Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/31/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) PCMA Succeeded To Involve ACC For Accreditation Of Responsible Care Program
Jul 30, 2017 | Pakistan Observer
By Salim Ahmed
Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) has succeeded to involve American Chemistry Council (ACC) for accreditation of the Responsible Care Program, which is being implemented by PCMA in Pakistan to integrate the local chemical industry with global market. -
(ACC Mentioned) OPINION: Keep Plastic Bags Out Of Curbside Recycling Container
Jul 30, 2017 | Daily Record
By Christine Vidal
In old Western movies, when cowboys were out on the range and it got “too quiet,” they knew trouble was brewing. -
How Dow Chemical Wants to Reshape Materials
Jul 31, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By David Benoit
Travelers on Saginaw Road in Midland, Mich., find themselves directly in the middle of a project that Dow Chemical Co. DOW -0.64% says represents the future of material sciences. -
(ACC Mentioned) When Toxic Politics Clash With Toxic Chemicals
Jul 31, 2017 | WhoWhatWhy / RealNewsProject (blog)
Last year, Democratic and Republican members of Congress congratulated each otherfor what they considered to be a miracle: passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) Schumer Calls On FDA To Investigate Fast Food Packaging Health Impact
Jul 31, 2017 | Fox 5 - NY
By Sharon Crowley
There are new concerns over the chemicals used in fast food packaging and their potential impact on your health. -
Schumer Wants FDA Investigation Into Fast Food Packaging
Jul 30, 2017 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
Sen. Charles Schumer says the Food and Drug Administration should launch a formal investigation into the health consequences of chemicals used in fast food packaging. -
New York Times Gets Into Fake Food News With ‘Roundup In Ben & Jerry’s’ Article
Jul 31, 2017 | The Federalist
By Julie Kelly
Over the past few years, The New York Times has become a scribe for environmental activists, relying on bogus science and dubious sources to stoke fear about what we eat and feed our families. -
Cefic: REACH and CLP 'Appropriate' For Regulating Circular Economy
Jul 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The REACH and CLP Regulations are "appropriate" and should remain the "guardian legislation" of the circular economy, the European Chemical Industry Council has said. -
TransCanada Still Sees Producer Support for Keystone XL Line
Jul 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Orland
TransCanada Corp. said it still expects commercial support for its controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, tamping down speculation that it was having trouble finding customers for the long-delayed line. -
Environmental, Labor Groups Oppose Delay Of RMP Suit
Jul 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmental and labor groups challenging EPA's lengthy delay of an Obama-era facility accident prevention rule are urging a federal court to reject the agency's request for 60 days to file its brief, arguing any further delay would unfairly boost EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's goal of stalling the facility safety update rule. -
Firefighters Battle Blaze at Alabama Chemical Plant
Jul 29, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
A plant that produces agricultural chemicals caught fire Saturday in southwest Alabama, blanketing the area with potentially hazardous smoke and prompting an order for people to stay inside. -
States, Industry Seek Rehearing on Methane Lawsuit
Jul 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran
A full federal appellate court should reconsider a decision that forced the EPA to implement methane emissions limits for the oil and gas industry that it plans to revise, states and industry groups said. -
Absent EPA, Intervenors Seek En Banc Review In Methane NSPS Delay Suit
Jul 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Oil and gas groups and a coalition of states are asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review a three-judge panel's ruling vacating EPA's 90-day stay of key portions of Obama-era methane limits for new drilling equipment -- though EPA has not yet sought such a review, despite expectations that it would do so. -
GOP Senators Seek CASAC Cost Review In Setting NAAQS
Jul 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
Senate environment panel Republicans are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to have a key air advisory panel examine adverse economic and other impacts from strict national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and other pollutants, though environmentalists note that consideration of costs in setting NAAQS is unlawful. -
California’s Cap-and-Trade Program Could Offer Other States Guidance
Jul 29, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
CALIFORNIA’S LEADERS this month expanded the nation’s most significant operating climate policy, the state’s groundbreaking greenhouse-gas cap-and-trade program.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PCMA Succeeded To Involve ACC For Accreditation Of Responsible Care Program
Jul 30, 2017 | Pakistan Observer
By Salim Ahmed
Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) has succeeded to involve American Chemistry Council (ACC) for accreditation of the Responsible Care Program, which is being implemented by PCMA in Pakistan to integrate the local chemical industry with global market.
According to Iqbal Kidwai, Secretary General and Chief Operating Officer of PCMA, it is a major breakthrough in history of the chemical industry when accreditation authority of an American Standard is being entrusted first time to a government department of Pakistan. He said, with the efforts of PCMA, Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC), a subsidiary organization of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) has been authorized by the ACC to accredit the global standards of Responsible Care Program for local chemical units. He informed that the modalities, in this regard, had been structured at a recent meeting held in chair with Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology Mr. Fazal Abbass Maken, who had assigned Director General PNAC Ismat Gul Khattak as a focal person for further interaction with PCMA.
Kidwai told that as per decision of the follow-up meeting with DG-PNAC, PCMA Chief Consultant Tahir J Qadir has completed detailed discussions with American Chemistry Council which has led to a tentative schedule for meetings and training course in the first week of October 2017 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The final dates will soon be communicated by Mr. Dan Roczniak, Representative of ACC within the next few days, Kidwai added.
Based upon the discussions held between Mr. Tahir J. Qadir and Mr. Dan, a tripartite meeting amongst American Chemistry Council, PCMA, and PNAC would be held next month at Dubai, in which formal MOUs would be signed regarding Responsible Care Accreditation services by PNAC in Pakistan.
The process will further be followed by a training course to be conducted by ACC-approved American training providers in Dubai for Certification Bodies (CBs) as well as for PNAC accreditors.
PCMA has expressed deep gratitude to the Secretary Ministry of Science and Technology Mr. Fazal Abbass Maken and DG, PNAC Ismat Gul Khattak, whose sincere and focused cooperation had helped move the proposals towards implementation.http://pakobserver.net/pcma-succeeded-involve-acc-accreditation-responsible-care-program/
-
(ACC Mentioned) OPINION: Keep Plastic Bags Out Of Curbside Recycling Container
Jul 30, 2017 | Daily Record
By Christine Vidal
In old Western movies, when cowboys were out on the range and it got “too quiet,” they knew trouble was brewing. When it is quiet at a recycling processing facility, it suggests trouble, too. If the noise stops, it means the machinery has stopped. Therefore, the recycling has stopped and, likely, there is something very wrong. The villain may be a simple, lightweight plastic bag.
Mixed recyclables go from curbsides to materials recovery facilities (MRFs) for sorting into components — plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars, aluminum cans, aluminum pie plates, steel (tin) cans, junk mail, paper, newspapers, milk cartons and corrugated cardboard. Each component is compacted, wrapped with wire, to make bales and shipped to recycling facilities.
It is important that recyclables are rinsed, empty and loose when they arrive at a MRF and start the journey towards being recycled properly. The cleaner the bales, the higher the value.
However, loose plastic bags, or recyclables in any sort of plastic bag, are major problems for recycling programs. Plastic bags are one of the worst contaminants in a recycling process, on a list of unwanted materials that also includes scrap metal, wires, hazardous waste, chemicals, diapers, syringes, needles, propane tanks and hangers.
None of these items should be included with curbside recyclables since they can hurt employees and disable machinery.
Plastic bag contamination shuts down the recycling system several times per day because plastic bags wrap around rotating axles, wheels and disks. When the machines are silent, production stops and the receiving lines back up, resulting in a reduction in processing efficiency, safety and the value of recyclables, while labor costs go up.
At times, plastic bags slip through the sorting process and wind up in the paper bales. Since plastic, obviously, is not paper, it is a major contaminant of paper bales and can lead to the paper being unmarketable and, therefore, not recycled.
For these reasons, plastic bags (garbage bags, shopping bags, zip-lock bags, bread bags, newspaper bags, wood pellet bags, etc.) and plastic film (shrink-wrap, plastic wrap around cases of water bottles, packing pillows, bubble wrap, flexible plastic food packaging, etc.) are excluded from the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority’s single-stream recycling program.
While plastic bags and film are not acceptable at MRFs or in curbside recycling programs, they can be recycled at select supermarkets and stores. The bags (also including bread, newspaper, dry cleaning and other plastic bags) must be empty, clean, and free of moisture or food.
Recycled products made from bags include plastic lumber, picnic tables, lawn furniture, playground equipment and recycling bins, among other items. Additional information is available from the American Chemistry Council at https://www.plasticfilmrecycling.org/or TREX at www.trex.com.
There is one exception to the “no plastic bag” rule in Morris County’s single-stream program, and that is for shredded paper. Shredded paper must be placed in clear or see-through plastic bags. Because shredded paper can be identified at MRFs in clear bags, it can manually be removed at the start of the sorting line. Loose shredded paper is too small to be captured for recycling and falls through the automated sorting system.
To keep the plastic bag villains away from MRFs and your curbside recycling bin, use cloth shopping bags, reuse plastic bags at home, recycle plastic bags at a participating supermarket and follow your town’s recycling guidelines. For more information about single-stream recycling, visit the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority’s website at www.MCMUA.com.
Christine Vidal is a recycling specialist for the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/opinion/2017/07/30/opinion-keep-plastic-bags-curbside-recycling-container/104084772/
-
How Dow Chemical Wants to Reshape Materials
Jul 31, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By David Benoit
Dow executives say investors are missing the science and commercial benefits of the combination of Dow Chemical and Dow Corning
MIDLAND, MICH -- Travelers on Saginaw Road in Midland, Mich., find themselves directly in the middle of a project that Dow Chemical Co. DOW -0.64% says represents the future of material sciences.
To the west is a sprawling campus of chemical plants and research labs that Dow calls its Michigan Operations. Directly across the street is Dow Corning’s Midland plant, where it has pioneered silicone products.
For more than 70 years, the road was a barrier. Though Dow was a 50% owner of Dow Corning , GLW -0.81% a joint-venture with Corning Inc., the companies didn’t often interact and stayed on their own sides of materials. Last June, Dow bought out Corning and has been integrating silicone into its arsenal.
Dow says the deal has gone well: It has already cut $500 million in costs faster than expected and says it will now hit $650 million in savings. Combined with the separate, much larger, merger with DuPont Co . DD -0.72% and the subsequent spinout of a Midland-based materials company, Dow executives believe they’ve set up a growth company.
But a group of powerful shareholders think Dow Corning and Dow should be separated again, arguing the stock market would pay more for Dow Corning’s future.
Dow executives say the investors are missing both the science and commercial benefits of the combination. Dow Corning’s earnings growth had stalled in the years before the deal, but earnings before interest taxes, depreciation and amortization have doubled since and last week they said it would add $2 billion by 2019, twice the initial estimate. They say the growth would go away with a split.
“When you come to a fork and you go left, everyone can always hypothesize on what would have happened if you went right, but no one can ever know,” says Chief Financial Officer Howard Ungerleider. “Dow Corning is the perfect example of we know both sides of the fork.”
Executives said the benefits start with customers. Some, such as makers of beauty products or building products, mix both silicones and Dow components into their products, but they had to experiment themselves. Now Dow can present a finished product. Meanwhile, Dow has expanded Dow Corning around the globe and put it in front of larger customers, particularly in the automotive industry, executives said.
Plus, the underlying chemistry -- the actual mixing of silicones with ethylene and propylene -- would also be lost in a split, they said.
Florian Schattenmann, head of research and development, talks excitedly about the potential of mixing silicones with ethylene and propylene to create brand-new materials. Today, most of the R&D is answering customer demands, but Mr. Schattenmann talks about delivering new properties and capabilities the way Steve Jobs once said customers don’t know what they want.
He buzzes through Dow’s labs, where scientists use robots to measure, mix and read. The machines standardize testing—removing potential human error—and run hundreds of experiments at once. The data are all stored to help Dow scientists build an immense chemical library.
Dow is even working with local government to remove the physical barrier of Saginaw Road: It has petitioned to close the road to public traffic between the two campuses.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-dow-chemical-wants-to-reshape-materials-1501421043
-
(ACC Mentioned) When Toxic Politics Clash With Toxic Chemicals
Jul 31, 2017 | WhoWhatWhy / RealNewsProject (blog)
Is Trump White House Subverting New Chemical Safety Law?
Last year, Democratic and Republican members of Congress congratulated each otherfor what they considered to be a miracle: passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
The law, named after the late chemical safety crusader Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), was designed to strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), giving it more authority to regulate toxic chemicals.
It fixed many of the legal traps in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which, over its 40-year history, had so blocked the EPA that it had banned or restricted only five chemicals — out of more than 80,000 chemicals currently on the market..
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who initially opposed the proposal as too weak, ultimately made her peace with the bill. Even Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, then Attorney General of Oklahoma who had sued the EPA 14 times, sent a letter to key senators praising the legislation.
The bill — a compromise with the chemical industry that resulted from years of negotiation — glided to victory in both House and Senate.
At the signing ceremony on June 22, President Barack Obama termed its passage a “really significant piece of business” that had been accomplished in an “overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, as happened with those pillars of legislation to protect our air, and our water, and our wildlife.” Obama predicted: “If we can make this bill work, it means that somewhere out on the horizon we can make our politics less toxic as well.”Enter the Powerful Chemical Lobby。
But in the ensuing months, the politics have grown more toxic. The Lautenberg law, safety advocates charge, is being actively undermined by the powerful chemical lobby. Robert Sussman told WhoWhatWhy that he suspects that the chemical industry, while paying “lip service” to the new law, which it publicly supported, is now trying to “slow walk implementation and avoid anything by the EPA that is truly threatening” to its bottom line. Sussman is an environmental lawyer and consultant who was a principal policy advisor to Obama’s first EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
The EPA’s policy reversals are unprecedented, George Wyeth, a 27-year EPA veteran who retired in January, told WhoWhatWhy. “This is not anything like the transition from Clinton to [George W.] Bush,” Wyeth said. “The things that Pruitt has done go far beyond Bush’s change of course. None of this is normal.” Wyeth, who said he expected a “quiet academic life” after leaving the EPA now has joined about 100 former EPA officials “looking to do something to defend the EPA.”
Both Sussman and Wyeth spoke at a July 19 conference on toxic chemicals hosted by the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation. Panelists tracked the various ways the Trump EPA is endangering the public, including its efforts to weaken the Lautenberg law.The Toxic Beck Effect。
How did the law get hijacked? The Lautenberg law gave the EPA “new tools, new authority and new responsibilities,” Liz Hitchcock told WhoWhatWhy. Hitchcock is government affairs director for the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, representing more than 400 environmental and public health groups as well as businesses. The EPA would have to meet certain deadlines and address thousands of chemicals on the market in a systematic way. It must focus on “high-priority” chemicals — those that likely are the greatest risk to health. If the agency lacked enough information to gauge that risk, it now had the power to ask chemical companies to disclose more data.
But Congress left many crucial decisions about its implementation to the agency.
Pruitt, who brought an anti-regulatory and anti-science approach to his new job as EPA administrator, named industry insider Nancy Beck to help oversee chemical safety at the agency. Beck assumed this post immediately after a five-year stint with the powerful lobby trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), testifying before Congress on the chemical industry’s priorities, and developing ACC comments that challenged proposed EPA regulations.
Currently the highest ranking political appointee in the chemical and pesticides program, Beck has left her fingerprints on the EPA’s recent policies, critics charge, adopting positions that appear to contradict what Congress intended just last year, and to veer from the EPA’s direction at the end of 2016.
EPA’s current policies, Hitchcock charged, “tilt more in the direction of Beck’s former employer than the public health community.”
Change the process and you can control the outcome, advocates say. They contend that Congress intended that the new law directed the EPA to assess all the ways chemicals could affect people, from the way a chemical is produced, to its use, and its disposal, including the toxic byproducts that get into the air, water and soil. Hitchcock called it a “cradle to grave” assessment of a chemical.
But Beck recently claimed that this expansive approach to chemicals was not practical. “If you try to do everything,” she told reporters, “you’re going to end up doing nothing well.”
In June, the EPA issued final rules that will give the agency the discretion to pick and choose what “conditions of use” it will consider when determining the risk a chemical poses. Hitchcock fears that this selective approach may mean that the EPA will fail to protect low-income African-American communities living near chemical plants, by not taking their toxic overload into consideration. The dangers of workplace exposures also might be minimized, she said.
The EPA also seems unwilling to use its power under the new law to require companies to provide more information about chemicals so that it properly identifies those substances most likely to cause harm. The agency had initially proposed giving itself enough time to seek information from chemical manufacturers before beginning a formal assessment process that has tight deadlines, she explained. But the agency now has backtracked, no longer proposing a more workable system for gathering information. If pressed for time, “we are concerned that the EPA won’t be asking [chemical companies] for the information they need to efficiently prioritize and regulate chemicals,” Hitchcock said.Delays Deadly to Tens of Thousands。
Some threats to the public are more imminent, and result from the EPA actually using the new law to undermine regulatory work the agency had spent years preparing. The EPA now is signaling that it will delay crucial restrictions on three industrial chemicals used to remove paint and in dry cleaning — trichloroethylene, methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone — until the EPA completes its risk assessments of all the ten chemicals the EPA designated late last year as high-priority.
House appropriators also have asked the EPA to delay the rules, Hitchcock said.
“You’d think these rules were a no-brainer,” Sussman said. Rules that could protect the public now, he charged, “will be sitting on the shelf for six or seven years. The impacts will be real,” he added. Workers using methylene chloride paint removers “are dying right now.” These toxic exposures, he said, affect “tens of thousands” of workers.
When she was at ACC, Beck submitted comments that challenged these proposed rules. The EPA’s revised approach “tracks the ACC comments almost to a tee,” Sussman charged.
And there is no sign that the politicization of the chemical safety work is slowing down. On July 17, President Donald Trump nominated Michael Dourson to be Beck’s boss and head the EPA’s chemical and pesticides office.
Dourson, a toxicologist, is best known for his work as the founder of the nonprofit Toxicology Excellence and Risk Assessment (TERA), critiqued by environmental groupsfor its pro-industry positions and consulting work for companies.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment on this story.A Ruinous Tactic。
Funding for the program may be another way to hobble it. Congress is not cutting the toxic program’s funding directly. But House appropriators inserted an interesting directive in their spending bill for EPA. On page 58 of the 178-page bill report, House members raise concerns that the schedule for imposing fees on industry “may be too aggressive,” and suggested that fees be levied more gradually.
The law required industry to pay fees to support the EPA’s work in this area, up to $25 million a year. “Industry may be encouraging the EPA to slow down,” Sussman said. “A significant delay in getting fees from industry would definitely be a problem.”
These policy reversals are taking their toll on EPA staff. Staffers “are agonized,” Sussman claimed. “Some intended to make a career at EPA. Do they stay where they are and not be able to contribute or cut their losses and leave? The effect of a mass exodus is the loss of expertise and institutional knowledge,” he warned.
“The White House is already pursuing buy-outs” at the agency, said Kurt Vorndran, legislative representative for the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal workers at 31 agencies. He expected that 1,000 EPA staffers will take them.
One departure that activists mourn: Wendy Cleland-Hamnett. Cleland-Hamnett, a career EPA professional, will retire August 24 as assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution, increasing Beck’s power over implementation of the new chemical safety law.
The Lautenberg law was passed after years of activist pressure, studies documenting the harm of toxic chemicals, and bad publicity for the chemical industry.
“On paper it was a pretty good law,” said Sussman, who advised the Safer Chemicals coalition on the legislation. But making the law work in the real world, he insisted, requires a “commitment to impartiality, staying the course and going where the science leads.”
“A year ago, I was pretty upbeat,” Sussman confided. “I thought that the stars were aligning because industry felt threatened and came to the table.”
His feelings are very different now. “In a few years,” he concluded, “we may look at the law as a failure.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/07/31/toxic-politics-clash-toxic-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Schumer Calls On FDA To Investigate Fast Food Packaging Health Impact
Jul 31, 2017 | Fox 5 - NY
By Sharon Crowley
NEW YORK (FOX 5 NEWS) - There are new concerns over the chemicals used in fast food packaging and their potential impact on your health.
Senator Schumer is now calling on the FDA to launch an investigation.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer fresh from blocking the repeal of health care is back in New York City with a new cause he says also impacts the health of all Americans.
He wants the Food and Drug Administration to launch a formal investigation into the health consequences of chemicals used in fast food packaging.
He said many studies show kids who consume fast food regularly had dangerous levels of phthalates in their body.
Phthalates are used in plastics to make them more flexible. Some phthalates have been linked to health issues, both developmental and reproductive.
People can be exposed to phthalates if they eat or drink food that's come into contact with containers made with these chemicals.
Doctor Robert Glatter works in the Emergency Room at Lenox Hill Hospital. He said the health concerns center on children and pregnant women.
Some of these types of chemicals are already banned in toys and baby bottles.
Senator Schumer wants the FDA to expand the ban to include fast food packaging.
“There are substitutes for phthalates that are not harmful and can be used in packaging and that's what we want the FDA to look at,” he said.
The American Chemical Council represents companies in the chemistry business.
They responded to the concern about phthalates by saying that food packaging is already reviewed by the FDA and is also done again before new materials are allowed on the market.
Since it is estimated that about 50 million Americans eat fast food every day, this is a concern not likely to go away.
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/271004629-story
-
Schumer Wants FDA Investigation Into Fast Food Packaging
Jul 30, 2017 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
Associated Press
NEW YORK — Sen. Charles Schumer says the Food and Drug Administration should launch a formal investigation into the health consequences of chemicals used in fast food packaging.
The New York Democrat on Sunday released a letter he sent to the head of the agency asking for the investigation into phthalates, which are used in plastics to make them more flexible.
Some phthalates have been linked to health issues, both developmental and reproductive. People can be exposed to phthalates if they eat or drink food that's come into contact with containers made with the chemicals.
Schumer pointed out that some types of phthalates have been restricted from use in children's toys. He said an investigation would determine how safe fast food packaging is.
The FDA did not immediately comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/AP5fc0acb73f45492c9f66e6050113566d
-
New York Times Gets Into Fake Food News With ‘Roundup In Ben & Jerry’s’ Article
Jul 31, 2017 | The Federalist
By Julie Kelly
Over the past few years, The New York Times has become a scribe for environmental activists, relying on bogus science and dubious sources to stoke fear about what we eat and feed our families.
This week, the Times ran an article about the alleged danger lurking in your pint of Cherry Garcia: “Traces of Controversial Herbicide Are Found in Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream” could be one of the most deceptive and dishonest pieces of food writing I’ve read in a while. The story claims traces of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weedkiller sold under the brand name Roundup, were found in several varieties of that famous ice cream brand. Times reporter Stephanie Strom wrote how “consumer groups around the country have begun raising awareness of glyphosate in food, because some studies have linked it to a variety of diseases.”
Aside from several errors in the article (it’s already been corrected twice) and a lack of full disclosure about its sources, let’s start with the Times’ failure to follow modern-day Journalism 101: There is no link to the study that is the basis for the article. Usually, when a major news outlet runs a lengthy article with an inflammatory headline, it posts the scientific report that supports the story.Who Are These People? We Don’t Know
Most editors would demand that the study meets certain criteria, such as making sure the data and testing methods are publicly available, the scientists have appropriate credibility, and it has been peer-reviewed. But why let basic standards of scientific integrity get in the way of a click-baity headline about poisonous ice cream in July?
The “study” that tested for glyphosate was conducted by a nonprofit called Health Research Institute Labs (what little information is available about this group can be found here). The study is not available on the lab’s website, nor can you find it in the Times article, or anywhere else on the Internet. The only evidence to support the Timesfinding is a graph posted within the article that purports to show the glyphosate levels found in 11 types of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.
That graph, however, is not sourced to the lab that allegedly conducted the work. It is credited to the Organic Consumers Association, a virulently anti-corporate, anti-capitalist activist group that is doing whatever it can to destroy our current food system. The OCA opposes conventional agriculture, farm chemicals, food preservatives, and genetically engineered crops (that may sound swell, but trust me, you would be hard-pressed to feed your family if any of that disappeared). It bullies companies, like it is now doing to Ben and Jerry’s, to go organic. The group also opposes vaccines. It is about as far-flung and nutty as you can find.
So it is of course the perfect source for The New York Times. Strom essentially cribs the OCA’s press release on the ice cream study and repeatedly quotes OCA President Ronnie Cummins, even including a photo of him. This is the same guy who helped organize a fake tribunal at The Hague last year against Monsanto, the maker of glyphosate, charging it with ecocide. (Glyphosate is the new GMO for most environmental activists like OCA.) It also organizes the annual March Against Monsanto. Strom fails to disclose OCA’s long-standing antipathy towards Monsanto, a huge oversight that would have offered the reader the appropriate context to the story.The Science Is Sketchy, As Well
Now let’s get to the so-called science part of the article. The author of the study that no one can access, an outlier himself you can read about here, admits that “a 75-pound child would have to consume 145,000 eight-ounce servings of Ben and Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream to hit the limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency, the government body charged with setting a ceiling on the amount of glyphosate allowed in food.” So basically, your fifth grader would need to eat about 1,000 times his body weight in ice cream per day before he’s considered in danger.
There is more shoddy science in the article. Strom cites a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from 2015 (she erroneously says the report is from this year) that found glyphosate is a “probable” human carcinogen. This finding has been heavily criticized by scientists and agriculture groups around the world. In fact, IARC is the only group that has deemed glyphosate a possible carcinogenic. That report is under so much scrutiny that Congress is considering defunding IARC amid concerns about poor methods, cherry-picking data, and political activism by some participants (I wrote about it here.)
Strom fails to list the number of agencies that have concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer, including two reports by the Environmental Protection Agency last year, the World Health Organization, the European Food Safety Authority, and government bodies around the world. While Strom does link to the IARC study, she does not link to any of these scientific studies that refute IARC’s work.
It is an intentional omission. What she does not omit is another dubious study co-authored by a well-known activist who had a previous glyphosate study retracted. It’s the same guy who helped create the scary memes of rats with big tumors that activists use to protest GMOs and Roundup. (You can read the scientific criticism of it here.)
There are many more problems with the article, including conflicts of interest Strom does not reveal. It follows a similar pattern at the Times, including an article earlier this month about how unsafe Kraft macaroni and cheese is, where activists are presented as experts, the science is weak if non-existent, and objectivity is down the drain.
Just one more reason to question what you read in The New York Times.
-
Cefic: REACH and CLP 'Appropriate' For Regulating Circular Economy
Jul 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The REACH and CLP Regulations are "appropriate" and should remain the "guardian legislation" of the circular economy, the European Chemical Industry Council has said.
In comments to a recent European Commission consultation on chemicals, products and waste legislation – the second one this year – Cefic says the Commission should "stimulate a better integration" of circular economy thinking into existing legislation. This, it adds, can be done through providing further clarifications and guidance.
And, it says it should be "clear that a pragmatic risk-based application of REACH is necessary to make [the] circular economy successful".
One of the main problem areas the Commission has identified is insufficient information about substances of concern in products and waste. To combat this, Cefic says supply chain collaboration should be enhanced via input through value chain platforms that include recyclers. Sector associations should help to facilitate exchange information about the presence of substances in products and support the risk assessment.
And recyclers should undertake an assessment of the products they want to place on the market for the intended applications, to ensure compliance with REACH, CLP and/or applicable sector regulations.Substances of concern
When it comes to the presence of substances of concern in recycled materials and in articles made from them, Cefic says it favours a case-by-case risk-based approach, which focuses on applications, within the framework of existing chemical legislation. This approach can be taken, it says, provided the use in the application under consideration is safe.
Restriction decisions should be adapted on a case-by-case basis to the use of recycled material. This would mean that the use of secondary raw materials can be for different applications with different exposure profiles.
Another way to safely increase the amount of secondary raw materials in the economy, Cefic says, is by redirecting recycled materials that do not reach a virgin specification to other non-sensitive applications where exposure does not cause a concern.
An example of a negative impact to recyclability is the requirement to classify materials used in manufacturing processes – for example acids, catalysts and solvents – as waste when sent for regeneration and subsequent reuse to manufacturers of the original material.
Additional supporting guidance, derived from REACH guidance, would be useful to inform decisions concerning recycling and the presence of substances of concern, including legacy chemicals, Cefic adds. The Commission should also organise a dedicated workshop for stakeholder to share experiences and ideas, it says.Imported articles
Cefic says the knowledge gap at the recycling stage will not be solved "simply by increased information provided through the value chain, because it results also from the lack of information related to imported articles".
It is necessary, the organisation says, to address the global flow of materials that ends up in European recycling systems. An EU study on imported articles, it adds, would help to identify "priority value chains that need to be addressed and identify which measures, such as restriction, could be implemented to limit the entry of 'contaminated' articles".
The Commission is expected to publish a recommendation on policy options by the end of the year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57958/cefic-reach-and-clp-appropriate-for-regulating-circular-economy
-
TransCanada Still Sees Producer Support for Keystone XL Line
Jul 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Orland
TransCanada Corp. said it still expects commercial support for its controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, tamping down speculation that it was having trouble finding customers for the long-delayed line.
Keystone XL, which was rejected by the Obama administration before being revived by President Donald Trump this year, would boost TransCanada's dividend growth, the company said in a statement July 28. Media reports in recent weeks said that the company was having trouble signing up customers for the pipeline, conceived to help move crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
TransCanada said earlier this year that it was working to sign new shippers following years of delays. Given the time it took to gain federal approval, TransCanada said it expected some shippers to reduce their volume commitments and that other new customers would be introduced. The company said July 27 that it's soliciting additional commitments to ship oil on Keystone XL.
“We've had good support from our legacy shippers, which gives us a good base to launch this open season,” Paul Miller, TransCanada's president of liquids pipelines, said on a conference call.
The open season closes on Sept. 28, with the results of the process expected to be final in late November, Miller said. The company should also receive its regulatory decisions from Nebraska around that time and will weigh both of those factors in determining whether to proceed with the line, he said. If TransCanada decides to move ahead on Keystone XL, it would need six to nine months to prepare for construction and about two years to build it, he said.
Dividend Growth
Success in advancing Keystone XL or other growth initiatives such as the Bruce Power life extension may “augment or extend the company's dividend growth outlook,” Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said in the statement. The company plans to increase its annual dividend at the upper end of an 8 percent to 10 percent range through 2020.
Keystone won votes of confidence from the chief executive officers of Canadian oil producers Cenovus Energy Inc. and Suncor Energy Inc. this week. The CEOs both said they support Keystone and that the Canadian energy industry needs more pipeline capacity. Suncor confirmed that it plans to ship its products on Keystone.
Alberta's oil producers have long warned that a lack of pipeline space was hurting their prospects. That pipeline pinch may start to hit the industry later this year as Suncor's massive Fort Hills oil-sands project starts to produce oil and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. completes another phase of expansion at its Horizon mine.
Beyond Keystone
Looking beyond Keystone, TransCanada is spending C$2 billion ($1.6 billion) to expand its natural gas pipeline network in Western Canada. The upgrades to the Nova Gas system will include 171 miles (275 kilometers) of new pipeline, additional compression and new metering stations.
The company said July 28 that it was applying to the National Energy Board to expand capacity on its Canadian Mainline, which carries natural gas from producers in Alberta to markets in the nation's east. The company would spend about C$160 million ($129 million) on the project, which is underpinned by 15-year contracts.
TransCanada's second-quarter profit was 76 Canadian cents a share, excluding some items. The average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was 68 cents.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117728230&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117728230&jd=117728230
-
Environmental, Labor Groups Oppose Delay Of RMP Suit
Jul 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmental and labor groups challenging EPA's lengthy delay of an Obama-era facility accident prevention rule are urging a federal court to reject the agency's request for 60 days to file its brief, arguing any further delay would unfairly boost EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's goal of stalling the facility safety update rule.
In a July 27 filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, environmental and labor groups argue that EPA's July 17 request to delay briefing in the litigation undermines the groups' pending call for the court to vacate, or alternatively stay Pruitt's delay rule, pending review, and should therefore be denied.
“EPA itself delayed the [RMP] Rule, that delay is the subject of the merits before this Court, and the longer it can postpone that rule’s effectiveness (due to the time needed for judicial review or otherwise) the more it receives the benefit of its unlawful and arbitrary action,” the petitioners say. “Granting EPA’s request for delay of briefing 'would hand the agency, in all practical effect, the very delay in implementation' it seeks.”
But the petitioners say they might reconsider their objection to postponing briefing in the suit if the court grants their June 22 motion seeking a stay of the delay rule's implementation pending judicial review.
In the case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, groups including Sierra Club, Earthjustice and union intervenors United Steelworkers are challenging Pruitt's June 14 final rule delaying by 20 months
the RMP rule's effective date from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 to allow time to revise the RMP update rule.
The groups have asked the D.C. Circuit to vacate, or alternatively stay the delay rule, pending review. They argue that delaying the Obama EPA's Jan. 13 RMP update rule, which brings new auditing, hazard analysis and disclosure requirements, poses irreparable harm to workers in communities from facility accidents that continue to occur.
A coalition of 11 Democratic state attorneys general (AGs) led by New York's Eric Schneiderman has also challenged Pruitt's delay, pointing to a fact sheet issued by the Trump agency as showing the rule is needed to protect communities, workers and first responders from accidents.
In a July 25 motion, the D.C. Circuit consolidated the states and advocates' legal challenges.
The Obama-era rule has drawn strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP state AGs, including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA. As GOP Oklahoma AG, Pruitt led a July 2016 letter to former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy arguing proposed requirements for disclosure of facility data would worsen terror threats.
In delaying the RMP update, Pruitt has claimed broad authority for setting effective dates after taking public input, and suggested significant changes are possible, noting that the RMP rule is based on “policy preferences” that could vary between administrations.
The D.C. Circuit is currently weighing competing arguments on whether to stay, or possibly vacate, Pruitt's June 14 final delay rule. In the recent filing, petitioners reiterate claims that delaying the rule would pose irreparable harm to facility workers and nearby communities given ongoing risk of chemical accidents. The groups also contend that EPA has provided no compelling reason for further delay and that the D.C. Circuit disfavors delays in filing briefs.
“Sixty days should not be granted to EPA because Petitioners and United Steelworkers need this case resolved as expeditiously as possible,” the groups say. “Absent a stay or summary vacatur, EPA’s requested extension would prolong judicial review of the Delay Rule and increase this harm.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmental-labor-groups-oppose-delay-rmp-suit
-
Firefighters Battle Blaze at Alabama Chemical Plant
Jul 29, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
ATMORE, Ala. — A plant that produces agricultural chemicals caught fire Saturday in southwest Alabama, blanketing the area with potentially hazardous smoke and prompting an order for people to stay inside.
Police said the fire began before dawn at a factory operated by Tiger-Sul Products, and crews were still on the scene hours later. No injuries were reported.
Atmore Police Chief Chuck Brooks told WALA-TV that sulfur was burning in a warehouse, and 200 to 300 residents nearest the plant were asked to stay inside their homes as a precaution.
"It is extremely hard to breathe near the warehouse," Brooks said.
The Tiger-Sul website said it produces products including agricultural sulfur, which can cause skin irritation and breathing problems if inhaled. Company officials did not return an email message seeking comment.
Sheriff's officials closed part of U.S. 31 because of the smoke and diverted traffic to Interstate 65.
The plant is located about 50 miles (80 km) northeast of Mobile in a town of about 10,000 people.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/29/us/ap-us-chemical-plant-fire.html
-
States, Industry Seek Rehearing on Methane Lawsuit
Jul 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran
A full federal appellate court should reconsider a decision that forced the EPA to implement methane emissions limits for the oil and gas industry that it plans to revise, states and industry groups said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit July 3 struck down the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to halt implementation of the methane regulation for 90 days, finding the delay an abuse of agency authority. The regulation requires new and modified facilities to capture gas surging out of oil wells and regularly search out and repair leaks.
The industry groups and states filed two petitions—one July 28 and the other July 27—that ask for the full court to rehear the case (Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1145, en banc petition filed 7/28/17).
The EPA is still weighing its options, spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in an email.
The July 27 petition, which includes the American Petroleum Institute and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, said the court erred because the EPA's decision to temporarily halt the methane standards was not a final action reviewable by the court.
“This ‘transformation’ of a non-final agency action into a final agency action is ungrounded in the law and inconsistent with well-established Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedent,” they said.
The July 28 petition, led by West Virginia, said the D.C. Circuit “improperly second-guessed” the EPA's decision to stay the methane standards while it reconsiders the requirements.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117728225&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117728225&jd=117728225
-
Absent EPA, Intervenors Seek En Banc Review In Methane NSPS Delay Suit
Jul 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Oil and gas groups and a coalition of states are asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review a three-judge panel's ruling vacating EPA's 90-day stay of key portions of Obama-era methane limits for new drilling equipment -- though EPA has not yet sought such a review, despite expectations that it would do so.
Intervenors' filings come as EPA could face a judicial directive in the coming days to begin implementing the methane new source performance standards (NSPS), though it is unclear whether the appeal requests will postpone re-issuance of the court's mandate that EPA enforce the rule while the full D.C. Circuit considers the requests.
It is also uncertain whether EPA also intends to seek en banc review, as observers had expected. The majority of the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit that heard the case, Clean Air Council (CAC), et al. v. Pruitt, et al., immediately issued its mandate requiring EPA to lift its stay of the rule. But it subsequently granted EPA's motion to recall the mandate for a “limited period” of 14 days to give the agency time to consider options for appeal. That recall period expired July 27.
One attorney with an academic institution suggests EPA could still file an en banc petition, but the agency “would risk the ire of the court.” The source notes the court's order recalling the mandate specified its action was to give EPA time to weigh appeal options. “If EPA files a petition late, that would not look good.”
Industry intervenors in their filing late July 27 argue the court “should withhold the mandate until after the disposition of this petition,” as appeal request was “timely filed.”
Broadly, industry and states allied with EPA argue en banc review is “necessary” because the D.C. Circuit panel majority's July 3 ruling “violates” appellate and Supreme Court precedent by reviewing a “non-final” action.
They rely heavily on a dissent from Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who argued the D.C. Circuit did not have authority to review EPA's administrative stay because it was linked to ongoing reconsideration of the methane NSPS and thus was not a final action. They also argue the court should have shown EPA deference to stay its own rule.
“While the D.C. Circuit panel correctly recognized that EPA has inherent authority to reconsider its own rules, it improperly second-guessed the EPA's discretionary decision under the Clean Air Act to stay its unlawful and burdensome methane rule for a short period pending reconsideration,” the 11-state coalition writes in a July 28 filing.
Decision 'Conflicts'
“The panel's decision asserting power to judicially review an agency's decision to stay its own rule pending reconsideration conflicts with decisions of this Court and the U.S. Supreme Court on the reviewability of final agency action,” the states continue, adding they agree “in full” with the arguments detailed in industry's filing.
The panel's ruling vacated EPA's administrative stay of the NSPS, which set first-time limits on emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from the oil and gas sector. Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins sided with environmentalists' arguments that EPA improperly used its authority under Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) to delay the rule, and immediately issued a mandate that EPA lift the stay.
But the majority subsequently granted EPA's motion to recall the mandate -- though for just 14 days. In a July 13 order granting the limited recall, the majority agreed with arguments from environmentalists and states opposed to EPA's action that given the short duration of EPA's stay, allowing a longer recall period would “hand the agency, in all practical effect, the very delay in implementation this panel determined to be 'arbitrary, capricious, [and] . . . in excess of [EPA's] statutory . . . authority.”
It is now unclear, however, whether the petitions for en banc review would further postpone re-issuance of the mandate. And while industry intervenors in their filing urged the court to “withhold” the mandate pending its decision on the en banc petitions, such an action likely would be at the court's discretion.
Some observers say the full D.C. Circuit may not be interested in taking up the appeal, in part because the methane NSPS suit involves “fact-specific” questions and review of the rulemaking record, while the underlying case law that agencies' actions must be rooted in statutory authority is not new. Thus, the full court could decide fairly quickly on the petitions -- potentially without seeking responses.
If the court denies the petitions and re-issues its mandate, EPA must begin implementing the rule, even though it is crafting a proposal to further delay the regulation by two years. Comments on that proposal are due Aug. 9.
'Rock And A Hard Place'
The crux of intervenors' argument for en banc review mirrors Brown's dissent, charging that the D.C. Circuit did not have authority to review EPA's stay of the methane NSPS because it was linked to ongoing reconsideration proceedings under air act section 307(d)(7)(B).
“[T]here is no way for this Court to evaluate the merits of an EPA decision to grant a stay without interrogating the merits of reconsideration -- which this Court lacks jurisdiction to do,” the industry groups write. “On the face of the statute, the Court's jurisdiction over a Section 307 stay is limited to whether the stay is limited to a three-month period and whether a reconsideration proceeding was underway when the stay was granted.”
Industry, in its filing, notes that the panel “correctly” says that EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of portions of the methane NSPS is not a final agency action, but it then “erroneously” determined the stay was a final action and vacated it by effectively reviewing EPA's grant of reconsideration.
“The panel resolved its 'rock and a hard place' conundrum by declaring an unreviewable non-final agency action (i.e., the grant of reconsideration) to be reviewable for purposes of assessing the validity of the stay,” the industry groups write. “In other words, the panel cornered itself by deciding that the three-month stay compelled review of an unreviewable decision.”
The industry groups also argue the court should have shown EPA deference to interpret its authority to delay rules under air act section 307(d)(7)(B), particularly given the “extremely limited” nature of the stay compared to the “unbounded, potentially multi-year stay” EPA and other agencies can issue under Administrative Procedure Act section 705.
The panel majority sided with environmentalists' arguments that EPA could not delay the methane NSPS because its reconsideration proceedings did not meet the two-pronged test for mandatory reconsideration established within the statute. But industry argues the court erred in this decision by limiting EPA's discretion.
“It is logical that Congress gave EPA wide discretion in issuing a stay because the remedy itself is so limited. The stay functions solely to allow EPA time to undergo reconsideration. It does not impact the ultimate decision that EPA makes in reconsideration,” industry groups write.
The industry groups further argue that the stay “does not determine rights and obligations,” referring to the majority's argument that the stay was a final action in part because it “affects regulated parties' 'rights and obligations.'” Industry argues, by contrast: “The stay merely preserves the status quo that existed beforehand.”
But the attorney with an academic institution argues that passage is a “mischaracterization of the status quo.”
“The status quo was a world where a final and enforceable rule had been in effect for quite some time,” the source says. “Under EPA's guidelines, the benefits of that rule should be included in any vision of the 'status quo' and a decision to suspend the benefits of the rule would change the status quo, canceling those benefits.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/absent-epa-intervenors-seek-en-banc-review-methane-nsps-delay-suit
-
GOP Senators Seek CASAC Cost Review In Setting NAAQS
Jul 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
Senate environment panel Republicans are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to have a key air advisory panel examine adverse economic and other impacts from strict national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and other pollutants, though environmentalists note that consideration of costs in setting NAAQS is unlawful.
In a July 27 letter to Pruitt, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY), air panel Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and regulatory oversight panel Chairman Mike Rounds (R-SD) claim EPA has long neglected a Clean Air Act mandate to have the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) study “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result” from the NAAQS.
Consideration of economic impacts and other consequences could potentially be used as justification for avoiding stringent standards that Republicans have long argued are onerous for states to meet.
“As you review 2017 nominations for CASAC members, we request that you put measures in place to ensure that moving forward, CASAC complies with these statutory obligations. CASAC must be constituted of experts who can provide independent counsel to you in all of the above areas,” says the letter.
They ask Pruitt to choose CASAC members who will consider the impact of naturally occurring or international “background” ozone on states' ability to comply with a stringent ozone NAAQS, which GOP and industry critics have long cited to oppose EPA's 2015 rule that tightened the standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb.
The letter also touts a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found “CASAC has never provided advice on adverse social, economic, or energy effects related to NAAQS because EPA has never asked CASAC to do so.”
CASAC nominations are currently pending, but since the call for nominees went out in June -- two months later than the usual April timeframe -- stakeholders have raised concerns that CASAC's new members may not be chosen quickly enough for the panel to be able to operate when the term of its chairman expires Sept. 30.
Meanwhile, Democrats have written to GAO seeking a report on whether EPA is “protecting the independence and neutrality” of its 23 advisory committees, including CASAC, following Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent decisions not to renew the terms of nine of the members of the agency's Board of Scientific Counselors.
Environmentalists have raised fears that Pruitt is seeking to consider costs when setting NAAQS, a move supported by many in industry but currently banned under Supreme Court precedent.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/gop-senators-seek-casac-cost-review-setting-naaqs
-
California’s Cap-and-Trade Program Could Offer Other States Guidance
Jul 29, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
CALIFORNIA’S LEADERS this month expanded the nation’s most significant operating climate policy, the state’s groundbreaking greenhouse-gas cap-and-trade program. The state could have departed from its market-based climate plan in favor of much worse ideas. Instead, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and two-thirds of the legislature, with the support of several Republicans, crafted a grand compromise to tighten it up. In so doing, they have ensured the policy will be at the center of the state’s effort to slash planet-warming emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030. This achievement will not be immediately replicable many other places in the country. But it could provide guidance when more states come around to dealing with climate change.
The biggest lesson is that greenhouse-gas policies do not have to be dictated by left-wing activists who want to curb market forces. Emissions can be cut with proper sensitivity to the economic consequences — and that becomes much easier when industry and Republicans accept that emissions must go down.
California’s system involves setting a statewide emissions limit — the cap — which is enforced by requiring businesses to buy permits in order to pollute a certain amount inside the limit. There are only as many permits as there is space under the cap. Businesses can buy and sell the permits, creating a market price on greenhouse-gas emissions. Those for whom it is easy to cut back on emissions do so, and those for whom it is harder buy permits.
Some environmentalists balked at California’s bill, charging that lawmakers “covered themselves in an oily sheen.” Indeed, big players in the electricity industry backed the measure publicly, and the oil industry did so informally, according to the Los Angeles Times. But these businesses had a point. Climate policy is better when it is consistent, predictable and flexible, allowing for industry to plan ahead and reduce its carbon footprint in a variety of ways. A cap-and-trade program forces industry to reduce emissions with a clear schedule but without dictating exactly how.
Some environmentalists want more micromanagement. But the goal should be to cut emissions at minimal cost — not in exactly the way those environmentalists would prefer. Maybe it would be cheaper for two factories to each cut their emissions in half. Maybe it would be cheaper for one factory to keep operating as usual and for the other to shut down. As long as emissions decline, California should leave these decisions to the market.
To the extent California’s climate policies are deficient, it is because the state does not leave enough of them to private actors, instead supplementing the cap-and-trade program with other superfluous regulations requiring emissions cuts in specific sectors and in specific ways. After restraining this instinct in their latest move, state lawmakers might make this mistake if they follow up their cap-and-trade bill with one requiring 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045, an expensive mandate that California’s cap-and-trade program renders unnecessary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/californias-cap-and-trade-program-could-offer-other-states-guidance/2017/07/28/80aadf4c-6e4c-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.83287a5fb9a7
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested