Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/27
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fossil Fuel Companies Will Invest $180 Billion in New Plastics Feedstock Facilities
Dec 27, 2017 | CleanTechnica
By Steve Hanley
The shale gas fracking revolution that began in the United States a decade ago has been one of the worst disasters for the environment since our Canadian friends figured out how to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands. -
Is Trump Delivering 'Energy Dominance'?
Dec 27, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
President Donald Trump's pledge to establish U.S. "energy dominance" has been a key pillar of his America First platform, but after a year in office, his efforts seem destined to have only a modest impact on oil and gas production while setting back some of the fastest growing energy technologies. -
Court Won't Reconsider Dismissing Case against Obama Fracking Rule
Dec 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
An appeals court declined Wednesday to reconsider its September decision that undid a previous court ruling overturning the Obama administration’s fracking rule for federal land. -
In His Efforts to Delay the EPA Methane Rule, Pruitt Rejects American Ingenuity
Dec 27, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Isabel Mogstad
We hope our leaders have the public’s best interest in mind. Unfortunately, instead of using sound science, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears to be making decisions based on the influence of the worst actors in the oil and gas industry. -
Senators Demand USDOT Hold Railroads Accountable for PTC
Dec 27, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
U.S. senators representing Washington, Oregon and other states have called on U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to hold railroads "accountable" when they fail to implement positive train control (PTC) and other safety measures. -
In 2017, the White House Abandoned the Environment and Public Health
Dec 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John O'Grady
For those of us who care about public health and the environment, 2017 was the worst year on record. It was a year filled with science denial and public safety reversals.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fossil Fuel Companies Will Invest $180 Billion in New Plastics Feedstock Facilities
Dec 27, 2017 | CleanTechnica
By Steve Hanley
The shale gas fracking revolution that began in the United States a decade ago has been one of the worst disasters for the environment since our Canadian friends figured out how to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands. The gas obtained has some benefits. When burned, it emits fewer carbon emissions than coal. And it is so cheap, it has undercut the price of coal, making coal-fired generating plants unprofitable.
But the list of benefits ends there. Fracking creates millions of gallons of highly toxic wastewater which is pumped back underground, putting aquifers that millions of people depend on for drinking water at risk. It causes earthquakes in the surrounding area and makes the water from many wells undrinkable. In some cases, the gunk coming out of people’s faucets is actually flammable. Lastly, fracking releases millions of tons of methane — a greenhouse gas 12 times more harmful than carbon dioxide — into the atmosphere.
Shale gas is the poster child for an economic system that assigns no costs to the harm done to people and the environment. Fracking companies are free to rape and pillage the land to their hearts’ content without paying one penny in compensation, just like coal companies and oil companies. The result is a grossly distorted system that privatizes all the profits and socializes all the costs.
Because shale gas is so inexpensive, it has become the preferred choice for making plastics. Hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons. The same basic chemistry that makes plastics from oil can also be modified to make them from shale gas. Of course, it can also make them from plants, but where’s the profit for fossil fuel companies from doing that?
The petrochemical companies have invested about $186 billion in 318 new facilities to turn shale gas into feedstocks for plastics since 2010, according to the American Chemistry Council. Half have already been completed, and the other half are in the planning stages. As a result, production of plastics is set to rise 40% from today’s levels over the next 10 years. And who is behind all that investment? The usual suspects when it comes to the fossil fuel industry — Exxon Mobil Chemicals and Shell Chemicals head the list.
Never mind that soon there will soon be more plastics in the world’s oceans than fish. Never mind that microplastics are now found in seafood grown in parts of the ocean previously thought to be pristine. Forget the beaches of uninhabited islands thousands of miles away from shipping lanes that are heaped high with discarded plastics. Pay no attention to the treehuggers who bemoan the ever mounting piles of discarded plastics that threaten to bury whole civilizations beneath them. There are profits to be made and shareholders whose interests are more important than human health or the environment.
“I can summarize [the boom in plastics facilities] in two words,” Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council tells The Guardian. “Shale gas. There has been a revolution in the US with the shale gas technologies, with the fracking, the horizontal drilling. The cost of our raw material base has gone down by roughly two thirds.” You can almost see Mr. Swift rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of all that money waiting to me made. No moral qualms will be allowed to interfere with the business of squeezing profits from one of the most polluting industries on earth — what’s left of it.
Others are less enthusiastic. Steven Feit is a spokesperson for the Center for Environmental International Law, which has researched the impact of the US shale boom on plastics. “The link between the shale gas boom in the United States and the ongoing — and accelerating — global plastics crisis cannot be ignored,” he says. “In the US, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to expand plastic production capacity. All this buildout, if allowed to proceed, will flood the global market with even more disposable, unmanageable plastic for decades to come.”
While much of the new shale gas facilities are located in the United States, the feedstocks are now finding their way to other countries. Industry giant Ineos is shipping them to Europe and plans to being transporting them to a new petrochemical cracking facility in Taixing, China beginning in 2019.
Roland Geyer of the University of California – Santa Barbara, was the lead author of a study published earlier this year that found more than 8 billion tons of plastics have been produced since the 1950s and that the majority of them have ended up in landfills and the oceans. The report warned that because most plastics need hundreds of years to break down, there is a very real risk of “near-permanent contamination” of the earth as the total amount of plastics produced climbs to a projected 34 billion tons by 2050. “We are on this enormous growth trajectory. There is no end in sight of the rate of this growth,” Geyer tells The Guardian. He says even his colleagues are largely unaware of the “sheer dimensions” of the crisis.
“We are increasingly smothering ecosystems in plastic and I am very worried that there may be all kinds of unintended, adverse consequences that we will only find out about once it is too late,” Geyer adds. “I am now all but convinced that the plastic waste/pollution problem will remain unmanageable without serious source reduction efforts. Building out production capacity is obviously the opposite of source reduction.”
Not to worry, counsels Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council. He tells The Guardian with a straight face, “Advanced plastics enable us to do more with less in in almost every facet of life and commerce. From reducing packaging, to driving lighter cars, to living in more fuel efficient homes, plastics help us reduce energy use, carbon emissions, and waste.”
The Council, spouting the same excuses that are now commonplace in the Trumpian dystopia, says plastics are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs and contribute to vital products from medical supplies to auto parts, piping, and technology. He neglects to mention that many plastics can be made from plant-based sources which result in bio-degradable products.
Tunnel vision is the overarching hallmark of American industry. If you can dump tons of manure onto your neighbor’s lawn without financial penalty, where’s the harm, especially if jobs are created as a result? Blinded by the lure of profits, people like Russell are incapable of recognizing the absurdity of their arguments.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/27/fossil-fuel-companies-will-invest-180-billion-new-plastics-feedstock-facilities/
-
Is Trump Delivering 'Energy Dominance'?
Dec 27, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
President Donald Trump's pledge to establish U.S. "energy dominance" has been a key pillar of his America First platform, but after a year in office, his efforts seem destined to have only a modest impact on oil and gas production while setting back some of the fastest growing energy technologies.
Trump's call for energy dominance dates back to his May 2016 campaign rally in North Dakota, and pushing for energy production growth was the subject of one of his first executive orders. That directive was designed to unshackle the industry from what Republicans had decried as the burdens placed by the Obama administration on fossil fuel companies.
“They put American energy under lock and key,” Trump said of the Obama administration in a speech unveiling the National Security Strategy earlier this month. “We have unlocked America’s vast energy resources.”
The good news for Trump is that the country is ending 2017 with record high oil and gas production. But the bad news is that the surge in energy output that started a decade ago may be nearing a plateau, and some experts worry that Trump’s policies will hinder the shift to newer technologies that are likely to play a central role in the global economy in the coming years.
That includes renewable energy and electric vehicles, which could suffer setbacks if Trump erects trade barriers to solar imports and rolls back the aggressive vehicle fuel economy rules put in place under the Obama administration that experts say are crucial to driving investments in electric vehicles.
“The highest growing energy sources in the world are emerging technologies — electric vehicles and renewables — and this administration has proposed slashing the budget for clean energy,” said Jason Bordoff, founding director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “We need to continue to invest in tomorrow's technologies, not only the ones we’re using today.”
U.S. oil production has nearly doubled during the past 10 years to an estimated 9.2 million barrels per day in 2017, and natural gas output has climbed by about 5 percent over that period to 73.5 billion cubic feet per day this year, a result of the massive investments by companies to deploy hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies to unlock the resources trapped in shale rock. And now, industry consultants Wood MacKenzie are forecasting production will flatten outat 11.5 million barrels a day by 2026.
While adding another 2 million barrels a day to U.S. production is significant, it's a far cry from what Trump claimed at a rally in Pensacola, Fla., this month, when he said, "We are pursuing American energy dominance. And by the end of this year we will be totally self-sufficient." Even with the rising oil production, the U.S. imports nearly 8 million barrels of crude per day.
Trump’s big bet is that cutting regulations and opening up areas that have long been closed off for drilling will boost oil and gas production even further. But the federal government’s influence mainly extends to federal lands, so there may be little effect on the industry that is mostly clustered on private property in west Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, analysts said.
“Shale resources are on private and state-owned lands, so that’s where economic resources are,” said Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy Nick Loris. “Because we were fortunate that the shale plays were on state and privately owned lands, we are already energy dominant.”
Interior Department records show that companies have pulled back on the amount of federal land they’ve sought for drilling since 2006, when oil prices reached a peak near $145 a barrel. After the latest drop in prices in 2014, the number of oil and gas leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management fell to just 520 in 2016, the latest year for which information is available, far below the 3,746 it approved in 2006.
The number of wells drilled on federal land peaked at 5,343 in fiscal year 2007 before steadily dwindling to 847 last year, a decline that's in line with the drop in the U.S. oil price benchmark. But it also represents a relative pittance in overall U.S. drilling activity: Exxon Mobil and other companies started 38,186 wells throughout the country in 2008, a number that only experienced a prolonged significant drop when it fell to 19,014 in 2015 , according to data from S&P Platts Global. The number was 16,806 near the end of December 2017.
The Trump administration's effort to draw companies back onto federal land has so far been a bust. In December, Interior offered every acre it had available in Alaska to drilling companies. Only two companies bid — ConocoPhillips and Anadarko Petroleum — yielding a modest $1.2 million for the federal coffers according to auction results data.
And with oil prices now at little more than a third of their June 2008 peak, expensive drilling operations in the federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico also lost their luster just as the shale gas boom starting to gain traction onshore. In March 2013, companies bid $1.2 billion for 1.7 million acres just in the central Gulf region, far more demand than the August sale for the entirety of the Gulf of Mexico that drew just $121 million for 508,096 acres.
Still, energy industry lobbyists contend that opening more federal acres to drilling is keeping in the spirit of a free market. Oil and gas companies may not need the acres today, but would prefer to have them on hand in case oil demand picks up, said Chris Guith, senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute.
“Some areas might not garner initial interest,” Guith said. “But I’d prefer that possibility to there being great interest but regulators preventing access.”
Trump has also said his approvals of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline have helped U.S. move toward energy dominance. While Dakota Access has been delivering oil from North Dakota to the Midwest, Keystone XL has still not started construction, and its developer, TransCanada, is still deciding whether to proceed after regulators in Nebraska approved added new restrictions on its route through the state.
Meanwhile, the administration is pushing exports of liquefied natural gas, even sending EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on an unusual trip to Morocco this month to pitch the fuel. That business could be promising, but so far, of the 11 LNG export projects approved under the Obama administration, only one, Cheniere’s Sabine Pass plant, has finished construction and started shipping.
The Trump administration's moves clearing the way for LNG shippers to deal directly with China, may offer an opportunity for LNG shipments grow and create more demand for U.S. gas, but so far they have come up short. Even an announcement of potential deal between China's Sinopec to buy into an Alaskan LNG project has drawn some skepticism, since several U.S. companies have previously walked away from the project, whose cost is believed to be far higher than the $43 billion estimated by Sinopec and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
European buyers have also been reluctant to commit to long-term contracts with U.S. LNG producers, and instead seem content to buy on the open market that is well supplied.
And part of the difficulties in winning new business could be partly to blame on Trump’s talk of dominating global energy markets, which has raised hackles in Europe, said Frank Verrastro, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“We always derided other countries such as Russia that used energy as a geopolitical lever,” Verrastro said. “Dominance suggests there is a subordinate role, and some people chafe at that.”
Trump has pointed to a bounce in coal production as a victory for his policies, since output, which languished for years as coal-fired power plants shut down, grew eight percent during the first 11 months of this year to reach 719 million tons on the back of rising exports. But the Energy Information Administration expects that domestic coal production will fall next year “because of lower exports and no growth in coal consumption.”
So far, the one new coal mine to open this year, the Acosta Mine near Pittsburgh, will employ 70 people full-time to mine a type of coal used in making steel, not the more prevalent thermal coal.
While the administration is giving the next wave of renewable energy short shrift, solar, wind and other next-generation power sources are forecast to generate 10 percent of the country’s electricity this year, according to the EIA. Instead of looking to renewable to decrease the country's still-sizable dependency on oil imports, Trump has often dismissed the sector’s potential and proposed slashing federal research into lowering the cost of solar power projects, and has come under fire for illegally withholding grant money awarded to advance energy research projects.
Trump, a long time foe of wind power, also dismissed the technology at his recent rally in Florida. “The windmills are wonderful, but when the wind does not blow, it causes problems. ‘We have no energy this week,’” Trump said.
The biggest setback for renewables could come next month, when the administration is expected to erect tariffs on imports of solar panels, a move supported by Suniva, a company majority-owned by a Chinese firm, and the German-owned SolarWorld. Advocates of the trade barrier says it will level the playing field with Chinese solar manufacturers that have received state support, and help bolster U.S. panel manufacturing. But the U.S. solar industry and even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board are largely opposed to moves that will drive up the cost of solar, which has become competitive with coal and natural gas in many parts of the country.
"The solar industry created one in every 51 jobs last year, and grew 17 times faster than the rest of the economy," said Solar Energy Industries Association President and Chief Executive Abigail Ross Hopper. "President Trump can put America First and play a significant role in the growth of our industry by rejecting the tariff requests of two foreign-owned companies."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2017/12/is-trump-delivering-energy-dominance-250250
-
Court Won't Reconsider Dismissing Case against Obama Fracking Rule
Dec 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
An appeals court declined Wednesday to reconsider its September decision that undid a previous court ruling overturning the Obama administration’s fracking rule for federal land.
In a brief order that didn’t come with an explanation, the Denver-based Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said no judge was interested in pursuing the process for a second hearing.
The Wednesday order is mostly moot, since the Trump administration’s Interior Department is working to repeal the fracking regulation at issue.
But it could put Obama’s rule back into force. The Wednesday order doesn’t take effect until Jan. 12, giving the Trump administration two weeks to finish repealing the rule before it is revived.
In the original 2016 decision, a Wyoming federal court ruled that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was never given authority by Congress to regulate fracking.
In September, the circuit court dismissed an appeal of the Wyoming decision, saying it was moot because the Trump administration is repealing the rule.
But, in a victory for environmentalists who want a future Democratic president to reinstate the rule, the circuit court vacated the lower ruling, reasoning that it too is moot.
“Our proceeding to address whether the District Court erred in invalidating the BLM’s fracking regulation when the BLM has now commenced rescinding that same regulation appears to be a very wasteful use of limited judicial resources,” the higher court wrote.
The states and industry groups that oppose the original rule sought reconsideration of the dismissal.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/366576-court-wont-reconsider-dismissing-case-against-obama-fracking-rule
-
In His Efforts to Delay the EPA Methane Rule, Pruitt Rejects American Ingenuity
Dec 27, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Isabel Mogstad
We hope our leaders have the public’s best interest in mind. Unfortunately, instead of using sound science, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears to be making decisions based on the influence of the worst actors in the oil and gas industry.
Although in his recent Congressional testimony he said the outcome of his proposal to suspend and possibly roll back EPA’s methane rule is yet to be determined, the way he justifies the delay of these standards shows he lacks confidence in American industry’s ability to rise to a challenge. Specifically, Pruitt wants to suspend EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for 2 years longer (beyond the one year phase-in already provided by the Rule). He suggests that this extended suspension is justified in part because he says that the leak detection and repair industry isn’t capable of meeting the rule’s provisions requiring oil and gas companies to check for and repair methane leaks twice a year.
But Pruitt hasn’t provided any support for these claims and they are totally inconsistent with the engineers, servicemen, and tech developers already providing the services needed to find and fix these leaks. His argument also flies in the face of how our economy has innovated for centuries.
When we’ve needed common sense solutions, American innovation gets us there
Time and time again, American businesses get to work, innovate, and meet market demands, delivering improvements in health and the environment while businesses continue to grow.
For example, I worked at the global oilfield services company Schlumberger during the heyday of the hydraulic fracturing boom in the United States. During that time I saw that, alongside the companies drilling and completing wells, a remarkable number of small businesses emerged to meet additional service requirements that arose due to the increased activity. From companies that managed workover rigs to trucking companies that hauled proppant across state lines, businesses formed and expanded to meet this new demand.
And this is the case across the economy. For instance, for over a century the lightbulbs we used were barely more efficient than the one invented by Thomas Edison in 1879. But when the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required lightbulbs to get 25% more efficient, we sure didn’t go back to candles. American industry innovated and the market came up with LEDs.
Pruitt ignores a diverse and robust methane mitigation industry
In the case of methane mitigation, American workers are innovating, delivering benefits, and reducing costs as a result.
There are currently over 130 firms, operating in almost every state, providing the services and technology needed to find and fix methane leaks.
These companies, whose services include conducting leak detection in the field, manufacturing the infrared cameras needed for these surveys and much more, provide important services to oil and gas companies big and small. Because methane is the main component of natural gas, these firms help the oil and gas industry save money, get more product to the customer, and reduce energy waste.
Methane mitigation companies range from firms such as EMSI, which employs hundreds of dedicated LDAR professionals, to one man operations, where an entrepreneur with an infrared camera is helping local oil and gas companies manage their emissions.
In conversations with those in this industry, firms have confirmed substantial growth in demand for their services since the EPA rules went into effect. Suspending these rules would cause a wave of uncertainty for both oil and gas producers, as well as their service providers, in addition to wasting more American resources.
Others will lead if America doesn’t
Another recent report found that methane mitigation in North America is not limited to the United States. Canada has a robust methane mitigation industry, one that is poised for steady growth as new national and provincial regulations come into effect. If we reverse course now, we may find ourselves lagging behind our neighbors to the north in providing the services needed for an efficient industry.
Not the American way
In proposing to suspend the EPA methane rules, Scott Pruitt is responding to the pessimism of the worst actors in industry. This thinking does not represent what’s best about America.
I’ve worked in the field, and also had the opportunity to talk with many methane mitigation companies. This is what I’ve seen: The industry is thriving; LDAR companies are working with industry clients to meet demand; and, with the right market signals, LDAR service companies can and will continue to expand.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/12/27/in-his-efforts-to-delay-the-epa-methane-rule-pruitt-rejects-american-ingenuity/
-
Senators Demand USDOT Hold Railroads Accountable for PTC
Dec 27, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
U.S. senators representing Washington, Oregon and other states have called on U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to hold railroads "accountable" when they fail to implement positive train control (PTC) and other safety measures.
In light of the deadly Amtrak Cascades derailment near Seattle last week, U.S. Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and several other U.S. senators wrote to Chao and demanded a status report on railroads' implementation of positive train control (PTC), a train-crash prevention technology that Congress has mandated railroads to implement by Dec. 31, 2018.
The senators' letter followed the Dec. 18 derailment of the inaugural run of the Amtrak Cascades 501 train in DuPont, Wash. The accident resulted in three fatalities and dozens of injuries. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators have said PTC was not operational on the route.
"Since NTSB first recommended PTC, more than 300 people have died, thousands have been injured and millions of dollars in property damages have been incurred," the senators wrote in the letter.
"The PTC deadline is now almost one year away. ... It is imperative that railroads complete implementation before the deadline. They must clearly understand that the consequences of failure will be stringent and prompt," the letter stated.
Congress mandated PTC in railway safety legislation passed in 2008. Initially, the legislation called for PTC to be implemented by the end of 2015. However, Congress extended the deadline to the end of 2018 or, under certain circumstances, the end of 2020.
The senators' letter asks Chao to report to them:
• which railroads will and won't meet the 2018 PTC deadline;
• the U.S. Department of Transportation's plans for penalizing railroads that miss the deadline;
• how the department is communicating its enforcement plans to the rail industry;
• how much funding for PTC implementation and other rail safety measures will be included in President Trump's yet-to-be-released infrastructure plan; and
• the status of USDOT's approval of funds and grants for PTC implementation.
Also signing the letter were Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Robert Casey Jr. (D-Penn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Senators-demand-USDOT-hold-railroads-accountable-for-PTC--53556
-
In 2017, the White House Abandoned the Environment and Public Health
Dec 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John O'Grady
For those of us who care about public health and the environment, 2017 was the worst year on record. It was a year filled with science denial and public safety reversals.
Frankly, it all started with the National Park Service. On Jan. 20, 2017, minutes after Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, the NPS tweeted a photo comparing Trump’s crowds with those at Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration. Trump’s criticism of the head of the National Park Service triggered a “resistance” movement of environmental social media accounts claiming authorship by “rogue” and anonymous U.S. government representatives.
On Jan. 24, President Trump kept his pledge to be the fossil fuel president by issuing an executive order clearing the way for the approval of the Dakota Access pipeline, previously held up under Obama. On the same day, the White House scrubbed its web pages of any mention of climate change.
For the next four months, Trump’s efforts to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations came fast and furious. On Feb. 17, the Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times and led a 27-state lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan, challenging its legality and claiming that lower emission levels would impose an undue burden, while maintaining a cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry. On Feb. 28, Trump announced review of the Clean Water Rule, which determines which streams are regulated under the Clean Water Act, signaling a Trump-era erosion of statutory protections for wetlands.
Meanwhile, EPA’s Office of Science and Technology removed the word “science” from its mission statement, and two days later, Pruitt cast doubt on carbon dioxide’s role in climate change as “very challenging.”
On the ides of March, Pruitt and Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chaoannounced EPA’s reexamination of the Obama-era fuel economy standards for vehicles with model years between 2022-25, enormously effective regulations that would lower vehicle emissions. As the administration made America more welcoming for oil and gas production, the State Department granted a permit for the contentious Keystone XL pipeline construction on March 24.
Then, Trump announced withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan, foretelling doom for continued U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement. The next day, Pruitt rejected a petition to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos on some 40,000 U.S. farms, which EPA scientists confirmed was associated with brain damage at low exposures. On March 31, Pruitt once again denied that humans cause climate change.
On April 7, Pruitt started the second quarter re-assigning EPA climate staffers, and barely a week later he announced EPA’s “back-to-basics” agenda as “protecting the environment by engaging with state, local, and tribal partners to create sensible regulations that enhance economic growth.” The next day, Pruitt called for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Days later, the Interior Department scrubbed climate change information online. On April 22, scientists gathered in Washington for the March for Science. On April 28, EPA wiped its website clean of climate science information and Trump signed an executive order to roll back bans on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.
Despite international public outcry, the administration, continued attacks on science. In early May, EPA dismissed members of the Board of Scientific Counselors, an 18-member advisory board that reviews EPA scientist research. Trump’s 2018 proposed budget slashed the EPA’s budget by 31 percent — a loss of 3,200 jobs. Somehow, the final budget is identical to the blueprint floated by the administration in March, which was pronounced dead on arrival by Congress.
June 1 brought the biggest environmental news of the year: the U.S. was officially withdrawing from the Paris climate deal, abandoning 194 other countries that promised to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions and relinquishing our leadership on the issue back to the world’s most dangerous polluter, China.
On July 25, EPA’s Superfund Task Force, led by Pruitt’s former banker, Albert Kelly, (whom the FDIC banned from banking for life for violating laws or regulations), announced 42 recommendations, all without producing a paper trail.
A week later, EPA abandoned its decision to delay Obama’s regulations on ozone. On Aug. 22, Trump suspended a study of health risks to residents near mountaintop removal coalmine sites. On Sept.14, the House passed a 2018 spending bill, a disaster for EPA scientists and engineers, cutting the appropriations for staff by 24 percent.
On Oct. 9, Pruitt declared that EPA will either eliminate or scale back the Clean Power Plan and claimed “the war on coal is over.” The Clean Power Plan mandated U.S. fossil fuel carbon emissions be cut by 32 percent from 2005 by 2030, shrinking the U.S. carbon footprint. On Oct. 30, in another unprecedented move to reduce the influence of non-profit scientists on EPA, Pruitt announced new ethical rules forbidding those serving on EPA’s science boards from receiving federal grants.
On Dec. 18, Trump announced climate change is no longer a national security threat. This ended decades of Pentagon policy and contradicted Defense Secretary James Mattis, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford and four other former top military commanders who were quoted in the defense bill Trump signed last week saying things such as, “Climate change is a national security issue.”
As the White House and Congress celebrated after enacting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the scientists who Pruitt banned from receiving grants when serving on advisory boards sued EPA over the policy. On Dec. 22, Trump signed tax reform into law, which includes a provision that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.
So, there you have it. At years end, Pruitt continues to challenge the two central Obama-era rules, the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule, while Trump doubles down to make his children and grandchildren’s generations more fossil fuel reliant, and isolates us from the rest of the world on climate leadership. How will it turn out? Stay tuned in 2018.
John O’Grady is president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Council of EPA Locals #238 representing over 9,000 bargaining unit employees at the U.S. EPA nationwide.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/366400-the-white-house-abandoned-the-environment-and-public-health-in
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested