bag ban helped pave the way for California’s statewide ban. The study found that after San Jose enacted its bag ban, there was nearly 90 percent less plastic debris in the city’s storm drains and about 60 percent less plastic street litter.
In Hawaii, all four of the state’s county councils and the city of Honolulu have passed some type of bag ordinance that has effectively banned plastic retail bags in the 50th state.
This year, the state of Connecticut debated a proposal to put a 5-cent tax on single-use plastic and paper shopping bags. The city of Providence has warned and then fined residents who continue to use their recycling bins for trash. On June 22, for example, the city’s five enforcement officers wrote 50 tickets.
McLaughlin, of Clean Ocean Access, noted that states and municipalities need to support, fund and enforce waste-diversion efforts. In Rhode Island, at least at the state level, resources for such efforts are scarce. In the three decades since the state’s recycling law was enacted, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management has neither warned nor fined any business for noncompliance.
Bag bans, bag taxes, fines and enforcement, while all part of the solution puzzle, aren’t the key pieces. Producer responsibility, also known as product stewardship, enlists manufactures in the disposal and recycling of the hazardous and bulky goods they produce. In southern New England, producer-responsibility programs already exist for mercury thermometers and thermostats, paint, and mattresses.
Bamberger, Providence’s sustainability director, Rhodes, of UPSTREAM, and CWA’s Berard all told ecoRI News that producer responsibility is vital to local, national and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution, minimize packaging and change practices.
“Bans are nice, but they’re not a good solution,” Bamberger said. “Producer responsibility is the most effective way to manage the waste stream.”
Berard said, “Manufacturers can’t just put all this material into the economy and then have no skin in the game post-use.”
One of UPSTREAM’S focus points is helping make producers more responsible, here and across the globe.
“Companies need to be part of the solution,” Rhodes said. “We need policies to stop the flow of single-use plastic. This isn’t the system we’ve always had. We created it; we can change it.”
Innovation and technology
They look like small, floating Dumpsters. In their first year of use, the two trash skimmers attached to docks at Perrotti Park removed more than 6,000 pounds of debris from Newport Harbor. Much of the litter was of the usual-suspect variety — plastic food wrappers, straws and bags, and fishing line.COA’s Newport Harbor Trash Skimmer Project was implemented last August, and made possible by funding from 11th Hour Racing. Some 30 units, manufactured by Washington-based Marina Trash Skimmers, are in use on the West Coast and Hawaii. The two installed in Newport Harbor are believed to be the first ones in use on the East Coast.
They operate essentially as large pool skimmers, filtering water 24 hours a day and capturing floating debris and absorbing surface oil or other contaminants. The skimmers are powered by a three-fourths-horsepower electric engine that costs $2 a day to run. Hundreds of gallons of water flow through the units every few hours, and the skimmers are minimally invasive to marine life.
COA has since added a trash skimmer at Fort Adams State Park and at New England Boatworks in Portsmouth.
“These units are highly effective in removing floating marine debris,” COA’s McLaughlin said. “But we can’t put trash skimmers everywhere.”
A similar piece of equipment in use in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor also removes debris, including plastic litter, from the water. The water-powered wheel deposits the scooped-out trash into a Dumpster. When there isn’t enough water current, a solar panel attached to the unit provides additional power.
New technology, whether it’s floating Dumpsters or trashy water wheels, play a role in controlling litter. To better address plastic manufacturing and use, however, advanced packaging innovations will have to play a bigger role.
Public engagement
Solving the problem of plastic pollution can’t be done by stopping littering and improving recycling rates. Producer responsibility alone won’t end the deluge. The effort must include education and outreach, to curb such issues as “wishful recycling.” It’s also about changing behaviors — something as simple as restaurants asking if you want a straw rather than just giving you one.According to a study recently done by UPSTREAM for the city of Providence, one way to address the issue at an individual consumer level is to incentivize behavior to reduce single-use items, such as being allowed to cut the line at the coffee shop if you bring your own mug.
Much of the outreach is needed to make people aware that the region’s plastic problem isn’t magically fixed curbside, or at a transfer station, landfill or incinerator.
“We see litter on the streets and plastics in the ocean, but when we put our recycling out at the curb, we don’t care or know what happens next,” Rhodes said. “Much of the this material is shipped to small, developing countries like the Philippines and Malaysia, where poor waste pickers go through it.”
McLaughlin said the overuse of plastic is a solvable problem. He said it starts with individuals taking action.
“We have to take care of each other and the environment. That’s how we are going to make progress,” McLaughlin said. “We have to get people involved at the local level to take action."
https://www.ecori.org/public-safety/2017/7/9/southern-new-england-needs-to-deal-with-rising-tide-of-plastic
-
US EPA Changes Approach for Extending Formaldehyde Emissions Deadlines
Jul 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will have to complete a formal rulemaking process to extend the compliance deadlines for formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products.
On 24 May, the agency set out plans for a deadline extension as both a proposed rule and a direct final rule. The latter is used for non-controversial changes and takes effect on a shorter timeline than with the more formal proposed rule process. However, it cannot be used if any adverse comments are received.
Nine comments werer received by the 8 June deadline, including two anonymous complaints against the deadlines being extended and an adverse comment from importer Furniture Values International (FVI). It argued that the proposed deadlines are still too tight. "Finished goods that follow the above average timeline will begin arriving in the US during May 2018, but there will still be significant amounts of TSCA Title VI inventory that don’t begin flowing through customs until the middle of 2019," the FVI comment said.
As a result the EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule and proceeding with the formal rulemaking process.
The agency is proposing to extend the following three deadlines, the:
12 December 2017 date for emission standards, record-keeping, and labelling provisions to 22 March 2018;
12 December 2018 date for import certification provisions to 22 March 2019; and
12 December 2023 date for provisions applicable to producers of laminated products to 22 March 2024.
The proposal would also make minor changes to the final rule's wording to reflect the agency's original intent. It will also seek to extend the transitional period during which California Air Resources Board (CARB) Third Party Certifiers (TCP) may certify composite wood products under TSCA title VI.
The formaldehyde emissions rule nationalises the CARB standards applicable to hardwood plywood, medium-density fibreboard, particleboard – and finished goods containing these products – sold, supplied, manufactured and imported in the US. Its implementation was delayed twice after President Trump took office.
In the recent comment period, the American Wood Council, Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association and Composite Panel Association supported the proposed extension.
The International Wood Products Association and the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) asked the EPA to allow for the voluntary labelling of compliant products prior to the date at which labelling is required. The CTA also asked that the exemption for composite wood panels manufactured prior to 22 March 2018 be "equally applied to composite wood contained in imported finished goods."
The proposed rule's comment deadline has already passed. The EPA will address submitted comments when issuing a final rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57578/us-epa-changes-approach-for-extending-formaldehyde-emissions-deadlines
-
(ACC Blog) BPA and Glyphosate – a Cautionary Tale
Jul 10, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, PhD
Although you may not recognize the name glyphosate, you probably do recognize the name Roundup. It’s an effective and successful herbicide that contains glyphosate as its active ingredient. It’s also been controversial due to claims that it can harm your health.
Glyphosate has been in the news lately after a questionable decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. As sure as night follows day, that led to a warning label requirement in the State of California and lawsuits du jour with numerous plaintiffs claiming to have been harmed.
On the surface, glyphosate has nothing to do with bisphenol A (BPA), which is a very different substance that is used primarily to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. But as outlined in an insightful article by Jenny Splitter on Vice.com, BPA tells a cautionary tale with important lessons for glyphosate.
For almost 20 years, BPA has also been controversial due to claims that it’s an endocrine disruptor that can harm your health by interfering with normal endocrine functions in your body. There’s never been a consensus that BPA causes any harm and government bodies worldwide, based on extensive scientific evidence, strongly support the safety of BPA. Here in the U.S, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unambiguously answers the question “Is BPA safe?” with the straightforward answer “Yes.”
Nevertheless, some product manufacturers succumbed to public pressure to eliminate BPA and switched to alternatives. As a way to avoid controversy, the old adage “better safe than sorry” seems to have a lot to offer. What’s not to like about a BPA-free product?
But, as noted by Splitter, “[t]oday, there’s plenty of BPA-free plastic on the market, but consumers aren’t any safer for it.” The reason is that product manufacturers didn’t replace BPA with nothing, they had to replace it with something else.
What’s now becoming apparent is that alternatives to BPA may not be so well studied and don’t have the same safety track record that BPA has enjoyed for decades. Maybe Aesop had it right after all. It might be a better idea to “look before you leap” to avoid regrettable substitutions.
The lesson for glyphosate is clear, or at least it should be clear for those who wish to get rid of it. Would a glyphosate-free future really be better? Just as with BPA, glyphosate would not be replaced with nothing since weeds must still be controlled.
Without glyphosate, farmers would likely use another herbicide but not necessarily one that’s safer or less toxic. Again as noted by Splitter, “if farmers stopped using glyphosate, would our food be any safer? Not likely.”
Perhaps the most important lesson from BPA and glyphosate is that our desire and need for science-based regulations may necessarily entail a slow scientific process. In her closing comments, Splitter correctly observes that “when we sidestep that challenging process and opt for an industry-driven solution, the result isn’t better for consumers. What we get is something that is designed to make consumers feel better, not satisfy the rigorous requirements of science.” Her tale at Vice.com is well worth hearing.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/07/bpa-and-glyphosate-a-cautionary-tale/
-
US EPA Received 47 PMNs in April
Jul 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 47 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in April. Of these, 23 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
The figure compares to 58 PMNs in April 2016, and 63 in 2015.
The agency also received 152 notices of commencement (NOCs) during this period, and 13 applications for test marketing exemption (TMEs).
The volume of PMNs has remained relatively flat this year, with 44 received in March, 62 in February and 57 in January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57526/us-epa-received-47-pmns-in-april
-
PFHxS Added to REACH Candidate List
Jul 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has added perfluorohexane-1-sulphonic acid and its salts (PFHxS) to the REACH candidate list because of very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties. This brings the total number of substances on the list to 174.
PFHxS is a flame retardant in the same category as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). It is used in plasticisers, lubricants, surfactants, wetting agents,
corrosion inhibitors and firefighting foams.Sweden proposed that PFHxS should be identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) and was backed by Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) last month. Its proposal was based on animal and human data that showed the chemical might have more potential to bioaccumulate in humans than perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which has been restricted.
Adding PFHxS to the candidate list is part of wider European efforts to target PFAS, Echa says.
The chemical has also been the focus of regulatory attention in Norway, which added it to its national list of priority substances and submitted a proposal to list it for action under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).Existing entries
Echa also updated candidate list entries for bisphenol A (BPA) and four phthalates to include their endocrine-disrupting properties affecting human health.
BPA was included in the candidate list in January due to its toxicity to reproduction.
It is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate, as a hardener for epoxy resins, an anti-oxidant for processing PVC and in thermal paper production.
Existing entries for benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) were updated for the same reason.
Companies supplying articles with a candidate list substance above a concentration of 0.1% (weight by weight) have to communicate this to customers down the supply chain and to consumers. Importers and producers of articles containing the substance have six months to notify Echa.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57395/pfhxs-added-to-reach-candidate-list
-
Enviros Push Back on Rollback in White House Meetings
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Green groups continue to head to the White House as the Trump administration readies its rollback of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Officials with EPA and the Office of Management and Budget have held at least two more meetings on President Trump's plan to rescind the EPA regulation crafted to cut carbon emissions of power plants, according to records posted online by OMB.
On June 28, government officials met with two attorneys from the Environmental Defense Fund to discuss the Clean Power Plan. Those lawyers, Tomás Carbonell and Martha Roberts, both work on climate and regulatory issues for EDF.
The EDF attorneys also shared a document with Trump administration officials — a 25-page list of statements critical of the president's March 28 executive order to begin the review of the Clean Power Plan.
Records show that the following day, Trump officials also met with officials from the Sierra Club — including two of the green group's attorneys, Joanne Spalding and Alejandra Núñez, as well as Liz Perera, the organization's climate policy director.
The OMB meetings with EDF and Sierra Club representatives follow similar meetings earlier last month with other environmental groups that have supported the Clean Power Plan as well as labor unions that have been critical of the EPA rule (Greenwire, June 28).
OMB received official notice in June from EPA for a proposed rulemaking to pull back from the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, June 9).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/10/stories/1060057145
-
Greens Slam Senate's Energy Policy Bill
Jul 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Blog
By Timothy Cama
Environmental and progressive organizations are uniting to oppose the Senate’s broad energy legislation as it heads for a potential vote.
The groups, which include Food & Water Watch, Our Revolution, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org, wrote a letter Monday asking senators to oppose the bill, which it casts as backward-looking legislation that would extend the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels.
“In light of the current administration’s overt efforts to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to pollute our air and water, it is more essential than ever that Congress resist efforts to increase fossil fuel production,” the groups wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“No energy legislation is better than bad energy legislation that serves to increase our dependence on dirty fossil fuel production instead of advancing energy efficiency to reduce the amount of energy we utilize and building on successful policies to expand clean energy sources such as solar and wind,” they said.
The legislation, sponsored by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), was introduced late last month, and McConnell immediately put it on the Senate calendar. That allows it to go directly to a floor vote and skip committee consideration if McConnell wants to do so.
Like legislation the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year, the bill aims to “modernize” energy policy, including through new infrastructure, cybersecurity protections, expediting natural gas exports and similar policies.
The greens said their objections center on the pro-fossil fuel policies in the bill, like expediting mining and drilling purposes, expanding research into methane hydrate extraction and streamlining the natural gas export approval process.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341291-greens-slam-senates-energy-policy-bill
-
EPA Requests More Time to Comply with Methane Order
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is seeking to avoid "immediate compliance" with a federal court's order last week vacating a decision to delay an Obama-era rule curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas operations.
In a motion late Friday, the agency asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to recall the mandate it issued in the case.
EPA argued that the court took an "unusual step" in requiring compliance right after it issued the decision last Monday. Delaying compliance would allow the agency to evaluate options for appeal, the agency argued.
"EPA is currently evaluating the court's decision in order to determine whether to seek panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or pursue other relief," Justice Department attorneys said in the motion for the agency.
The agency said its argument was "particularly compelling" given that the Trump administration is "exercising its prerogative to re-examine" the Obama-era policy.
The Obama administration issued the standards in 2016 to halt leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from new oil and gas operations.
In June, as oil and gas companies faced an initial compliance date, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt granted a 90-day delay of key provisions of the rule, including its fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps and professional engineer certification requirements.
Last Monday, the D.C. Circuit agreed with environmentalists that EPA lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue a 90-day delay in the methane standards. In a 2-1 decision, the court threw out the stay (Greenwire, July 3).
The court's decision threw the oil and gas industry into uncertainty as companies attempted to figure out what their obligations were under the standards — particularly since EPA has proposed, but not yet finalized, another delay of two years (Energywire, July 6).
Environmentalists, on the other hand, cheered the court's decision as the first of what they hoped were many legal defeats for the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental regulations.
But EPA said Friday that the court's issuance of the mandate putting the decision into effect immediately gave it little time to instruct the public or regulated community how the 2016 rule should be implemented.
"The regulated community would ordinarily be afforded a reasonable amount of time to make the necessary adjustments to ensure compliance," EPA said in its motion. "Not so here. The Court has arguably placed the regulated community abruptly at risk of noncompliance with the 2016 Rule."
EPA argued that forcing companies to comply with the court decision immediately would likely impair the agency's efforts to seek further review of the decision.
And the agency said the dissent filed by Judge Janice Rogers Brown bolstered its arguments that it should be afforded time to seek rehearing in the case.
Brown, a Republican appointee, found that the court didn't have jurisdiction to hear environmentalists' challenge in the first place.
The court should "provide EPA with the standard period (or such other reasonable period as the Court deems appropriate) of relief from immediate compliance during which to consider whether to seek further review," EPA argued.
Environmentalists were quick to reject EPA's latest legal maneuver.
John Walke, the clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, tweeted that the agency's motion shows it "will leave no stone unturned" as it tries to block compliance with the methane standards.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/10/stories/1060057102
-
Cap and Trade Is Alive, and It Might Grow under Trump
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative once labored in the shadows of President Obama's Clean Power Plan. No longer. President Trump's dismantling of climate initiatives has pushed America's only multistate cap-and-trade program to the fore of U.S. carbon-cutting efforts.
RGGI, as the compact of nine Northeastern states is known, can already claim several impressive achievements. Emissions are down 37 percent since 2008 across the region. And electricity costs have fallen 3.4 percent over that time (Climatewire, Nov. 28, 2016). While the cheap cost of natural gas is responsible for much of that decline, RGGI advocates can argue that the program hasn't sent electric bills soaring as many once feared.
The program's participants, which include five Republican-led states, are now in talks over how to cut more carbon. They are expected to release a plan for reducing the region's carbon cap later this year (Climatewire, June 28).
But if RGGI's influence is to expand in the age of Trump, the program must grow, supporters say. That might happen soon. New Jersey and Virginia look increasingly likely to link up with the program.
Both the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates running to succeed Gov. Chris Christie (R) in New Jersey favor a return to the carbon-cutting pact.
In Virginia, Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is running with a lead in polls such as the Washington Post-Schar School Virginia poll, and he has pledged to uphold an executive order by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to cap carbon emissions. McAuliffe's directive doesn't require joining RGGI, but it does instruct state regulators to examine partnerships with existing carbon trading programs (Climatewire, May 17).
"RGGI is an established and successful trading system," said Mike Dowd, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Air Division. "Really, it's the only game in town."
Both states represent large prizes for U.S. climate advocates badly in need of a boost following Trump's election.
New Jersey's power-sector emissions of almost 17 million metric tons in 2014 would have ranked third in RGGI that year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration figures. Emissions from Virginia's power sector (30.3 million metric tons) that same year were roughly equivalent to those of New York (30.5 million metric tons), RGGI's largest emitter.
At the same time, emissions reductions in New Jersey (down 3 percent between 2008 and 2015) and Virginia (down 16 percent) have lagged behind RGGI's cut of 37 percent, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council's analysis of federal figures.
Adding the two states would carry symbolic significance, as well. Christie pulled the Garden State out of the program in 2011 over concerns about its costs. Virginia would be RGGI's first Southern state, and the first with a regulated power market. Moving south would show that RGGI is capable of thriving outside its cozy Northeastern home.
"From RGGI's inception, it has always been a demonstration project in cutting your emissions while growing your economy," said Jackson Morris, eastern energy project director for NRDC. Expanding RGGI, he added, "will help with broader momentum against the backdrop of the 'Trumpocalypse.'"Bigger markets are better
To be sure, expansion efforts remain in their infancy. Dowd, Virginia's air division director, and several staffers attended the most recent meeting of RGGI participants in New York, where they held discussions with program officials on the meeting's side. He nonetheless cautioned that talks over how to reduce Virginia's emissions remain preliminary.
RGGI officials, for their part, say all talks with interested states have been informal to date, sharing information about the program and its benefits. Still, they have made clear that they welcome the entreaties.
"Larger markets increase economic efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and can help drive even greater consumer savings and emissions reductions," said Katie Dykes, chairwoman of RGGI's board of directors and the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.
RGGI expansion is at the core of Maryland's emissions reduction strategy under Gov. Larry Hogan (R), said state Secretary of the Environment Ben Grumbles. His department has been sharing information with his counterparts in states interested in joining.
"Maryland is working with other states to provide them information so they could possibly join an organization that is delivering real results," Grumbles said.
Of the two candidates, New Jersey has the clearest path to membership. Phil Murphy, a Democrat with a large lead in a recent Quinnipiac University poll, has promised to immediately restore the Garden State to RGGI's ranks. His opponent, Republican Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, has also pledged to rejoin the program.
In either event, lawmakers in Trenton have signaled eagerness to rejoin. They have seen Christie turn back several attempts to re-enter the program.
Some tweaks will be needed for New Jersey to rejoin. The bills sent to Christie were similar to the original legislation authorizing the program. Those measures will need to be updated to reflect RGGI's falling cap and to redirect money to energy efficiency and renewable programs, advocates said.
"Now is the time for us to catch up," said Environment New Jersey Director Doug O'Malley, noting that the state has seen an uptick in emissions in recent years as more natural gas plants have come online. "RGGI is not the only strategy, but it is certainly a component and one we can make an impact with on day one."Va. is a tough sell
Virginia's case is more complicated. McAuliffe's order calls on regulators to present a plan for slashing emissions by December, but fulfilling that plan will fall to the next governor. While Northam is the front-runner in the race to succeed McAuliffe, a win for Republican Ed Gillespie would all but kill any attempts to join the program.
Even if Northam wins, full-fledged RGGI membership still seems like a long shot. Appropriating revenue from RGGI's auctions would require legislative approval, something Republicans who control both chambers of the General Assembly in Richmond are unlikely to grant. They have killed several attempts to join the program in recent years. Republicans have also questioned the legality of McAuliffe's move, absent approval from the Legislature.
There is another complication. In Virginia, power companies are vertically integrated — owning everything from the power plants to the transmission lines — and are regulated by the state. All nine existing RGGI states are deregulated, which means power plant owners compete in a wholesale market outside the reach of state regulators. Transmission and distribution utilities are separate entities and are regulated by the states.
RGGI would need to tweak its system to work with Virginia as a result. RGGI holds a series of regular auctions where power companies can buy and sell allowances. Since regulators in RGGI states don't have jurisdiction over power generators, the program's planners set up a system where proceeds from its auctions are sent back to the states for energy efficiency measures and similar initiatives. The idea is to ensure that the public benefits from cap-and-trade auctions, instead of letting power generators pad their bottom line.
Virginia regulators, by contrast, do have control over power companies. One idea that's gaining traction would work like this: The commonwealth's system could be set up to give utilities like Dominion Energy a certain number of allowances, advocates say. State regulators would then direct the power company to use the money from its allowances on energy efficiency and other environmentally friendly measures, they say.
Where Dominion, which holds considerable sway in Richmond, comes down on such proposals remains an open question. A power company spokesman did not respond to a request for comment Friday but told E&E News after McAuliffe issued his order, "It still looks like the regulatory uncertainty around carbon continues."
Advocates are optimistic that the power company can be swayed. It already operates in several RGGI states, making it familiar with the program. Dominion will ultimately favor a program that it is comfortable with, they reason.
Virginia's rapid shift from coal to natural gas in recent years has also opened the door to RGGI talks. Where coal accounted for more than 40 percent of Virginia's power generation in 2008, it made up 20 percent of electricity production in 2015, according to the EIA. In March, federal figures show coal made up just 11 percent of Virginia's electricity generation.
"Virginia has done a lot of what needs to be done to prove we belong in RGGI," said William Shobe, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Virginia. "It's much easier to see a path to find a way for RGGI and Virginia to link."
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to Dominion Energy as Duke Energy.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/10/stories/1060057096
-
World Leaders Voice 'Dissent' against U.S. Climate Position
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Nineteen countries with major economies reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement over the weekend, highlighting U.S. isolation a month after President Trump pulled the United States out of the deal.
In the official communiqué and a separate action plan adopted Saturday at the close of the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, leaders made it clear that America stands alone in rejecting emissions commitments and in promoting fossil fuels as a remedy for energy poverty abroad.
"In the end, the negotiations on climate reflect dissent — all against the United States of America," German Chancellor Angela Merkel, president of the summit, told reporters Saturday.
"I deplore this," she said of Trump's decision to leave the Paris accord.
Saturday's statement was the product of extended negotiations by staff and two days of leader-level talks, though Trump missed most of the climate and energy discussions Friday to meet bilaterally with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The final language did less to "gloss over" the differences on climate between the United States and the rest of the world than American negotiators had sought, Merkel said. Trump's team brought proposed text to Hamburg calling for leaders to "take note" that "the United States of America will endeavor to work closely with other partners to improve their access to and use of fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently."
But that didn't pass muster with French President Emmanuel Macron and his team. The French were tasked with negotiating the final climate language with the United States, and Macron viewed America's promotion of fossil fuel use as antithetical to the goals of the Paris Agreement.
In the end, all mention of working with "partners" to deploy high-carbon fuels was dropped from the text, and the passage starts by saying, "The United States of America states" the benefits of expanded oil and gas use. It was a clear denunciation of the Trump administration's position.
Also gone is language offered by the United States that seemed to leave open the door for a Paris renegotiation. The United States wanted to express support for a "global approach" on climate change, but that was judged to sound too much like the new climate deal Trump referenced in his June 1 Rose Garden speech withdrawing from Paris. Trump indicated at the time that he was open to replacing the deal approved by 195 countries two years ago. Leaders worldwide have rejected that notion.
Instead, the "G-19" calls Paris "irreversible" in a section of the G-20 communiqué that excludes the United States.
Some even saw hints that the pro-Paris faction of Trump's White House staff might have used the G-20 summit to signal a return to Paris with a weaker emissions reduction commitment.
"The United States of America announced it will immediately cease the implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution," the communiqué states.
The word "current" could indicate that Trump might offer new emissions goals to replace those put in place by President Obama. A few observers say that could be a path by which Trump might try to remain in the global pact. Obama established that the United States would cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025 compared with 2005 levels.World to 'move on'
White House National Security Council climate adviser George David Banks championed the idea of changing the commitment before Trump made his decision on Paris. Banks and several other proponents of staying in the pact were present at the weekend meeting — including National Economic Council head Gary Cohn and Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump.
President Trump did sign onto language in the joint communiqué that touts the importance of clean energy and endorses the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, which include combating climate change.
It was not a top priority of foreign leaders to engage Trump on Paris at the G-20, as it had been at the Group of Seven summit in May, where Merkel, Macron and others took turns imploring Trump not to leave Paris.
"I think what's really good about the G-20 outcome is that the rest of the world said, 'OK, deal with your internal problems. We're going to move on,'" said Andrew Light, a distinguished senior fellow at the World Resources Institute.
Climate advocates celebrated the result, which saw 19 countries on all sides of the climate question present a united front, endorsing not only the communiqué but also the 13-page "Hamburg Climate and Energy Action Plan for Growth." Trump did not support it. That plan backed the long-term goal of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, with agreements on multinational development banks, energy infrastructure investment and other issues.
Merkel got much of the credit.
"She held together the 19 very well, very skillfully," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Advocates worried before the summit that a few countries might use the U.S. defection as an excuse to peel off, but none did.
"All these countries we were worried about — Indonesia, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia — whatever they were doing in the room, it didn't wind up with anything other than the strongest possible outcome you could see after the U.S. had pulled out of the Paris Agreement," said Light. "I could not have imagined a stronger outcome than this one."
That punctuated the isolationist perch of the United States.
"G-20 leaders were successful in isolating the U.S. position, reinforcing the centrality of the Paris agreement, and making clear that no other nations have any intention to leave it," said Paul Bledsoe, a senior fellow on energy at the Progressive Policy Institute. "This creates an effective global firewall from the U.S. position."
The G-19 section of the communiqué also renewed commitments to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries cope with climate change. With the United States expected to provide no further climate aid, Macron announced Saturday that he would host a meeting in December to chart a way forward. It will be held in Paris, two years after the global agreement was approved.
The White House, meanwhile, moved to minimize the G-20's climate dispute.
"Look, there's a debate on climate," Cohn told reporters on the flight back from the summit aboard Air Force One. But he suggested the differences were small, even with the staunchest Paris allies.
"So the president clearly believes in the environment," said Cohn. "You know, Macron and the president have somewhat different views on how to achieve the end goal, but I think the end goal is the same. And they were debating how to achieve the end goal."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/10/stories/1060057121
-
Brown and Lawmakers Haggle over Details of Carbon Market
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Top California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) are still hammering out language to extend the state's cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases in an effort to reach a deal by the end of next week.
Several versions of legislative language are circulating that would extend the market through 2030. The system serves as the backstop mechanism to ensure the state meets its target of 1990 emissions levels, but it's written to sunset in 2020.
Brown would like to continue using it to meet the 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels and is attempting to insulate the program against legal challenges by reaching a two-thirds vote. His aides have said they want to reach a deal before the next auction of greenhouse gas permits, in August, to bolster participation and revenues.
The most recent version of legislative language being circulated by Brown's office, dated July 3, is slightly more fleshed out than a version that emerged late last month.
As in the earlier version, it would extend the current market past 2020 and allow businesses to use existing allowances in the post-2020 period, a move that economists are warning could cut into future emissions reductions. The current market is significantly oversupplied; businesses would like to be able to use that oversupply in later years, when the cap tightens and prices rise.
The newest version has language that would reduce future surplus allowances if it turns out that the pre-2020 budget would cause businesses to exceed the 2030 cap. It would also allow fewer carbon offsets to be used in place of allowances than the previous version would. Half of the offsets would have to come from projects located within California that also reduce conventional pollutants, a concession to environmental justice groups that have been pushing for the rules to address conventional pollutants more directly.
It would also rein in earlier language that proposed to restrict the state from regulating oil refineries' carbon dioxide emissions other than through the cap-and-trade system.
Multiple sources said that the July 3 language is now being revised back toward industry's priorities, some of which were laid out in an April document by law firm Latham & Watkins and consulting firm Alpha Inception LLC.
"I've heard that even since the Monday language, the administration has given up significant ground to the polluters," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air.
The Sierra Club came out against the July 3 language Thursday, citing provisions that would pre-empt the Air Resources Board and local air districts' ability to regulate CO2 from stationary sources.
"Through intimidation or court action, the oil industry will use the preemptions proposed in the cap-and-trade bill to stop future criteria pollution regulation," Sierra Club California Director Kathryn Phillips wrote to Brown, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D).
The language faces a tight timetable for being turned into legislation by the Aug. 15 auction. The state Legislature goes into recess July 21, and according to Proposition 54, a ballot initiative passed last year, bills have to be made public at least 72 hours before a second floor vote.
As well, ARB is waiting for the Legislature to act before it votes on amendments to the existing program that would also affect the post-2020 program, including allocations of free allowances to industry. Those proposed amendments have been out for nearly a year and according to state law must be approved by the first week of August to avoid going back to the beginning of the rulemaking process.
"I would hope that there would be lengthy deliberative policy hearings in both houses," Magavern said. "This is important and complex legislation; they should follow the usual process and give the legislators and the public time to read and understand the bills."
Ore. takes steps toward cap and price
Meanwhile, Oregon lawmakers wrapped up their legislative session last week by introducing a carbon-pricing bill aimed at reaching 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
S.B. 1070, by Senate Environment and Natural Resources Chairman Michael Dembrow (D) and House Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Helm (D), creates parameters for the state Environmental Quality Commission to set a decreasing cap on large emitters from 2021 through 2050. It would also require the agency to hold auctions, distribute free allowances and distribute the proceeds via grants, with at least half of the money going to projects located in "impacted communities."
The bill is intended to be taken up in 2018, when lawmakers begin a new session. It already has 31 co-sponsors, the result of work on earlier bills and a bicameral carbon-pricing work group chaired by Dembrow and Helm. In a release, the lawmakers said they expect it to generate $700 million per year in revenue, as well as serve as a beacon for other states in the absence of federal climate action.
"The administration in Washington, D.C., has made no secret of a purposeful shift in policy to prop up fossil fuels and abdicate America's leadership in a 21st-century economy," Dembrow said. "That's the wrong approach. In Oregon, we see the huge opportunity before us, both economically and in a leadership role. We're going to take it."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/10/stories/1060057122
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested