Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/21
-
(ACC Mentioned) Continuing EPA Blunders Highlight a Culture of Indifference, Both under Democrats and Republicans
Dec 20, 2017 | Red Dirt Report
By Andrew W. Griffin
...But then in November, Pruitt took his staff to a high-end South Carolina resort to rub shoulders with the EPA-critical American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Upcoming US EPA Proposal Likely to Limit Recycled Inorganic Byproducts Reporting
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA plans to go ahead with a rule on chemical data reporting (CDR) requirements for recycled inorganic byproduct substances. -
Restrictions on Methylene Chloride, NMP, TCE Apparently Shelved by US EPA
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has signalled it is shelving proposals to restrict the use of the solvents methylene chloride (dichloromethane), n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and trichloroethylene (TCE). -
Comment Deadline Extended for US Mercury Inventory Rules
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the comment period on proposed reporting requirements for a new mercury inventory. -
(ACC Mentioned) Echa's MSC Agrees BPA is an Endocrine Disruptor in the Environment
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) has agreed with Germany's proposal to identify bisphenol A (BPA) as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of its endocrine disrupting properties causing probable serious effects in the environment. -
Echa Proposal for SME Free Access to REACH Data Rejected
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The REACH Directors' Contact Group (DCG) has rejected a proposal by Echa to grant small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) conditional free access to REACH data and joint submissions for the May 2018 registration deadline. -
California Lists N-Hexane under Prop 65
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed n-hexane under the state's Proposition 65 regulation. -
TBAC: Californian Panel Agrees Emissions Should Be Monitored
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Industrial emissions of industrial solvent tert-butyl acetate (TBAC) should be monitored to protect local residents, a key scientific panel in California has agreed. -
REACH to Be Converted into UK Law, Government Confirms
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Current EU chemicals law, including REACH, will be incorporated into UK law, Steve Baker, a junior minister in the UK’s Department for Exiting the European Union, has told MPs. -
Efsa Adapts BPA Evaluation Protocol After Public Comments
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has taken on board public comments and made significant changes to its protocol for the next re-evaluation of BPA. -
Chevron Phillips Completes $6B Petrochemical Expansion
Dec 21, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Chevron Phillips Chemical said it completed construction of its $6 billion petrochemical expansion in the Houston area, although it's not expected to be fully up and running until springtime. -
Surge in U.S. Shale Hedging to Boost Drilling in 2018
Dec 21, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Catherine Ngai
When oil prices rocketed towards $60 a barrel this fall, U.S. shale producers hedged more barrels of oil during the quarter than in at least three years, which could help propel the country to record crude production by next year. -
2017 in Court: Regulations, Pipelines and Public Lands
Dec 21, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
It's been a litigious year in the oil and gas regulatory world, to say the least. -
Regulators to Consider Changing Gas Pipeline Approval Policy
Dec 21, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said Thursday it would review its nearly two-decade-old policy for approving natural gas pipelines. -
Study: Fracking Linked to Low Birth Weight in Babies
Dec 21, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
Babies of mothers who live near fracked natural gas wells are more likely to be born underweight, according to a new study of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania. -
Nebraska Regulators Deny Request to Explore Different Keystone XL Route
Dec 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
TransCanada won't get another bite at the apple to change the Keystone XL oil pipeline's proposed route through Nebraska, as the state Public Service Commission (PSC) on Tuesday unanimously denied the company's request to consider a different path. -
FERC Seeks to Lower Cyber Incident Reporting Threshold
Dec 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC today proposed a rule that would require power plants and transmission operators to report additional cyber threats to the electric grid. -
Greens Launch Ads Against Trump Environmental Pick
Dec 21, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Sierra Club is running a Facebook advertising campaign to oppose Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump’s nominee for a key environmental policy position. -
The Biggest Climate Findings in 2017
Dec 21, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
As the potential effects of climate change are seen around the world — from starving polar bears to record-breaking storms — interest in climate science is soaring. -
U.N. Leader Calls Warming a 'Threat Multiplier'
Dec 21, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres listed climate change as a chief national security concern yesterday, days after President Trump omitted it from his own list of threats.
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
-
Dec 20, 2017 | Red Dirt Report
By Andrew W. Griffin
Although long since forgotten by the American media, two years ago, the Navajo Nation in the Four Corners region of Arizona and New Mexico was suffering from a totally avoidable blunder on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency, led by the ineffectual and embarrassing EPA Director Gina McCarthy.
The disaster, involving toxic mine seepage and poisonous mine tailings getting into a Colorado river near the town of Silverton and flowing downstream, past more towns and onto Navajo lands – all on McCarthy’s watch. The EPA had been warned that messing with the plugged mine would cause a spill. And yet it is the people who pay.
This involved 3 million gallons of toxic waste at the time. And this was while Democrat Barack Obama was still president. Congressional Republicans at the time demanded McCarthy’s head, demanding she resign. Funny how things change when disasters happen and a Republican is at the helm of the EPA – an agency created by President Richard M. Nixon in 1970 because the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio had caught on fire and the pollution problem in America was spinning out of control.
Back then, both Republicans and Democrats worked together in hopes of solving the problem of pollution. This, at a time when environmentalism and conservation were actually embraced and taken seriously. It was viewed as an American thing, to protect the environment. After all, look at the gray, poisoned landscapes of those "dirty commie" countries. The Soviets destroyed an entire sea, for god’s sake.
The Aral Sea is now a mere ghost of its former self, although after 50 years it seems to be coming back to life. The United States was not going to go down that road. Cue the John Denver record …
Anyway, a brief recap from The Denver Post: “The 2015 spill ignited outrage at the EPA and a failure to handle a long-festering environmental problem. State agencies also have failed to deal with the problem of toxic mines contaminating rivers and streams. Gold King Mine waste contaminated headwaters of the Animas River, turning the river mustard-yellow. A toxic plume flowed through Durango and into the San Juan River in New Mexico. It spread through Navajo lands and into Utah, where the San Juan River meets the Colorado River.”
At the time, in late August 2015, Red Dirt Report noted that the U.S. government – with a long history of either disinterest or outright hostility toward Native communities – made a bad situation worse for the Navajos when they shipped oil-tainted well disposal tanks to the reservation as a way to get fresh water to the tribal members, now that the San Juan River – turned a sickening, mustard-yellow color - was temporarily poisoned with heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, beryllium and mercury.
Getting McCarthy to even bother to go out to the Four Corners region to see the disaster firsthand was nearly impossible, and her words and actions downplayed the scope and seriousness of the disaster. She was the same EPA administrator who testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that her agency did not cause the lead contamination problems in Flint, Michigan’s water supply.
However, the EPA’s Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, in October 2016, found that McCarthy’s EPA waited too long - seven months - to issue an emergency order in Flint, despite having enough information to issue an emergency order under the the guidelines of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The ever-defensive McCarthy repeatedly claimed the careless and clueless Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder “misled” her and the agency and told Congress, as reported in The New York Times in March 2016: “I wish we had gone further, I wish we had yelled from the treetops. But there is no way my agency created this problem.”
Give Gina McCarthy an award for "Passing the Buck." She will be one of the EPA heads that most people will be glad to forget.
A few months earlier, faced with the Gold King Mine disaster and the toxic pollution flowing in plumes downstream and into water supplies, McCarthy offered more “bureaucrat-ese” saying in a press release on Aug. 11, 2015 that the EPA was working “tirelessly” to respond to the Gold King Mine disaster and that “it pains me to see this happening.”
And yet she would not resign. She was an entrenched bureaucrat, supported by President Obama. And interestingly enough, after President Trump tapped Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the new EPA director, the culture at the EPA - while politically and philosophically different in many ways - has maintained its entrenched culture of protect the agency more than the environment it is tasked to protect.
And believe it or not, back in August, EPA Chief Pruitt came to Colorado to view the Gold King Mine disaster site firsthand, two years after it happened. Pruitt took a jab at Obama's EPA, saying they walked away from their responsibilities to the land and the people affected by this environmental catastrophe. Pruitt promised to make things rightand make sure that federal cleanup of the Gold King site and other mining sites would be a priority. Pruitt also said rejected damage claims from those affected by Gold King Mine would be reevaluated.
Where things stand, four months later, remains unclear. What we do know is that Pruitt is going to prioritize 10 new Superfund sites - out of more than 1,300 - and he was not sure if Gold King Mine would be on the list (it is a priority, The Denver Post noted this month, with animals like otters reportedly returning to the Animas River). It also remains unclear if Pruitt has met with Navajo leaders in the wake of all of this. The Navajos sued the EPA over the spill and are seeking $160 million in damages.
Sure, Pruitt is hobnobbing with the Centennial State's top GOP officials (same officials who send "state-authorized pollution" to neighboring Oklahoma in the form of legal marijuana, according to dimbulb and one-time drug warrior Pruitt), touting how much they are doing to patch up what Obama's EPA failed to do, but there are Native Americans downstream who appear to be forgotten in all of this. Perhaps, as Indian Country Today reported after the 2016 election that while Native Americans voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton, support for her was "mild," as she made no real effort to reach out to American Indian voters, beyond sending Vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine out to share her "forward" message. Republicans might want to take note of that, and that said, Pruitt's EPA should take Navajo concerns seriously going forward.
Of course Trump's insulting "Pocahontas" comments and indifference to Native concerns over Bears Ears National Monument in Utah don't help matters.
YELLOW WATER
The Navajos built a special website – it’s still up, check it out here for more information – called Operation Yellow Water, and the tribe was particularly critical of the serious bungling on the part of Obama’s EPA, noting that the “EPA failed to immediately warn the public about the crisis – it was a full day later that they finally begin issuing water use warning.” And it should be noted that both the Animas and San Juan rivers – the later flows into the Colorado River – “serve as a source for five water supply systems.”
And while an EPA inspector general found the agency not guilty of any wrongdoing, this past June, unsurprisingly, no recommendations for avoiding future problems were suggested in the OIG's report.
The Denver Post, meanwhile, notes that Gold King Mine is just one of many, many thousands of inactive mines in the American West - some shut down more than a century ago, but with pollutants still getting into the local ecology, noting that in 2016, a Colorado survey found that there were more than 140 toxic flows still unaddressed, poisoning more than 1,800 miles of waterways.
And with Trump's proposed EPA Superfund cuts, getting affected areas cleaned up - like Gold King Mine - may prove to be more difficult.
It's interesting, in light of Pruitt's failure to even mention the Native communities along the affected rivers in his following statement to The Denver Post: "Farmers and ranchers, business owners, the recreational activities that occur on the Animas River — all were impacted, and from my perspective it was a wrong that we need to make right.”
Like his boss Trump, Pruitt took another swipe at Obama and McCarthy: “The message here: We’re taking steps of accountability where the past administration took no steps,” Pruitt said.
Indeed. But there is so much still to do. But coming from the super-secretive and slick Scott Pruitt, his words will likely be followed by very little action.
CONES OF SILENCE AND SEWAGE-LADEN WATER FOUNTAINS
Last week, The Washington Post reported that Pruitt and a large entourage of sycophants flew to Morocco to promote natural gas, which seems utterly bizarre and unnecessary - and, frankly, counter to the duties and responsibilities of the EPA administrator.
But then in November, Pruitt took his staff to a high-end South Carolina resort to rub shoulders with the EPA-critical American Chemistry Council. And this on the taxpayer's dime. This follows the installation of Pruitt's Get Smart-worthy "cone of silence." Cost? $25,000. That's your money.
Aren't there polluted rivers and mountains to be cleaned up, Scotty?
So, Pruitt's eagerness to hide what he is doing while spending copious amounts on luxury travel for himself and all of his underlings, toadies and yes-men-and-women ... well, it's going to catch up with him. Particularly as it becomes clear that he has real contempt for the duties of the Environmental Protection Agency, increasingly referred to as the Environmental Pollution Agency, as poop-laden sewage explodes out of EPA office water fountains ... seriously!
Alarmingly, Scott Pruitt, according to this Daily Kos article “Scott Pruitt is Paranoid, Preposterous and Absolutely Out of Control,” reports that the EPA head – as shared to Daily Kos by anonymous EPA employees – say that Pruitt “often makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office, and he is accompanied, even at EPA headquarters, by armed guards, the first head of the agency to ever request round-the-clock security.”
Paranoid much, Scotty? These guys are totally losing their minds. So, do you think they have America's environmental protection at heart?
The Daily Kos, of course, is a liberal political blog. But they make some salient points. Such as: “If Republicans are genuinely concerned that someone in Washington is planning a coup, the guy who is obsessed with secrecy, meeting with foreign leaders for no apparent reason, and building a personal army might be a place to start.”
Democrats have been particularly critical of Pruitt’s unnecessary junkets and wasteful spending. Pruitt is known for his caviar-level tastes, and its leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many Americans.
“It seems strange that Administrator Pruitt would prioritize a trip to Morocco to discuss natural gas exports while there is no shortage of more pressing issues here in the U.S. that actually fall within the jurisdiction of the agency he leads,” said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “I presume Mr. Pruitt is aware his agency’s inspector general is conducting an investigation into his questionable travel, which makes his decision to take this trip an odd choice at best.”
Odd choice indeed. Hope the couscous was superb, Mr. Pruitt.
UP TAR CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE
And lest we forget the whole Tar Creek debacle in Picher, or as Politico appropriately calls it: "The Environmental Scandal in Scott Pruitt's Backyard."
Here, we are reminded of Pruitt's close ties to Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy (where RedDirtReport.com is blocked by the company server we are told) and his Tulsa-based pal and deranged, pigeon-slaughtering sociopath U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe are working hard for their good-ol' boy network and leaving struggling Oklahomans out in the (poisoned) dirt.
Writes Politico's Malcolm Burnley: "Tar Creek is also part of the environmental legacy of one of the state’s—and nation’s—leading politicians, Senator Jim Inhofe, and his longtime ally, Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general who is now head of President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency.
After the EPA struggled to clean up the area, in 2006, Inhofe endorsed a plan in which a trust overseen by local citizens would use federal dollars to purchase homes and businesses in the toxic region so residents could move elsewhere. Then, when the plan proved so problematic that it spawned more than a half-dozen civil lawsuits and an audit into possible criminal wrongdoing, Pruitt, as the state’s attorney general, invoked an exception to state freedom-of-information laws to keep the audit from being an open public record."
Continuing, Burnley writes: "Now, that decision is coming into new light as many Oklahomans clamor for the audit to be released, suggesting that its revelations will prove embarrassing to Inhofe, who played a key role in designing the buyout plan, and cast doubt on Pruitt’s decision not to move forward with charges. Last week, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit called Campaign for Accountability raised the stakes even further, filing suit in Oklahoma courts to force the release of the audit.
“If you take a look at Scott Pruitt’s record, you see a general disregard for transparency,” said Daniel Stevens, the group’s executive director. “I don’t think it’s outside our bounds to say that Pruitt is trying to hide evidence of criminal wrongdoing.”
Pruitt's shady behavior while Attorney General here in Oklahoma seems to have spread into his time at the EPA. And the Republicans who called for Gina McCarthy's head two years ago are turning a blind eye to Pruitt's baffling and disturbing behavior.
Why? It couldn't be political posturing could it? Or is it something else? Regardless, there needs to be an investigation into Pruitt's behavior as EPA Administrator and efforts made to find out who is really benefitting from his official decisions and why he is dodging transparency.
Recall back in February, Red Dirt Report reported on the Oklahoma City chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Media & Democracy sued Pruitt, then merely Trump's EPA nominee, for failing "to provide public access to official emails and other documents for more than two years." They also demanded that Pruitt not destroy the documents they were seeking.
As Oklahoma ACLU Executive Director Ryan Kiesel said at the time: "Pruitt's refusal to turn over these documents is unreasonable, unjustifiable. The lawsuit we filed today serves notice that when it comes to accountability and transparency, no government official is above the law."
But Scott Pruitt, once Oklahoma's top cop, as it were, does seem to think he is above the law and believes Trump and Inhofe will do anything to protect him.
What are you hiding Scott Pruitt?
http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/continuing-epa-blunders-highlight-culture-indifference-both-under-democrats-and
-
(ACC Mentioned) Upcoming US EPA Proposal Likely to Limit Recycled Inorganic Byproducts Reporting
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA plans to go ahead with a rule on chemical data reporting (CDR) requirements for recycled inorganic byproduct substances.
The move comes after a negotiated rulemaking, a process designed to get stakeholder consensus on a regulation, failed earlier this year.
During the negotiated rulemaking process and in subsequent comments, industry groups pushed to eliminate as many reporting requirements as possible. Representatives of environmental groups and states argued against expanding exemptions, and in some cases for tightening existing ones.
The CDR rule requires chemical manufacturers to report production volume and other information to the EPA every four years. Byproducts are covered if they have commercial value. This has the effect of discouraging recycling.
The new TSCA required the EPA to use the negotiated rulemaking process to develop a regulation "providing for limiting the reporting requirements … for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts" that are "subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed".
The goal was to develop and publish a proposed rule by June 2019 so that it could apply to the next CDR reporting cycle in 2020. But the committee called it quits on 14 September after three meetings had failed to reach a consensus.
However, industry groups argue the EPA is obliged to propose a reporting rule. But, in announcing the negotiations, the agency took the position that if they failed the EPA does not have to act.
On 12 October, the EPA requested comment on how it should proceed. However, the semiannual regulatory agenda released on 14 December suggests it has changed its position. This says that the agency must publish a proposed rule and this is expected in May 2018.Need for information debated
In lengthy comments submitted on behalf of 13 industry groups, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) argued the EPA has not "adequately justified the reasonableness of its current reporting requirements". And, it said, that inorganic byproducts are unlikely to ever become prioritised substances for evaluation under TSCA.
The ACC's pointed out that industry had pushed in the negotiations for the lifting of all reporting. Failing that, it wanted the elimination of reporting requirements "pertaining to processing and use information." If agreed, other industry proposals would have expanded the substances exempt from reporting by changing key definitions of what constitutes "extraction" of a byproduct.
The ACC comments also alleged that the EPA representatives at the negotiations had sided with environmental advocates against these industry proposals.
"In short, the other members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee rejected or placed unrealistic and restrictive conditions on all of the proposals put forward by the industry members on the basis that they would result in the loss of information needed for prioritisation and risk evaluation," it said. This was, the association argued, inconsistent with the directive to limit reporting requirements.
Comments submitted on behalf of environmental groups, an organisation of state environmental officials and tribal officials argued that expanding reporting exemptions would deprive the EPA of data needed to implement TSCA and said that even existing exemptions are problematic.
They said the appropriate way to reduce the burden is to improve the CDR system and eliminate redundant reporting requirements. They also argued for expanding reporting to downstream users. This, they say, would increase knowledge of byproduct substances and relieve manufacturers and importers of duty to report on what happens later in the distribution chain.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62742/upcoming-us-epa-proposal-likely-to-limit-recycled-inorganic-byproducts-reporting
-
Restrictions on Methylene Chloride, NMP, TCE Apparently Shelved by US EPA
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has signalled it is shelving proposals to restrict the use of the solvents methylene chloride (dichloromethane), n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and trichloroethylene (TCE).
The agency's new regulatory agenda, updated 14 December, also says the EPA does not expect to propose rules for reviewing confidential business information (CBI) claims related to TSCA inventory chemicals until 2019.
Section 6 of TSCA, which predates the 2016 amendments, gives the EPA power to ban or restrict a chemical if it concludes that it presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The agency issued three proposed section 6 rules in the Obama administration's final days in January 2017.
One would restrict the use of methylene chloride and NMP for all consumer and most commercial paint removal. Two separate proposals would prohibit the use of TCE in vapour degreasing and as an aerosol degreaser and spot cleaner.Updated agenda
On 14 December, the EPA, along with all federal agencies, published a semi-annual regulatory agenda that lists the status of pending proposals.
The methylene chloride/NMP rule, as well as the TCE proposal regarding vapour degreasing, were moved to the "long-term action" list of items the EPA does not plan to act on within a year, with no projected date for further action. When an agency does this, it often means it is abandoning the issue.
The second TCE rule had already been moved to "long-term action" when the regulatory agenda was last updated on 24 August.
The August version of the agenda indicated that the EPA intended to propose an amended proposal on methylene chloride and NMP, and some observers held out hope that the agency might proceed. The EPA held a 12 September workshop on the use of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing, which it had explicitly excluded from its initial rule.
"All three chemicals have been extensively studied and associated with both illness and death," Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney at the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC), wrote in his blog. "The next death(s) due to inhalation of methylene chloride will truly be on the hands of Scott Pruitt, Nancy Beck and President Trump."
Environmental groups characterised the new agenda as solid evidence that under the Trump administration, the EPA agency will not take any action on toxic chemicals that is not mandated.
"The EPA is moving forward on establishing general processes, initiating reviews of chemicals, and meeting direct mandates in the law that industry supports," wrote Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). "But almost across the board, the Trump EPA is slow-walking actions that would prohibit or limit companies' ability to make and use chemicals."
TCE, NMP and methylene chloride are still among the first ten substances undergoing risk evaluation under the new TSCA, and industry has argued that the EPA should defer to that process. Industry groups have attacked the section 6 proposals on procedural grounds and argued that the agency improperly relied on old risk assessments.CBI rules
The CBI regulation was also moved to the long-term agenda in the December update, although it is required by TSCA. The notice says the EPA expects to propose a rule in January 2019 and finalise it by the end of that year.
Companies were required to submit substantiating information for CBI claims by October. But the EPA has not set ongoing rules for how CBI claims will be evaluated or what it will report to the public.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62745/restrictions-on-methylene-chloride-nmp-tce-apparently-being-shelved-by-us-epa
-
Comment Deadline Extended for US Mercury Inventory Rules
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the comment period on proposed reporting requirements for a new mercury inventory.
The agency proposed rules in November as mandated by the 2016 TSCA amendments.
In a 19 December Federal Register notice, it has extended the comment deadline from 26 December to 11 January.
The EPA proposal says that the 2020 inventory – the first published under the new rules – will cover activities taking place in 2018. Data submissions will be due by 1 July 2019. Subsequent reports at three-year intervals will also cover the 12-month period two years earlier.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62746/comment-deadline-extended-for-us-mercury-inventory-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) Echa's MSC Agrees BPA is an Endocrine Disruptor in the Environment
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) has agreed with Germany's proposal to identify bisphenol A (BPA) as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of its endocrine disrupting properties causing probable serious effects in the environment. The MSC unanimously supported the proposal at its meeting on 11-15 December, with scientific evidence of "serious effects to the environment".
BPA is already on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs on two counts. Not only is it toxic to reproduction, but it also has endocrine-disrupting properties which cause probable serious effects to human health. The chemical is considered an endocrine disruptor under REACH Article 57f (equivalent level of concern to carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants).Responses
"The identification of BPA as an SVHC because of its endocrine properties for both humans and the environment is long overdue and is absolutely crucial in order to take appropriate regulatory actions to restrict its use in the future," says Natacha Cingotti, health and chemicals policy officer at NGO the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).
Trade association Plastics Europe, however, considers the decision is not justified. "It is not based on an appropriate weight-of-evidence approach," says Jasmin Bird from its polycarbonate/BPA group. "Furthermore, the decision is not in line with other regulatory assessments, such as the Water Framework Directive," she adds.
"Designation of BPA as an SVHC is not, by itself, an indication that BPA is a risk to the environment," says Steven Hentges, executive director of the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA global group.
"As BPA is one of the best tested substances in commerce, ample data on environmental hazards and exposure are already available to demonstrate that the very low levels of BPA found in the environment do not result in any significant environmental risk."
"In the following steps of the REACH process, risk management decisions must consider this scientific data along with the extensive socioeconomic benefits provided by polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, both polymeric materials based on BPA."Oestrogenic and thyroid modes of action
BPA elicits long-term effects across generations of aquatic species, states Echa's SVHC support document. Indeed, it adds, trans-generational effects have been observed for several fish species.
The document describes BPA as causing serious effects on reproduction and development through endocrine disruption in the environment. For example, studies suggest that the chemical can cause a complete sex reversal in fish, resulting in all-female phenotype populations.
BPA "clearly" acts as an oestrogen agonist in fish and potentially in amphibians too, says the Echa document. The oestrogenic mode of action is "unambiguously substantiated" by in vivo data in several species, it adds, while in vitro data also suggest that BPA binds to oestrogen receptors.
Meanwhile, BPA also acts as a thyroid antagonist in amphibians, and possibly in fish too.
In its discussions, the MSC also referred back to rodent tests in the French Annex XV dossier for BPA's human health effects. "Most of the information is on rats but of course it also can have an impact on mammals in the environment," says MSC chair Watze de Wolf.
The committee also considered supporting data from tests on invertebrates, which suggest adverse endocrine effects. "We do not yet fully understand the whole hormonal systems in invertebrates," says Dr de Wolf. However, the committee considered all data together to make its decision.
Finally, the support document points out that – based on current data and knowledge – it appears "difficult to derive and quantify a safe level of exposure for BPA, although it might exist".
NGOs are pushing for more action on BPA alternatives, such as bisphenol S (BPS). However, Ms Cingotti says: "Serious concerns exist about the adverse health and environmental effects of other bisphenols that are increasingly being used to replace BPA and these should also urgently be looked into in order to avoid cases of regrettable substitution and move towards truly safer alternatives."
Belgium is evaluating BPS as an endocrine disruptor under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap).
https://chemicalwatch.com/62741/echas-msc-agrees-bpa-is-an-endocrine-disruptor-in-the-environment
-
Echa Proposal for SME Free Access to REACH Data Rejected
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The REACH Directors' Contact Group (DCG) has rejected a proposal by Echa to grant small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) conditional free access to REACH data and joint submissions for the May 2018 registration deadline.
The DCG is an informal group of directors from the European Commission, Echa and industry associations. It was set up to respond to concerns arising from companies' REACH registration obligations.
Instead, at its meeting on 15 December, it recommended lead registrants and substance information exchange forum (Sief) managers offer first-time registrants the opportunity to make "an affordable lump sum payment". This could help "reduce the administrative burden" of joining an existing joint submission – and the risk of a data-sharing dispute, it said.
The DCG suggested three other actions:explore data-waiving arguments: companies should check whether they are exempted from providing (eco)toxicological data with their registration and could register only with physicochemical data. Those who can register with only physico-chemical data should get access to the data and joint submission at reduced or no costs;address situations caused by late data-sharing negotiations or pending dispute decisions: first-time registrants can file a data-sharing dispute with Echa if negotiations for data access have stalled. They will be able to submit their registration dossier while negotiations or the dispute process are ongoing. Echa will clarify how it will deal with these dossiers in January; andallow payment in instalments: if a one-time payment of the letter of access (LoA) is unaffordable for the first-time registrant – and they can justify why – lead registrants and Sief managers should consider granting the registrant the opportunity to pay in instalments.'Too little, too late'
The recommendations, which come less than six months before the registration deadline, are "too little, too late", UK Chemical Business Association (CBA) CEO Peter Newport said.
In 2013, CBA presented the idea to Echa and the European Commission of free access to LoAs for companies registering substances between one and ten tonnes, as well as staged payments.
"It is extremely frustrating," Mr Newport added, "that solutions identified four years ago have been kicked down the road to the point that less than six months before the deadline Echa and the Commission still cannot get anything substantive agreed."
He said once Echa’s proposal of free access became public, many companies evaluating the costs of registering were saying, "I’m not going to start doing a registration until I know what the situation is".
Echa has been busy gearing up for a last-minute push, but Echa "is also creating a last-minute push by its own inactivity," Mr Newport added. It is creating "a perfect storm".
The DCG recommendations apply only to access existing data for registering substances by the May 2018 deadline and not to sharing costs of creating new data or providing information, for example in response to Echa’s substance evaluation decision.Commissioner correspondence
At its 27 November meeting, the DCG issued a recommendation urging companies to improve efforts to communicate their registration intentions to customers. This came as Echa admitted the number of 'newly registered' substances under the deadline was less than expected and might not meet its earlier estimate.
SME trade body Ueapme expressed its concern about the size of the shortfall and on 14 December sent a letter to the Commission’s industry commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska and environment commissioner Karmenu Vella to reiterate this.
The letter expressed Ueapme’s "deepest concerns" about the "huge gap" of estimated substances still not registered, and said that while it recognised the DCG was "trying to build a safety net" Ueapme said it was "not sure this would be enough".
In case of a substance registration deficit on 1 June, Ueapme said a "more serious fall-back position", which also takes into account that many SMEs did not register "due to regulatory overload", is needed.
On 31 January 2018, Echa will host its REACH 2018 Stakeholders’ Day where first-time registrants can receive advice from the agency and industry experts.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62747/echa-proposal-for-sme-free-access-to-reach-data-rejected
-
California Lists N-Hexane under Prop 65
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed n-hexane under the state's Proposition 65 regulation. This requires manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers exposed to the substance.
N-hexane is used as a degreaser, a solvent component and a low-temperature thermometer filling.
The substance was considered at the 29 November meeting of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (Dartic) of Oehha's Science Advisory Board.
Acting as the state's qualified experts (SQE), the committee determined that n-hexane was clearly shown "through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause reproductive toxicity, based on the male reproductive endpoint".
Six members of the committee – the minimum number – voted yes on that point, two voted no and one abstained. All nine members agreed there was not sufficient evidence of female reproductive toxicity. On the question of developmental toxicity, three members voted yes, and six voted no.
Industry representatives made presentations to the board about both n-hexane and chlorpyrifos, a controversial pesticide, arguing that the existing research on the chemicals is not conclusive.
All eight Dartic members in attendance voted that chlorpyrifos has been shown to cause developmental toxicity and it was added to Proposition 65.
Both listings are effective as of 15 December, when the determinations were published.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62740/california-lists-n-hexane-under-prop-65
-
TBAC: Californian Panel Agrees Emissions Should Be Monitored
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Industrial emissions of industrial solvent tert-butyl acetate (TBAC) should be monitored to protect local residents, a key scientific panel in California has agreed.
The US state has been discussing potential cancer risks associated with the solvent, which is used industrially in coatings, adhesives, cleaners, degreasers and inks.
On the 13 December, the Air Resources Board's Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP) reviewed a inhalation cancer unit risk factor (IUR) for the substance. The panel "generally agreed" with the findings of the IUR document, while suggesting "minor changes", a spokesperson for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) told Chemical Watch. "TBAC is a carcinogen, is used in California and is likely to be emitted from industrial facilities," the spokesman said.
The IUR would be used in health risk assessments under the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act. Industrial sites would be required to quantify the amount of TBAC emitted, use that data to model air concentrations near the facility and calculate the increased cancer risks resulting from exposure. They would also be required to report emissions data to their local air district.
The document was previously reviewed by the SRP in December 2016 and subsequently revised in response to comments made by panel members.
Since then, chemical giant LyondellBasell has asked the panel "re-examine the relevant facts" relating to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity.
In a letter dated 2 March, the company said that "neither TBA [tert-butanol] nor TBAC pose a cancer risk to humans". It added that "Oehha is asking the SRP for only the second time ever, to sanction a cancer risk factor for a chemical that has not been determined to be a carcinogen by any authoritative agency".
TBAC is exempt from volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations in the US and Canada. It is also not listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP).
In its safety summary document for TBAC, LyondellBasell said that, because of the VOC exemption, the substance has in some applications replaced "more hazardous or environmentally harmful solvents".
The panel has delegated final review of the IUR document to SRP chair Michael Kleinman. The document will then have to be approved by Oehha director Lauren Zeise before being formally adopted.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62748/tbac-californian-panel-agrees-emissions-should-be-monitored
-
REACH to Be Converted into UK Law, Government Confirms
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Current EU chemicals law, including REACH, will be incorporated into UK law, Steve Baker, a junior minister in the UK’s Department for Exiting the European Union, has told MPs.
Speaking yesterday at a House of Commons debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill, he said it was not necessary to introduce a new clause to the Bill that sets out to ensure Britain participates in REACH after Brexit.
The government "will use the powers in this Bill to convert current EU chemicals law, including REACH, into domestic law". This will mean, he added, that the standards established by REACH "will continue to apply in the UK", and said he believes that renders the new clause – tabled by MP Mary Creagh, who is also chair of the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) – "unnecessary".
Also addressing MPs yesterday, Ms Creagh said the Bill is an attempt to cut and paste EU law into UK law, but the government "cannot do that for the chemicals industry – a vital industry to this country".
According to the EAC, the UK government has previously said that "up to a third of EU environmental law cannot simply be ‘copy-pasted’ into UK law and will require additional work to ensure that the UK maintains the current level of environmental protection".
At the start of the year, the EAC launched its second inquiry into the future of environmental law and policy and concluded that the UK government "fails to recognise" chemicals regulatory issues.
Clause NC61 said:the secretary of state must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the UK participates in the standards and procedures established by REACH after exit day; andsubject to the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, steps under subsection (1) may include regulations under section 17, or another provision of this Act, providing for full or partial participation of the UK in REACH.
The regulatory uncertainty over Brexit is "sending shockwaves" throughout the industry, she said, adding that membership of REACH "is essentially a passport to the global chemicals marketplace".
Environment secretary Michael Gove had recently told her that when the UK leaves it will be "regulated better", she said. And in November, Ms Creagh added, he told the EAC he is examining how he can use Echa and REACH to ensure Britain can trade freely.
"I’m telling him now we simply can’t. To leave and diverge will harm jobs, growth, manufacturing and investment in this country."
In addition, she said that Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association (CIA), had written to Mr Gove this month to express his concerns. He said leaving REACH "would seriously bring into question ten years of investment as registrations and authorisations that permit access to the single market would become non-existent on exit day".
Last month, a speech by Mr Baker at a Brexit conference hosted by the CIA was due to say that the government wants existing REACH registrations and authorisations to remain valid in both the EU and UK markets after Brexit.
Mr Baker pulled out of speaking at the last minute, but supplied his speaker's notes, which also said REACH has been a key topic of the opening phase of Brexit negotiations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62757/reach-to-be-converted-into-uk-law-government-confirms
-
Efsa Adapts BPA Evaluation Protocol After Public Comments
Dec 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has taken on board public comments and made significant changes to its protocol for the next re-evaluation of BPA. The protocol sets out the rules for selecting studies for a fresh hazard assessment of the substance. This will decide whether scientific evidence published since 2012 supports a temporary tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 4 micrograms/kg body weight/day.
Following the public consultation and a workshop, cross-sectional and single measurement human studies will now be included in the review. "The decision to include cross-sectional studies is a good move, because it means more evidence is available – even if it is not the strongest evidence – for detecting a potential toxicity signal in the data," said Paul Whaley, from Lancaster University, UK, who is also associate editor for systematic reviews at the journal Environment International.
"We have also expanded on and clarified how we will weigh the evidence, estimate our confidence in the results of the studies, and express the likelihood of effects," said Ursula Gundert-Remy, from Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, who chaired the international Efsa working group behind the protocol.
Efsa will also now evaluate confidence in evidence using an approach based on one developed by the US National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation (NTP/Ohat).Narrative approach
Some commenters had criticised the draft protocol's inclusion of a traditional 'narrative' approach for assessing some papers, rather than sticking solely to systematic methods.
Efsa now acknowledges that such approaches are "not as rigorous and methodologically sound as the use of systematic methodologies". However, it points out that authority procedures do permit them, especially when evaluations need to be done quickly and with limited resources.
For example, Efsa will resort to a narrative approach for cross-sectional studies, which collect data from a population at a specific point in time. The authority rules out using a systematic approach for these because it says they are unsuitable for establishing a causal dose-response relationship and for identifying a reference point for setting a full TDI.
"Compared to where we were in 2013, the change in methods is quite remarkable. Efsa, and particularly the methods group within Efsa, has been putting in a lot of work and made great strides," said Mr Whaley.
"There is no guarantee that the methods will end up being as easy to follow or transparently implemented as we might hope, but for now it's a good sign of progress. Even to be reading a protocol for a systematic-review based hazard assessment, which has been published prior to conduct of the assessment, is pretty amazing and almost unprecedented."
The US-based Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) is also generally happy with the revised protocol, having commented on the draft. However, it questions the fundamental idea of setting a TDI.
"We believe this task will be extremely difficult. In our experience, with such a large body of literature across so many health endpoints, establishment of a ‘safe level’ is like trying to hit a (decreasing) moving target. Such efforts will always lag behind the science, while people continue to be exposed to harmful levels. We support the newer idea of aiming for "near-zero exposures" said its senior scientist Johanna Rochester and Carol Kwiatkowski, executive director.
Efsa's expert Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) endorsed the updated protocol at its November meeting.
Next, Efsa will set up a new working group and begin the task of collecting scientific papers and data. These will include studies and a report from the US Clarity-BPA project, developed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Food and Drug Administration.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62744/efsa-adapts-bpa-evaluation-protocol-after-public-comments
-
Chevron Phillips Completes $6B Petrochemical Expansion
Dec 21, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Chevron Phillips Chemical said it completed construction of its $6 billion petrochemical expansion in the Houston area, although it's not expected to be fully up and running until springtime.
The Woodlands-based petrochemical company said it wrapped up heavy construction of the massive ethane cracker - the crown jewel of the expansion - at its Cedar Bayou complex in Baytown. The project was originally supposed to be be completed months ago but has faced delays, including flooding during Hurricane Harvey.
"With the mechanical completion of Cedar Bayou's ethane cracker, we are now on the cusp of completing the most transformative project in our company's history, our U.S. Gulf Coast petrochemical project," said Mark Lashier, president and chief executive officer of Chevron Phillips Chemical.
The ethane cracker - on a plot the size of 44 football fields - will separate a component of natural gas called ethane, which will provide the feedstock for some 1.5 million metric tons a year of ethylene, a common building block of plastics.
Chevron Phillips Chemical, a joint venture of Chevron and Phillips 66 of Houston, in September finished building its two new polyethylene plastics units southwest of Houston in Old Ocean by Phillips 66's Sweeny complex. The Old Ocean plant will take that ethylene produced in Baytown and turn it into plastic resin that's shipped both domestically and internationally.
The project is one of the biggest investments in the continuation of the petrochemical boom primarily along the Gulf Coast to take advantage of cheap and ample ethane derived from natural gas through the ongoing shale revolution.
The Chevron Phillips cracker includes eight giant furnaces that essentially heat up the ethane and cook it into ethylene.
Also in Baytown, Exxon Mobil is building a cracker with 1.5 million tons of capacity as well that's nearly completed. Exxon's new plastics plants are already finished in Mont Belvieu.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Chevron-Phillips-completes-6B-petrochemical-12446973.php
-
Surge in U.S. Shale Hedging to Boost Drilling in 2018
Dec 21, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Catherine Ngai
When oil prices rocketed towards $60 a barrel this fall, U.S. shale producers hedged more barrels of oil during the quarter than in at least three years, which could help propel the country to record crude production by next year.
More than 144 million barrels were added to hedges, after global oil markets <LCOc1> rallied by as much as $13 in the quarter. Higher prices help producers lock in profits for future sales.
That should guarantee that total production exceeds 10 million bpd in 2018, which would be an all-time record for U.S. drilling. Traders say growth next year will likely exceed government forecasts, heralding a record year that could pressure prices in the near term.
For oil traders, hedging data from shale companies serves as a leading indicator of future supplies.
"After a slow start in the first half of 2017, U.S. oil producers sped up hedging activities for their 2018 production in third quarter amid the rebound in crude oil prices," Citigroup analysts said in a note last week.
According to a Reuters analysis of hedging disclosures by the 30 largest U.S. shale firms, most rushed back into hedging in the three months to Sept. 30.
In total, 17 companies increased outstanding oil options, swaps or other derivatives positions by 144 million barrels between the second and third quarter. Another 10 companies decreased their hedging positions by 31 million barrels; three others did not hedge at all.
Together, the companies have nearly one-third more barrels hedged, or the equivalent of 129 million barrels, compared to the previous quarter.
Reuters compiled the data through information publicly available in quarterly regulatory filings.
Citigroup analysts said the third-quarter hedge ratio - the percentage of production where shale companies have locked in future sales - for 2018 jumped from 12 percent to 27 percent. For the same period in 2015 and 2016, producers had locked in 15 and 18 percent of the coming year, they said.
Several firms, including Hess Corp, Newfield Exploration Co and Marathon Oil Corp loaded up their hedges, and more than doubled volumes last quarter. Together, they added 74 million barrels.
Among the companies that rolled off the most include Anadarko Petroleum Corp and EP Energy.
All 30 firms contacted by Reuters either did not respond to a request for comment or referred to questions about strategy to recent earnings calls.
Shale firms are said to have continued adding to hedges in the fourth quarter. Swap dealer gross shorts data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [3067651SSHT], an indicator of producer hedging activity, touched a record in the most recent week.
Last week, a Texas-based producer was said to have hedged some 30,000 barrels per day (bpd) for 2018 in U.S. crude futures, according to two sources familiar with money flows.
PRODUCTION GROWTH
U.S total oil production is expected to rise by 780,000 bpd to 10.02 million bpd next year, which would be a new annual record, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Traders estimate that growth could be as high as 1.2 million bpd, with at least 500,000 bpd to 600,000 bpd out of Texas's prolific Permian basin alone.
That could complicate an extension by OPEC to curb global supplies through 2018 to keep prices low.
But forecasts for new output may be optimistic, said John Saucer, vice president of research and analysis at Mobius Risk Group in Houston.
"People have modeled in the absolute perfection when it comes to drilling. I think we'll see new growth, but there's a lot of evidence that getting new fracking and completion crews is tough," he said.
Drilled but uncompleted wells rose for a 12th straight month to a record in November, according to EIA data dating to December 2013.
Despite greater levels of hedging, and the rise in production, the U.S. crude forward curve remains in backwardation, a market structure where near-term prices are higher than those in the future.
On Wednesday, WTI for December 2019 was trading around $2.46 a barrel over WTI for December 2018 <CLZ8-Z9>. That spread, a popular trade, signals the health of the oil market.
That implies U.S. supply is unlikely to overwhelm global markets, Saucer said.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/12/21/business/21reuters-usa-oil-hedging.html?_r=0
-
2017 in Court: Regulations, Pipelines and Public Lands
Dec 21, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
It's been a litigious year in the oil and gas regulatory world, to say the least.
Battles between the Trump administration and its detractors dominated court dockets across the country. Top on the president's agenda over the past 12 months: regulatory rollbacks that sparked a legal frenzy.
Environmental groups boasted dozens of new lawsuits against agencies in 2017, while the oil and gas industry dusted off its old playbook for sympathetic leadership in Washington.
"It's hard to keep up with the drama of these things," said Kate Konschnik, who heads the climate and energy program at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Indeed, former President Obama's attempts to cut methane emissions, update royalties rules, and introduce new safety measures for oil and gas production have been targeted by a series of rollback efforts — some successful, some not.
Rivaling the deregulatory effort in complexity is the ballooning litigation over oil and gas infrastructure across the country. Courts are fielding countless complaints over pipeline build-outs, and litigants are making slow but notable progress in their efforts to force agencies to more closely consider impacts to the environment and property owners.
Meanwhile, many public lands skirmishes among the government, industry and environmentalists that started before President Trump took office have plodded ahead in the courts this year with heightened acrimony.
Big holdover battles include fights over how and when the government leases public lands for development, and whether certain areas should be kept off-limits.
Finally, a few sleeper cases are moving through the courts, drawing little attention now but promising high-stakes action in the coming year.Regulations
The Trump administration's efforts to slash regulations seen as stifling fossil fuel development overshadowed most other legal fights affecting oil and gas in 2017.
The biggest battles centered on rule rollbacks for methane emissions, hydraulic fracturing and royalty reform. The deregulatory efforts played out in stages, prompting layers of litigation along the way.
Environmentalists count their defense of Obama-era methane restrictions among their biggest victories of the year. Coalitions of environmental groups and supportive states were successful in defeating two preliminary attempts from the Trump administration to freeze or delay measures.
"We've been pleased to see courts rejecting Trump administration efforts to stay or repeal rules without going through the process they have to follow and defend their decisions to reverse these reasonable rules," Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman said.
After U.S. EPA used a Clean Air Act reconsideration process to sideline standards for new oil and gas operations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rebuked the agency and reinstated the requirements. EPA is now going through a longer public process to rethink the rule.
Meanwhile, a district court in California reversed BLM's attempt to use a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act — Section 705 — to stall measures to cut methane waste on public and tribal lands.
The decision mirrored a previous ruling from that court that struck down the Interior Department's similar effort to sideline an Obama-era fossil fuels valuation rule using APA 705.
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who represents the oil and gas industry in various litigation, said the agency's losses on APA 705 are the most significant rulings of the year.
"Not necessarily because the rules that they address are so critical," he said, "but I think that the court took a tool out of agencies' toolboxes."
Barron supported the application of APA 705 for the rules, arguing that it's important for Interior to have the flexibility to freeze a rule after challengers have filed suit and the agency sees merit in their claims.
"Let's say somebody files a claim like a week after a rule goes into effect, where the agency says: 'You know what, that is a good point. We didn't think of that. We should put this plan on hold while the litigation is pending,'" he said.
Interior appealed the methane decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, it has finalized a broader suspension of the rule, which sparked new lawsuits from environmentalists and states just this week.
Another big and confusing legal fight this year focused on Obama's 2015 rule for fracking on public and tribal lands. The long-running litigation took a sharp turn in the spring when the Trump administration announced plans to review the regulation.
Duke's Konschnik called it one of the most interesting cases of the year, highlighting "extreme views" from some Western states and other critics about the federal government's authority to regulate federal lands.
"That one encapsulates this real push to either privatize public lands or to really minimize the government's oversight of the use of those lands," she said.
The Trump administration has walked a fine line, backing away from the Obama rule but maintaining its position that BLM has authority to regulate fracking if it wants to.
In the fall, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the case even murkier with a procedural ruling that sidestepped the meat of the litigation but put the long-frozen regulation back in play.
The Trump administration is expected to finalize its repeal of the fracking rule next month, and — you guessed it — a new round of litigation will follow.Pipelines
The year in oil and gas litigation was also dominated by midstream battles over pipelines.
For once, news about oil pipelines largely took a back seat to gas pipeline fights. As natural gas infrastructure spreads, opponents are becoming more sophisticated and creative in their opposition.
In assorted East Coast battles, for example, environmentalists have challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's pipeline reviews, landowners have taken aim at eminent domain issues and Pennsylvania nuns have alleged religious freedom violations.
The result? Still not a lot of wins for pipeline opponents, but a growing understanding by FERC and pipeline builders that every step in the approval process will face scrutiny.
Gas pipeline opponents' biggest win came in a D.C. Circuit ruling in August that required regulators to more closely consider the climate impacts of a project in the Southeast.
Oil infrastructure also remains contentious, but the battles have moved more slowly.
The Dakota Access pipeline, for example, has been the subject of several significant court decisions in 2017. Federal judges earlier this year allowed the pipeline to be completed and stay in service but also cracked down on regulators.
In June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers had flubbed three areas of its environmental review for the project. Earlier this month, the court ordered pipeline backer Energy Transfer Partners LP to comply with added safety conditions while the Army Corps fixes its review.
Litigation over the similarly divisive Keystone XL pipeline is about to heat up. A district court in Montana last month rejected the Trump administration's requests to dismiss environmental challenges to the presidential approval of the project.
That means the State Department's environmental review will likely go under the microscope in the courtroom. Groups are also planning to challenge a new route approved by Nebraska regulators in November.Public lands
In addition to the battles affecting public lands regulations, court dockets have featured a steady stream of litigation over oil and gas leasing.
"Obviously it's been a dramatic year in public lands litigation," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Michael Saul said. "Although in some ways, the everyday flow of leasing and permitting actions and ensuing litigation has sort of remained the same, the big difference is obviously you see an administration totally and explicitly committed to fossil fuel development on public lands at all costs and dismantling every possible impediment to that."
The oil and gas industry, of course, frames it differently, celebrating the steady fall of what drillers consider to be red tape hamstringing development.
Some of 2017's cases are holdovers from previous years, including dueling battles over how the Interior Department conducts leasing.
The industry is pushing the government to make sure it is conducting quarterly sales, as required by the Mineral Leasing Act. The case has been on hold this year while environmentalists jockeyed for a spot in the litigation. A judge granted their request this week, and now the case will continue in New Mexico.
On the other side, environmentalists are still pushing an ambitious case that challenges the agency to consider broad, cumulative climate impacts of leasing decisions.
Their cause may be helped by some big court decisions dealing with another fossil fuel this year. In August, a district court in Montana ruled that federal regulators needed to look at broad impacts from coal development plans. And in September, the 10th Circuit slammed BLM for its "irrational" National Environmental Policy Act consideration of climate impacts from coal.
"Stepping back a little bit, those cases are part of a real shift in the NEPA law to acknowledge that climate change is not the frontiers of science," Saul said. "It's widely accepted science and reality."
Saul noted that some under-the-radar cases will put further pressure on the Trump administration in the coming year. In Nevada, for example, CBD and others are challenging BLM's decisions to lease wide swaths of public lands without considering specific impacts of fracking on the state's shallow aquifers and springs.
Another sleeper case for NEPA review of oil and gas development: litigation over offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean. Environmental groups say Interior hasn't closely considered fracking's impacts on Pacific waters and species. The case has been moving slowly through preliminary stages this year and will likely heat up in 2018.
Freeman, the Earthjustice attorney, vowed that environmental action in the courtroom is not likely to slow down.
"The American public doesn't want our natural heritage given over to the oil and gas industry," he said. "I think we expected these fights, and we anticipate these battles will continue next year."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/21/stories/1060069613
-
Regulators to Consider Changing Gas Pipeline Approval Policy
Dec 21, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said Thursday it would review its nearly two-decade-old policy for approving natural gas pipelines.
While the commission did not commit to any particular changes, the announcement is a win for environmentalists who have long complained that FERC acts as a “rubber stamp” and approves too many gas lines.
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre, who was a lawyer representing some of the companies that have applied for pipelines at the agency, announced the major initiative at the five-person commission’s meeting, his first since being sworn in two weeks ago.
“1999 was quite a while ago, particularly in the natural gas pipeline area. So much has changed. So much has changed in our entire industry, of course, since then,” McIntyre told reporters after the meeting, referring to the year that the current gas pipeline policy was set.
“But it would be hard to find an area that has changed more than natural gas and our pipeline industry.”
McIntyre, a Republican, is referring to the initiative as a “fresh look,” but clarified that he is not currently proposing changes to any part of the process.
“It’s a matter, we believe, of good governance, to take a fresh look at this area, and to give all stakeholders and the public an opportunity to weigh in on what they believe should be changed to our existing policies,” he said.
The other commissioners welcomed the initiative. Democrats Cheryl LaFleur and Rich Glick both said the agency ought to look at whether to change how it evaluates the market need for proposed projects and the greenhouse gas emissions from the eventual use of the gas transported.
“The commission should assess whether its current approach for evaluating environmental impacts for a proposed pipeline, including potential greenhouse gas emissions, requires modification,” said Glick.
Republican commissioners Rob Powelson and Neil Chatterjee agreed that the initiative is a good idea, but also defended the current way that the FERC evaluates pipelines.
“We don’t rubber-stamp interstate pipelines here at the commission,” he said. “I don’t want to sit here and kowtow to a certain constituency that might want to drive outcomes here. This is about giving everybody an opportunity to be heard.”
McIntyre said he is not yet ready to announce the particular format of the commission’s consideration process.
“But I guarantee you, whatever it is, it will be open and transparent and thorough, and we will invite the views of all stakeholders to ensure that we are doing everything we can to accurately and efficiently assess the pipeline applications that we receive and the process,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/366012-regulators-to-consider-changing-gas-pipeline-approval-policy
-
Study: Fracking Linked to Low Birth Weight in Babies
Dec 21, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
Babies of mothers who live near fracked natural gas wells are more likely to be born underweight, according to a new study of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania.
Researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that between 2004 and 2013, children born within roughly half a mile of wells drilled with hydraulic fracturing techniques had a 25 percent higher probability of low birth weight and significant declines in average birth weight.
The researchers saw lesser declines in birth weight and other measures of health in babies whose mothers lived from half a mile to two miles from fracking sites. They found little evidence of health effects at further distances.
The study estimates that nationwide, about 29,000 babies are born within half a mile of fracked wells each year. The researchers are economists, not specialists in children’s health, and it’s notoriously difficult to pinpoint specific causes of changes in birth weight. But their study adds to the mounting body of evidence that people living near fracking wells suffer increased risk of negative health impacts.
Why choose low birth weight as a health indicator? Newborns with low birth weight have a more difficult time in school, earn less as adults and more often turn to government assistance programs for financial support.
The study did not determine whether low birth weights were caused by air or water pollution, both of which are associated with oil and natural gas fracking. But the researchers said their findings seemed to point more to air pollution as the major factor.
Myriad air pollutants are emitted from fracking sites. They include sulfur dioxide, a major source of tiny particles of soot; volatile organic chemicals that create lung-damaging ozone; and other chemicals linked to cancer, nerve damage and birth defects. The most frequently emitted toxic pollutants from fracking wells are the so-called BTEX chemicals – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. Nationwide, fracking releases an estimated 9 million tonsof air pollutants a year.
This study and many others raise serious concerns with the health impacts of fracking and the oil and gas industry in general on our most vulnerable citizens. However, they do not assess the full costs of air pollution caused by fracking on families and society. Are the economic benefits of increased oil and gas production worth the cost to human health? Not on our balance sheet.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/12/study-fracking-linked-low-birth-weight-babies#.WjvlwVWWa6I
-
Nebraska Regulators Deny Request to Explore Different Keystone XL Route
Dec 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
TransCanada won't get another bite at the apple to change the Keystone XL oil pipeline's proposed route through Nebraska, as the state Public Service Commission (PSC) on Tuesday unanimously denied the company's request to consider a different path.
The PSC declined to reconsider its Nov. 20 order that approved the controversial pipeline, but established a new route for its portion traversing the state before interconnecting with the existing Keystone oil pipeline at the Kansas-Nebraska border.
TransCanada had hoped to amend the route specified in the PSC approval, so the denial is a potential setback in the Canadian company's plans to start construction of the project in the United States.
A TransCanada spokesperson on Wednesday told NGI's Shale Daily the company is reviewing the latest PSC decision to determine "the appropriate next steps" in Nebraska, but it continues to believe that Keystone XL "remains a viable project with strong commercial support," along with continuing federal and state/province support on both sides of the international border. Final federal approvals are expected early next year, he added.
Earlier this year, with encouragement from the Trump administration, TransCanada Corp. revived its cross-border project with an application to the PSC for seeking approval for a route through the state -- the most pivotal part of the $8 billion project.
A three-vote majority on the five-member PSC approved TransCanada’s route south across the state for the 830,000 b/d conduit to the Gulf of Mexico from Canada’s northern bitumen belt. At the time, Keystone XL's backers applauded the ruling but stopped short of setting construction or in-service target dates for the 1,179-mile line.
The PSC's approval did not include TransCanada's preferred route, instead approving an alternative that runs closer to existing pipeline rights-of-way where the existing portion of Keystone is located on its way to hubs at Patoka, IL and Cushing, OK. Opponents of the project argue that the route violates state law.
Following the final state approval last month, TransCanada executives indicated that the project appeared is still economically viable, although the pipeline company would need to more thoroughly review the PSC approval and conditions. CEO Russ Girling said they would focus on cost and scheduling impacts.
At an investors' conference last month, Girling said that an open season for the project that was launched in October has been successful, and TransCanada is confident that the company will sign "sufficient binding commitments" to advance the project.
In its latest action, the PSC also denied requests from Keystone XL opponents to reverse the approval, based on claims that state regulators exceeded their jurisdiction and denied due process to landowners affected by the choice of the new route.
If built, the pipeline would support long-held Canadian consensus projections of industry growth expressed in a recent supply/demand forecast by the National Energy Board (NEB). The NEB’s long-range outlook shows total oilsands plant gas use rising by 55% to 4.8 Bcf/d day in 2040 from the current 3.1 Bcf/d, propelled by bitumen output climbing to 4.5 million b/d from 2.5 million b/d.
The force driving oilsands consumption is expected to be increasing use of low-cost underground or in-situ production with gas-fired steam injections. The specialty’s fuel use is forecast to grow by 68% to 2.7 Bcf/d from 1.6 Bcf/d.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112826-nebraska-regulators-deny-request-to-explore-different-keystone-xl-route
-
FERC Seeks to Lower Cyber Incident Reporting Threshold
Dec 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC today proposed a rule that would require power plants and transmission operators to report additional cyber threats to the electric grid.
Margaret Scott, a staff member in FERC’s electric reliability office, told agency leaders that there was concern that the existing mandatory reporting requirements “may understate the true scope of cyber-related threat” partly because there were no reported cyber incidents in 2015 and 2016. The Department of Homeland Security responded to 59 cybersecurity incidents in the energy sector last year, she said, which includes the electric industry.
The proposal to lower mandatory reporting requirements would focus on systems that affect the operation of the bulk electric system rather than business-side IT system, said Kevin Ryan, a staffer in FERC’s general counsel’s office.
The proposal would attempt to set common information reporting requirements for cyber intrusions and attempted intrusions, directs the North American Electric Reliability Corp. with setting a deadline for reporting cyber incidents with DHS and other organizations, and to produce an anonymized report on electric cyber incidents.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Greens Launch Ads Against Trump Environmental Pick
Dec 21, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Sierra Club is running a Facebook advertising campaign to oppose Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump’s nominee for a key environmental policy position.
The nation’s largest green group says in the ads that Hartnett White is “uniquely unqualified” for the job as chairwoman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
“She’s said that believing in climate change is ‘a kind of paganism’ and dismissed carbon dioxide as a pollutant,” the ad says.
“Kathleen Hartnett White is a direct threat to Americans' health and safety and her nomination must be rejected,” Matthew Gravatt, the Sierra Club’s associate legislative director, said in a statement about the campaign.
The ad campaign came after Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he would object to any attempt by GOP leaders to allow Hartnett White’s nomination to extend into 2018.
Without unanimous consent to extend the nomination, Trump may have to re-nominate her, requiring her to start from square one, including a new vote in the Environment Committee.
“Throughout her nomination process, Kathleen Hartnett White has confirmed what her record clearly shows: her views are extreme, her words are staggeringly inappropriate and her disrespect for science and our nation’s chief environmental laws is a danger to public health,” Carper said in a Tuesday statement.
“Let’s start the new year off with a clean slate and allow President Trump the opportunity to nominate a leader for the Council on Environmental Quality who takes environmental laws and public health protections seriously.”
White, a senior fellow at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation and former chairwoman of the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, has been under fire for numerous controversial statements she’s made on environmental matters.
She’s compared environmental activism to “paganism,” called renewable energy “parasitic” and said carbon dioxide levels have not gone up “drastically” in recent years.
“Your positions are so far out of the mainstream [that] they’re not just outliers, they’re outrageous,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said at her confirmation hearing in November. “You are a fringe voice that denies science and economics and reality.”
The Environment Committee advanced her nomination later that month along party lines.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/365993-greens-launch-ads-against-trump-environmental-pick
-
The Biggest Climate Findings in 2017
Dec 21, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
As the potential effects of climate change are seen around the world — from starving polar bears to record-breaking storms — interest in climate science is soaring. Scientists are digging into the "how," "why" and "what's next" of global temperatures, melting ice, emission sources and sinks, changing weather patterns, and rising seas.
The last year has seen major breakthroughs and advancements in climate research. Here are some of the biggest findings reported by scientists in 2017.
1. Temperatures and carbon concentrations are breaking records
In January, both NOAA and NASA officially confirmed that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded. It's the third time in a row that record has been broken — 2015 and 2014 were both determined to be the hottest years ever observed.
Just two months later, in March, NOAA scientists announced that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are climbing at a record pace for the second year in a row. According to data recorded at the Mauna Loa Baseline Atmospheric Observatory in Hawaii, CO2 concentrations rose by a whopping 3 parts per million in both 2015 and 2016, well above the average annual jump of 2.3 ppm recorded throughout most of the last decade. Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the large-scale release of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide concentrations had averaged about 280 ppm. At the time the announcement was made, global carbon dioxide concentrations were resting at about 405 ppm and were expected to continue rising.
As 2017 draws to a close, scientists don't expect it will break 2016's temperature record. But they do think it will rank as one of the top two or three hottest years ever.
2. Record low sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica
Early March is around the time when Arctic sea ice typically reaches its maximum extent. Turns out it was the lowest max extent ever recorded in 2017, reaching just 470,000 square miles. For comparison, the average extent between 1981 and 2010 was about 5.57 million square miles. It's the third year in a row scientists have seen a record winter low in the Arctic.
Around the same time, scientists observed record low sea ice in the Antarctic. Granted, that's the time of year it typically hits its annual minimum — it's the opposite in the Southern Hemisphere as it is in the North — but scientists had never before observed such a low minimum in the region. By the end of February, when the ice losses finally began to taper off, there was only about 815,000 square miles of sea ice coverage.
While long-term sea ice declines in the Arctic have been fairly constant over the last few decades, the behavior of sea ice in Antarctica has been much less predictable. Just a few years ago, Antarctic sea ice had actually been expanding. It hit a record high in October 2014.
3. Sea-level rise is on the upswing
Multiple studies this year suggested that sea-level rise is occurring faster, or may be more severe in the future, than previous estimates indicate. One of the more dire of these was just published last week in the journal Earth's Future. It suggests that better accounting for some of the physical processes affecting ice loss in Antarctica could double the sea-level rise expected under severe climate change scenarios. Another paper, released in October, came to similar conclusions. It also assumes a severe future climate change trajectory, and it updated Antarctic ice sheet dynamics.
These are some of the grimmer portraits of the future published this year, and their most alarming predictions rely on high-emissions scenarios that are not necessarily guaranteed to occur. But even more tempered studies are suggesting that future sea-level rise could be worse than we thought. An April report from an Arctic monitoring program suggested that previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates for sea-level rise under both severe and moderate scenarios were likely too low.
Several studies this year have also suggested that the current rate of sea-level rise is steadily increasing. One of the most alarming of these found that the rate of global sea-level rise may have nearly tripled since the 1990s. Other recent studies have suggested more moderate, but still notable, growth. Increased ice loss from Greenland and parts of Antarctica are probably to blame, scientists say.
4. Speaking of ice, glaciers are calving like crazy
In July, one of the biggest icebergs ever recorded broke from Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf and began drifting out to sea. Dubbed "A68" by scientists, it's nearly the size of Delaware and contains about a trillion tons of ice. Just a few months later, in September, Antarctica's massive Pine Island Glacier — which already pours about 45 billion tons of ice each year into the ocean — calved an iceberg four times the size of Manhattan, or about 100 square miles.
These are some of the most remarkable glacier calving events recorded this year, but they're hardly the only ones. The U.S. Coast Guard announced this month that the number of icebergs recorded in the North Atlantic this year is nearly double what it was in 2016 — more than 1,000 total observed.
Generally speaking, it's natural for glaciers to lose large icebergs every now and then. But as both air and ocean temperatures rise, scientists are observing growing amounts of ice loss from both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and increasing instability among glaciers that back up to the sea. Even some glaciers that didn't lose Delaware-sized chunks of ice have exhibited other worrying activity. Earlier this year, NASA images revealed a large new ice crack in Greenland's enormous Petermann Glacier, which has already lost several gigantic icebergs over the last seven years.
5. Major discoveries about carbon
NOAA
Because trees and other plants naturally suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, forests are considered some of the most valuable carbon sinks on the planet. But a study, published this October in Science, provided a stark reminder that forests are easily threatened. And as they fall, they can release gasps of carbon. Using satellite data, researchers found that tropical forests — until recently thought to be one of the world's biggest carbon sinks — are actually a net carbon source. Due to deforestation and degradation, they're emitting about 400 million metric tons of carbon into the air each year.
Such studies are important for scientists who try to calculate the Earth's carbon budget — that is, how much carbon is going into and out of the atmosphere each year, and how much humans can still emit without overshooting global climate goals. There's still great uncertainty about many aspects of the Earth's carbon cycle, particularly when it comes to natural sinks like forests or the ocean.
But scientists are getting better at closing the gap. For instance, a report issued earlier this year by scientists with the Joint Global Change Research Institute suggested that methane emissions from livestock may be 11 percent higher than previous estimates suggested — a value that could help explain an ongoing scientific mystery about why atmospheric methane concentrations seem to be on the rise.
And another study, published this week in Nature, provides some new insight on the carbon-storing potential of global vegetation. It suggests that plants worldwide contain about 450 billion metric tons of stored carbon — and that if humans stopped clearing or degrading them, they could potentially store as much as 916 billion tons.
6. These disasters could not have occurred without warming
Every year, a special annual edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Societypublishes a roundup of studies investigating the influence of climate change on certain extreme weather events, like heat waves and floods. It's a rapidly growing field of climate science, and over the last 15 years, dozens of studies have concluded that climate change has been able to affect the severity or probability of certain events to some extent.
But this year marks the first time some of the papers concluded that an event could not have occurred — like, at all — in a world where global warming did not exist. The studies suggested that the record-breaking global temperatures in 2016, an extreme heat wave in Asia and a patch of unusually warm water in the Alaskan Gulf were only possible because of human-caused climate change.
Scientists say these are likely not the only events to occur strictly because of climate change. They're just the first to be discovered. But the research does suggest that we're now crossing another threshold by entering a world in which climate change is not only influencing the events that shape the planet, but is an essential component for some of them.
7. Global emissions are on the rise — again
A November report from the Global Carbon Project found that carbon dioxide emissions are growing again after being flat for three years. The findings have dashed experts' hopes that global emissions had possibly peaked for good.
The research, which was presented at the United Nations climate conference last month in Germany, projects that 2017 could see a 2 percent increase in the burning of fossil fuels, bringing this year's human-caused emissions up to about 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The reason for the uptick lies largely with China, the report suggests, where increases in the consumption of coal, oil and natural gas have driven its 2017 emissions up by about 3.5 percent.
Whether the growth will continue in the coming years remains to be seen. Scientists caution that it could take up to a decade of monitoring to determine whether the uptick is a glitch — or whether they're on another long-term upward spike.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/21/stories/1060069603
-
U.N. Leader Calls Warming a 'Threat Multiplier'
Dec 21, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres listed climate change as a chief national security concern yesterday, days after President Trump omitted it from his own list of threats.
In his opening remarks to the U.N. Security Council in New York, Guterres classed climate change with the North Korean nuclear threat and water scarcity as top drivers of global instability.
"Climate change has emerged as a threat multiplier," he said.
His statement mirrors the U.S. position throughout the Obama administration, when climate was routinely listed among the top security threats, and it echoes statements that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made during his Senate confirmation process earlier this year. But it diverges sharply from President Trump's position, outlined in his National Security Strategy released Monday. And the president said Monday that energy regulations cause instability. He also reiterated that the U.S. will leave the Paris Agreement.
The secretary-general, meanwhile, co-hosted a summit in the French capital earlier this month to celebrate the second anniversary of the Paris deal. He called on countries to "invest in the future, not the past."
Guterres' remarks yesterday come as the U.N. Security Council grapples with the idea of elevating climate change in its own agenda. The international community sees significant security implications related to climate change. The U.S. government, which holds a permanent seat on the council, was absent from recent meetings.
The issue of whether the council should involve itself with climate issues is controversial globally, not because members, apart from the U.S., doubt that climate change is driving mass migration, conflict and other problems, but because some nations don't want to give the council a broader purview.
The United States' exit from Paris might be one reason the issue is surfacing again.
"Every time the global climate diplomacy has flagged and seemed to stall out, countries that feel a sense of urgency have tried to push it into the council," said Ken Conca, a professor of international relations at American University. "But other countries are worried that that's a militarization or securitization of the issue that is not helpful for promoting global cooperation on the issue."
The Security Council is also seen to be too influenced by its permanent members, which include the U.S. and China but exclude Germany, India, Brazil and other global power players.
But calls for Security Council engagement on climate as drought, resource scarcity and natural disasters are seen as contributing to more hotspots globally. The council noted these impacts in a resolution on the Lake Chad region earlier this year.
While European countries, small island nations and others insist that the Security Council weigh in on climate change as a way of raising its profile, many developing countries want to leave climate issues to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, where all members have an equal voice.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/21/stories/1060069633
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