Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/03
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Film Recycling Making Significant Progress
Jan 3, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Rick Lingle
PlasticsToday reported a month ago on industry efforts in recycling plastics films, wraps and bags, specifically when the Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) of the American Chemistry Council (Washington, D.C.) joined partners in Omaha to launch a new campaign to increase the recycling of those materials both for recycling and, in some instances, converting the materials into fuel. -
(ACC Mentioned) Follow The Money When It Comes To Trash
Jan 3, 2018 | Herald Review
By Pat Helmberger and Barb Veit
This frigid weather is a great time to do further research on plastic pollution and that’s what we’ve been doing. -
(ACC Mentioned) ILTA Continues Pressing DHS for Resolution to TWIC Reader Rule Issues
Jan 3, 2018 | Modern Bulk Transporter
The International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) continues to urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to publish a response to the May 2017 rulemaking petition for changes to the TWIC Reader Final Rule. -
Court Orders EPA to Revise Lead-Paint Rules
Jan 3, 2018 | USGlass Metal & Glazing
By Trey Barrineau
A federal appeals court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise its lead-paint standards within 90 days and write new rules within a year. -
Court Allows Fluoridation Case, Rebuking US EPA's TSCA Interpretation
Jan 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
A US federal court allowed a group of NGOs to pursue a lawsuit demanding the US EPA bans the addition of fluoride to drinking water. -
EPA Administrator Indicates Legacy Uses of Mesothelioma-Causing Asbestos May Be Reconsidered
Jan 3, 2018 | Mesothelioma.net
With asbestos well established as the single cause of malignant mesothelioma, as well as numerous other asbestos-related diseases, there is considerable interest in the outcome of the ongoing risk evaluation being conducted under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EU Workshop Discusses Medical Devices Regulation's Substitution Role
Jan 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
NGO Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) has published a report on a workshop it held at the European Parliament. The workshop looked at how provisions in the medical devices Regulation (MDR) can be used to achieve substitution of safer alternatives. -
European Alliance Website Makes Case for Flame-Retardant Free Furniture
Jan 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Campaign group the Alliance for the Case for Flame Retardant Free Furniture in Europe has launched a website to present its argument that the chemicals in furniture do more harm than good. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachia Underground Natural Gas Storage Clears 1st Test
Jan 3, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jonathan Mattise
Plans for an underground liquefied natural gas storage hub pegged as a major job creator for Appalachia have cleared their first big hurdle. -
Big Oil Investors Rethink Their Bets
Jan 3, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent and Nina Adam
Some big investors and banks are rethinking investments in an oil and gas industry wrestling with uncertain oil demand, government regulation and disruptive technology like electric vehicles. -
Pennsylvania Halts Construction of Controversial Pipeline
Jan 3, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Pennsylvania regulators ordered construction crews to stop work Wednesday on a controversial major pipeline after recording numerous environmental violations in the building process, including spills and well contamination. -
Trump Administration Says Railroads Must Meet Automatic-Braking-System Deadline
Jan 3, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
The Trump administration has fired a warning shot to the nation’s railroads, saying it plans to hold them to a December deadline to install an automatic braking system that might have prevented last month’s fatal Amtrak accident in Washington state, the Philadelphia derailment that killed eight passengers in 2015 and scores of other train wrecks. -
Chao Calls on Railroads to Speed up PTC Implementation
Jan 3, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao is urging Class Is, intercity passenger railroads and state and local transit agencies to implement positive train control (PTC) by the congressional deadline of Dec. 31. -
Trump Admin Misses Deadline for Emissions Report
Jan 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Trump administration has missed a New Year's Day deadline to report U.S. progress on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. -
A Bunch of House Republicans Accept Warming. Is It Real?
Jan 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Back in 2016, the Sierra Club was in South Florida to get out the vote during Rep. Carlos Curbelo's race. Curbelo, perhaps now the most vocal congressional Republican on climate change, was facing a challenge from a seasoned ex-lawmaker — the same one he'd ousted from office two years prior.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Film Recycling Making Significant Progress
Jan 3, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Rick Lingle
PlasticsToday reported a month ago on industry efforts in recycling plastics films, wraps and bags, specifically when the Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) of the American Chemistry Council (Washington, D.C.) joined partners in Omaha to launch a new campaign to increase the recycling of those materials both for recycling and, in some instances, converting the materials into fuel.
We wanted to get a broader picture view of flexible film collection and recycling developments from an industry insider, and tapped the insights of the Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the ACC, who provides an update into progress, current initiatives and a preview of what’s next in diverting flexible packaging from landfills.
Where does the collection of flexible materials stand today versus five years ago?
Russell: There have been significant advances in recycling of flexible film. ACC’s Plastics Division is working to expand opportunities to recycle two common types of flexible packaging: polyethylene-based film packaging and multi-material film packaging, such as pouches. Our WRAP program is helping to increase PE film recycling by raising consumer awareness that everyday used items can be recycled at more than 18,000 grocery and retail stores across the U.S. These include bags from produce, bread, and dry cleaning along with packaging from household paper products and beverage multipacks. Shipping pillows and bubble-style wraps, which we see a lot of this time of year, can also be recycled with film.
In addition, ACC’s research foundation is managing a project called Materials Recovery for the Future, which is conducting research aimed at recovering more film packaging, especially multi-material film, currently destined for landfill. So far, this initiative has shown that automated sorting technologies in use today can be optimized to capture flexible plastic packaging—potentially creating a new stream of recovered materials while improving the quality of other recycling streams (i.e., paper).
What’s the status for these programs?
Russell: The WRAP program launched in 2013 and is quickly gaining momentum. Today, WRAP programs are underway in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Vancouver, Washington; Mecklenburg County and Onslow County, North Carolina; and the State of Connecticut. We look forward to announcing in early in 2018 new WRAP programs in the northwest region and a major southeastern city. The program also received a big boost nationally this year, when U.S. EPA became an official WRAP partner.
Next: Consumer education and challenges
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/plastic-film-recycling-making-significant-progress/39153448258039
-
(ACC Mentioned) Follow The Money When It Comes To Trash
Jan 3, 2018 | Herald Review
By Pat Helmberger and Barb Veit
This frigid weather is a great time to do further research on plastic pollution and that’s what we’ve been doing.
We came across a revealing web site that made us take notice. It was a partial list of the African countries that have either a plastic bag ban or a fee. Eritrea began its ban in 2005, Rwanda in 2008. Cameroon, Mauritania, Morocco, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, South Africa and Mali soon followed. In Kenya there are serious penalties for using plastic bags. All around the world countries are taking aim at plastic bag pollution. Belgium, Germany, Spain, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, and Italy are among them. In the United States, only California and Hawaii have banned the bags statewide.
We wondered why our numbers are so dismal and decided to “Follow the Money.” It didn’t take long to discover a few answers to our query. One of the answers is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its offspring, American City County Exchange (ACCE). Their goal, according to The Nation, is to override local democracy when it threatens corporate interests. Their funding comes largely from wealthy petroleum corporations such as Koch Industries and Exxon.
They wield power through lawmakers who receive campaign donations from ALEC/ACCE corporate members, and then push their agenda. They’ve had success right here in environmentally friendly Minnesota. “Preemption” legislation in 2017 blocked local control on a range of issues including plastic bag bans. The American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for chemicals and plastic, is a contributor to lawmakers who will champion their agenda to stop plastic bag bans as well as other issues. Their members include Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon Petroleum, among others.
It defies imagination that any organization would pour millions of dollars into campaigns to continue trashing the planet. But that is what’s happening. In California, the American Progressive Bag Alliance, (a deceptive moniker) spent $5 million dollars in an effort to stop a plastic bag ban. Their campaign failed when California voters approved the ban in a 2016 referendum. That vote indicates how out-of-step many lawmakers and corporations are. Too often they refuse to look beyond the next election or corporate profits while constituents are looking - and working - toward a cleaner world for kids and grandkids.
If you are concerned about plastic pollution and the deaths of countless creatures from eating plastic or becoming entangled in it, check out contributors to your local and state lawmakers. In other words, follow the money.
Pat Helmberger and Barb Veit are co-chairs of the Grand Rapids Earth Circle’s Reusable Bag Committee.
http://www.grandrapidsmn.com/opinion/follow-the-money-when-it-comes-to-trash/article_7db16f6a-efff-11e7-83e5-8bad9ecfad95.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) ILTA Continues Pressing DHS for Resolution to TWIC Reader Rule Issues
Jan 3, 2018 | Modern Bulk Transporter
The International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) continues to urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to publish a response to the May 2017 rulemaking petition for changes to the TWIC Reader Final Rule. ILTA is seeking a three-year delay in the effective date and regulatory changes to align applicability of the final rule with the Coast Guard’s proposed rule.
ILTA, the American Chemistry Council, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute have requested a meeting with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in early January to discuss the extreme urgency of publishing a notice extending the compliance deadline. The Coast Guard’s statement in June 2017 that it would issue a three-year extension, coupled with the agency’s lack of official notice of that action to-date, has left the regulated industry unclear on whether compliance will be required by the August 23 effective date.
ILTA and its trade association partners have met with members of Congress and congressional committee staff asking them to apply additional pressure on DHS. ILTA, ACC and AFPM also have a meeting scheduled with Rear Admiral John Nadeau, assistant commandant for prevention policy, on January 23 to discuss this and other issues of concern.
http://www.bulktransporter.com/storage-terminals/ilta-continues-pressing-dhs-resolution-twic-reader-rule-issues
-
Court Orders EPA to Revise Lead-Paint Rules
Jan 3, 2018 | USGlass Metal & Glazing
By Trey Barrineau
A federal appeals court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise its lead-paint standards within 90 days and write new rules within a year.
The 2-1 decision last week by the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit came in response to environmental groups demanding that the EPA act upon a rulemaking petition it granted several years ago. The environmental groups involved in the legal action argued that the most up-to-date scientific research shows today’s standards for mitigating lead-based paint don’t go far enough to protect children. The court accepted that argument.
“The new information is clear in this record: the current standards for dust-lead hazard and lead-based paint hazard are insufficient to accomplish Congress’s goal” of reducing childhood exposure to lead, the court wrote in its opinion.
In their 2009 petition to the EPA, the environmental groups sought to reduce EPA’s lead-in-dust standard from 250 micograms per square foot to 100 micograms per square foot on interior window sills.
During oral arguments in June 2017, the EPA said it would take six years to develop new lead paint rules. The court rejected that claim and ordered the agency to take immediate action.
“The panel held that the EPA was under a duty stemming from the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 to update lead-based paint and dust-lead hazard standards in light of the obvious need, and a duty under the Administrative Procedure Act to fully respond to petitioners’ rulemaking petition,” the court wrote in its opinion.
An EPA spokesperson told The Hill newspaper last week that the agency would review the ruling, adding that officials would “continue to work diligently on a number of fronts to address issues surrounding childhood lead exposure from multiple sources.”
It’s unclear how the court’s ruling could affect the controversial Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP), which the Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) and other industry groups have been working to overhaul for several years.
“We have read the ruling and at this time, WDMA’s focus continues to be on resolving the ongoing issues with the RRP rule’s implementation, including the lack of a commercially available test kit and reinstating the opt-out provision,” said Kevin McKenney, director of government affairs with the WDMA. “We understand EPA has been instructed by the court to issue a proposed rule within 90 days, and we will be closely evaluating it when it is published.”
The EPA’s RRP rule requires any renovation work — including door and window replacements — that disturbs more than six square feet of a pre-1978 home’s interior to follow expensive work practices to protect residents from exposure to lead, which can be especially hazardous for little children. The work must be supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and completed by an EPA-certified renovation firm.
WDMA and other industry groups argue that the extra cost associated with lead-safety procedures prevents many homeowners in older buildings from replacing their windows, which often aren’t energy-efficient. At its 2017 legislative conference in Washington, D.C., WDMA urged members of Congress to sign a letter to the EPA asking the agency to consider changes to the rule, such as restoring the opt-out provision for homes without a child under the age of six or a pregnant woman. The lack of an accurate test kit for lead paint is also an issue that WDMA wants the EPA to address.
According to the EPA, approved test kits for the RRP rule have a failure rate of between 22.5 percent and 84 percent, and WDMA says false positives have led to millions of dollars in extra costs for homeowners. Additionally, the removal of the opt-out provision more than doubled the number of homes subject to the RRP rule.
https://www.usglassmag.com/2018/01/court-orders-epa-to-revise-lead-paint-rules/
-
Court Allows Fluoridation Case, Rebuking US EPA's TSCA Interpretation
Jan 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
A US federal court allowed a group of NGOs to pursue a lawsuit demanding the US EPA bans the addition of fluoride to drinking water. The 21 December ruling denied the agency's request to dismiss it.
The case could have broad implications as it concerns whether citizen petitions for chemical regulatory action under the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) must address all potential conditions of use – a position the court strongly rejected. It could also have implications for a separate legal dispute over the EPA’s implementation of TSCA’s risk evaluation mandates.
In February 2017, the EPA denied a petition by the following five organisations campaigning against fluoridation of drinking water:
Food and Water Watch;
American Academy of Environmental Medicine;
Fluoride Action Network;International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology;and
Moms Against Fluoridation
The agency disputed the scientific evidence of neurotoxicity that the NGOs presented. It also argued that under Section 21 of TSCA citizen petitions must include the same breadth of information the agency would need to perform a risk evaluation of a chemical under Section 6(b), and cannot focus only on a specific use of interest to the petitioners.
A lawsuit challenging the EPA's decision was filed on 18 April 2017.
The December ruling held that Section 21 references Section 6(a), which allows the EPA to act more quickly and directly when a chemical substance "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," rather than Section 6(b). This latter sets out the mandate for the agency to identify high and low priority chemicals and carry out risk evaluations under a structured, multi-year schedule. While Section 6(b) requires the EPA to assess "conditions of use" more broadly, the court held, Section 6(a) allows the agency to act on only one problematic use.
The EPA's interpretation "has no basis in the statutory text," the court said, and "would also undermine the role of Section 21 citizen petitions and the purpose of the TSCA".Risk evaluation process
The court also noted that the EPA’s argument in this case contradicts its own current interpretation of Section 6(b).
When the EPA issued its final framework rules for prioritisation and risk evaluation last June, one of the most controversial changes to the Obama administration’s proposal was reversing the agency’s approach to a substance's 'conditions of use'. Instead of calling for evaluation of all such conditions, the final rule gives the EPA power to exclude some uses from its analysis.
That regulation similarly allows a manufacturer requesting review under Section 6(b) to limit its request to specific conditions of use, creating what the court called "a disparity between citizen petitions and manufacturer requests."
NGOs filed petitions in August for court review of the final framework rules, arguing they do not faithfully implement the 2016 TSCA amendments. One of the major issues in dispute is what "conditions of use" must be considered in risk evaluation.
In that case, the NGOs are arguing that TSCA requires consideration of all possible uses – the interpretation the EPA wishes to apply to citizen petitions in the fluoride case.
The proceedings in the fluoride case may take on additional importance as it is being argued in a federal district court in California. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would hear an appeal of the eventual decision. This is the court that will decide the TSCA framework cases.
Further written arguments in the fluoride case are due on various dates in January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62808/court-allows-fluoridation-case-rebuking-us-epas-tsca-interpretation
-
EPA Administrator Indicates Legacy Uses of Mesothelioma-Causing Asbestos May Be Reconsidered
Jan 3, 2018 | Mesothelioma.net
With asbestos well established as the single cause of malignant mesothelioma, as well as numerous other asbestos-related diseases, there is considerable interest in the outcome of the ongoing risk evaluation being conducted under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt raised health advocates hopes recently when, during a meeting with the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee, he indicated that the agency may be rethinking its original decision to only review “current and prospective uses.” According to Pruitt, the agency is currently discussing also including the “legacy installed” building materials that have been blamed for so many dangerous exposures in recent years.
The question of these materials that are already in place gets to the heart of health concerns about asbestos, and the risks of people who are exposed to it being diagnosed with mesothelioma at a later date. According to asbestos abatement experts, asbestos in deteriorating buildings is “the most prevalent source of asbestos exposure to the general public.” Safety concerns about the residents of those buildings, renovators, demolition specialists and those disposing of the asbestos-contaminated materials would all be ignored under the EPA’s current interpretation of the TSCA, which gives the agency renewed authority to control the use of asbestos, or even to ban it outright. When questioned about this by New Jersey’s Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., Mr. Pruitt said, “You raise a meaningful concern.” He indicated that the agency’s personnel are currently reconsidering their current stance, and may decide to include legacy uses in their review.
The TSCA was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2016 by President Barack Obama. The law provided the EPA with the ability to select chemicals that are currently in use and review their safety under new reviews based exclusively on their health impact. Though there have been attempts to ban asbestos in the past, the powerful chemical lobbies have stopped them repeatedly, thus allowing asbestos use to continue.
Eliminating asbestos use in the United States would be a major step to eradicating malignant mesothelioma in the United States. If you or someone you love has been affected by this tragic illness, we can help. Call the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today. We can be reached at 1-800-692-8608.
https://mesothelioma.net/mesothelioma-news/epa-administrator-indicates-legacy-uses-mesothelioma-causing-asbestos-may-reconsidered/
-
EU Workshop Discusses Medical Devices Regulation's Substitution Role
Jan 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
NGO Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) has published a report on a workshop it held at the European Parliament. The workshop looked at how provisions in the medical devices Regulation (MDR) can be used to achieve substitution of safer alternatives.
These, the report says, mirror the REACH requirement for progressive substitution of the most dangerous chemicals when suitable alternatives have been identified.
At the 6 November event a range of stakeholders were asked whether they were fully aware of the Regulation's potential for substitution.
The workshop was hosted by MEP Michèle Rivasi.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62791/eu-workshop-discusses-medical-devices-regulations-substitution-role
-
European Alliance Website Makes Case for Flame-Retardant Free Furniture
Jan 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Campaign group the Alliance for the Case for Flame Retardant Free Furniture in Europe has launched a website to present its argument that the chemicals in furniture do more harm than good.
Alliance members range from environmental and health NGOs to industry, cancer organisations, firefighters and labour unions.
"Many scientific studies show that flame retardant chemicals pollute the environment and contaminate the food chain," the website says. "Evidence of any meaningful improvement in fire safety from their use in furniture is lacking, while they can increase smoke toxicity."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62838/european-alliance-website-makes-case-for-flame-retardant-free-furniture
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachia Underground Natural Gas Storage Clears 1st Test
Jan 3, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jonathan Mattise
Plans for an underground liquefied natural gas storage hub pegged as a major job creator for the chemical industry in struggling Appalachia have cleared their first big hurdle.
The Appalachia Storage & Trading Hub initiative got approval Wednesday for the first of two application phases for a $1.9 billion U.S. Department of Energy loan, the Appalachia Development Group LLC said in a news release. The group heading the project said it also aims to secure $1.4 billion through other financing.
The project has taken eight years to reach this point, and Appalachia Development Group CEO Steve Hedrick said it would take several more years to come to fruition. It’s still unclear how long the second phase of the application will take, and nothing’s guaranteed.
Hedrick said the initial approval is still a win for the large-scale project. The American Chemistry Council estimates the facility could attract up to $36 billion in new chemical and plastics industry investment and create 100,000 new area jobs.
That could be life-changing for people in economically downtrodden parts of Appalachia, the northern stretches of which are drilled for natural gas in Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville Shale formations, he said.
“I’d like for them to have the opportunity to have meaningful income, in a location where they want to live, and have an opportunity to be here, be it in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Kentucky,” said Hedrick, who noted that the hub’s location hasn’t been decided yet.
The project would include a piping system into the Ohio and Kanawha river valleys. Then a facility such as an ethane cracker could use the natural gas to produce ethylene, which is widely used in plastics and other chemical industries, Hedrick said. The liquefied natural gas is also expected to be exported internationally for use by U.S. allies, he added.
The storage hub faces opposition from the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and other environmental groups, saying it would create a major petrochemical region with public health dangers and contribute to global warming.
But the proposal has drawn plenty of interest from lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito and Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia, who hope to attract the project to their home state.
In November, state officials announced an agreement with China Energy Investment Corp. Ltd. for the company to invest $83.7 billion in shale gas development and chemical manufacturing in West Virginia over 20 years. Part of the focus is on underground storage of natural gas liquids and derivatives.
During President Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing, State Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher and China Energy President Ling Wen signed the memorandum as part of the U.S.-China trade mission and an overall $250 billion of planned Chinese investments in the U.S.
“The development and construction of a ‘hub’ to store these high value products in underground geologic formations could ultimately lead to a petrochemical manufacturing hub and a revitalization of the area’s manufacturing center,” Manchin said in a Senate subcommittee meeting in October.
Appalachia Development Group, based in Charleston, West Virginia, submitted the freshly approved first part of its federal loan application in September.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/appalachia-underground-natural-gas-storage-clears-1st-test/2018/01/03/905043d4-f0b4-11e7-95e3-eff284e71c8d_story.html?utm_term=.052f904d050b
-
Big Oil Investors Rethink Their Bets
Jan 3, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent and Nina Adam
Some big investors and banks are rethinking investments in an oil and gas industry wrestling with uncertain oil demand, government regulation and disruptive technology like electric vehicles.
The biggest is in Norway, where the government says it will decide this year whether to wind down its $1 trillion sovereign-wealth fund’s investments in the oil and gas sector. Its assets include multibillion-dollar stakes in Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM +1.12% , Royal Dutch ShellRDS.B +0.60% PLC, Chevron Corp. and BPBP +0.83% PLC.
Others, including French insurance giant AXA Group AXAHY 0.03% and Dutch bank ING GroepING +0.65% NV, are pulling back from parts of the industry that contribute most to climate change, like Canada’s oil sands. In a world where the heaviest polluting industries could be penalized, some investors say the financial risks of such investments could outweigh the rewards. For instance, Canada is introducing a carbon tax this year to limit greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands.
The moves are distinct from calls from environmentalists and so-called ethical investors for divestment from the oil industry, although those sentiments have been taken up by large, mainstream financial institutions more often since the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change. The World Bank said last month it will stop financing oil and gas exploration and drilling by 2019, in support of the Paris goals. French bank BNP Paribassays it will no longer finance some oil projects seen as environmentally damaging.
The trend resembles—on a smaller scale—the early investor movement against the coal industry, which was rocked by an explosion in production of cheap, cleaner-burning natural gas in the U.S. over the past decade. Norway’s parliament decided that the country’s sovereign-wealth fund should stop investing in companies with a heavy exposure to coal in 2015, ahead of the Paris agreement. The decision came against a backdrop of mounting scrutiny on the financial risk, as well as environmental impact, associated with coal.
Similar market forces are now applying pressure on oil.
Renewables—once hampered by high costs—have become cheap enough to compete with coal and gas in some instances. The U.K., France, China and India have signaled they plan to ban sales of vehicles with traditional combustion engines, undercutting a potential source of crude demand.
Norwegian officials say the current debate is entirely pragmatic. The country may be overexposed to a sector undergoing turbulent change by having both a large national oil company, Statoil AS A, and billion-dollar-plus holdings in other international oil companies.
“This is really a question of risk diversification,” Yngve Slyngstad, chief executive of Norges Bank Investment Management—which manages the fund—told The Wall Street Journal. Statoil’s profits and other energy-focused revenue in Norway is plowed into the fund and invested elsewhere.
Mr. Slyngstad said the transition from dependency on fossil fuels to alternatives like solar, wind and other renewables would take several decades. But he said investments in traditional oil companies should come with a “high-risk premium,” considering “all the uncertainty around the energy transition.”
The Norwegian concerns have “put those industries on alert,“ said Matt Christensen, global head of responsible investment at AXA’s asset-management arm. ”The risks which climate change presents are becoming more understood as existential in nature.”
To be sure, wholesale divestment from the oil and gas sector remains rare. The sheer size of oil giants like Exxon and Shell make it difficult for fund managers to say they will exclude them outright. And they have advantages over coal companies because oil is harder to replace quickly and natural gas is viewed by many as an emission-reducing fuel.
Big oil companies say they are doing enough now to manage the financial risk from climate change, moving their businesses more toward natural gas and experimenting with renewables and electricity.
“The current risk from climate change regulation, even in a restricted greenhouse gas scenario, is minimal and manageable over time,” a Chevron spokesman said.
In an interview, BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley said Norwegian officials had been “pretty clear with me” that their concerns weren’t about climate but about diversification. “I can’t argue with that really,” he said.
Norway’s oil fund owns over 2% of BP’s stock, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Any Norwegian oil divestment is likely to be carefully managed and take place over a number of years so as not to disrupt markets.
U.S. investors appear committed to the oil industry but have begun pressuring it to change. Last year, a task force—commissioned by the G-20 and including major financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase & Co and BlackRock Inc. —published guidelines pushing for better disclosure of the impact of climate change. Across the U.S., utilities and oil-and-gas companies faced shareholder revolts this summer as investors clamored for more information about how they view climate risk.
“We think we can have more influence from inside the tent,” said Rob Main who sits on the investment stewardship team of Vanguard Group, which holds $4.9 trillion under management.
This summer, it voted against the boards at Exxon and Occidental Petroleum , demanding more disclosure of the potential business risks presented by efforts to limit global warming in line with the Paris agreement.
Last month, Exxon capitulated to shareholder demands, agreeing to publish new details about how climate change could affect its business.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-oil-investors-rethink-their-bets-1514992061
-
Pennsylvania Halts Construction of Controversial Pipeline
Jan 3, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Pennsylvania regulators ordered construction crews to stop work Wednesday on a controversial major pipeline after recording numerous environmental violations in the building process, including spills and well contamination.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) accused Sunoco Pipeline of “egregious and willful violations” of environmental rules in building the Mariner East 2 pipeline.
The agency ordered the company to halt all work except some maintenance activities on the pipeline until it can demonstrate that it is abiding by all requirements from the permits the state granted.
“Until Sunoco can demonstrate that the permit conditions can and will be followed, DEP has no alternative but to suspend the permits,” DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell said in a statement. “We are living up to our promise to hold this project accountable to the strong protections in the permits.”
Sunoco is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based company that developed and operates the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline in the Great Plains.
The $2.5 billion natural gas liquids Mariner East 2 pipeline has been highly controversial among environmentalists and some property owners.
DEP alleges dozens of legal violations by Sunoco since May, including releases of fluids into waterways, multiple unauthorized uses of horizontal drilling, unauthorized construction over a creek, violation of an order to re-evaluate construction techniques and unauthorized construction in a wild trout fishery.
DEP said in its order that Sunoco’s “unlawful conduct ... demonstrates a lack of ability or intention on the part of Sunoco to comply” with relevant laws and permits, and that a suspension of the permits is necessary.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/367217-pennsylvania-halts-construction-of-controversial-pipeline
-
Trump Administration Says Railroads Must Meet Automatic-Braking-System Deadline
Jan 3, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
The Trump administration has fired a warning shot to the nation’s railroads, saying it plans to hold them to a December deadline to install an automatic braking system that might have prevented last month’s fatal Amtrak accident in Washington state, the Philadelphia derailment that killed eight passengers in 2015 and scores of other train wrecks.
The implementation of the system known as positive train control was postponed by Congress, which extended a deadline to have the systems in place from 2015 until December of this year and left open the possibility of an additional extension to 2020.
But Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao has warned the railroad industry that they are expected to meet the deadline at the end of this year.
“We are concerned that many of the nation’s railroads must greatly accelerate their efforts to achieve the congressionally mandate requirements,” Chao said in a letter addressed to the executive officer of each railroad.
A progress report released by the Federal Railroad Administration in September showed that some major railroads — notably BNSF Railway — had completed installation of onboard hardware, trackside sensors and trained crews to use them. Other big railroads, and some transit systems, lagged well behind.
Chao told the railroad executives of the need “to help create an increased level of urgency to underscore the imperative of meeting existing expectations for rolling out this critical rail-safety technology.”
The FRA said that eight of the 37 railroads required to install the systems have fully complied with the congressional mandate. Congress has granted the FRA leeway to approve extensions to 2020 for railroads who apply, provided that they have the necessary hardware in place.
There have been dozens of train wrecks that might have been avoided were positive train control in place, but the two Amtrak crashes in Washington state and Philadelphia stand in high relief because of the fatalities and mass injuries. In both cases, an engineer allowed the train to enter a curve at more than twice the posted speed limit.
Three people were killed last month and more than 100 injured in DuPont, Wash., when one of two engines and 12 cars derailed, many of the rail cars tumbling onto a busy interstate highway below.
Installing positive train control is a daunting task for the railroads, requiring that hardware be added in 25,000 locomotives and sensing trackers be place along the railway beds. The payoff is that it will help prevent train collisions and high-speed derailments.
When the industry appealed to Congress for relief from the looming deadline in 2015, it said it had already invested more than $6.5 billion, anticipated a total price tag of $10.6 billion, and needed additional time to put the system in place.
If the Trump administration remains steadfast, and Congress does not again buckle to railroad industry pressure, the year-end deadline and possible fines for those not in compliance, will bring closure to a long and arduous debate over railroad safety.
The National Transportation Safety Board says it has investigated 146 rail accidents since 1969 that PTC could have prevented, with a toll of 291 people killed and 6,574 people injured.
Congress was debating the need for positive train control in 2008. With their lobbyists in overdrive, the railroads might have persuaded lawmakers to delay the mandate. But in the middle of that debate, a head-on train collision in California killed 25 people and injured 102 others. The NTSB said PTC could have prevented the accident, and that moved Congress to settle on Dec. 31, 2015 as its deadline.
The Association of American Railroads, a trade group for the freight lines, has said that member railroads expect to meet the current deadline.
A number of transit agencies, which rely on passenger fares and government subsidies, are among those farthest behind in meeting the deadline, according to the September FRA report. While a number of them, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and Denver’s regional transit system are in full compliance, other’s like Maryland’s MARC line, the Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit appear well short of meeting the deadline.
A New Jersey Transit train crashed into a Hoboken station in 2016, killing a woman on the platform and injuring more than 100 passengers. While the NTSB final analysis of that wreck has not been issued, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in the aftermath of the crash asked whether positive train control would have brought to train to a halt after the engineer apparently dozed off at the controls.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/trump-administration-says-railroads-must-meet-automatic-braking-system-deadline/2018/01/03/a50f3584-f085-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.1e912b414819
-
Chao Calls on Railroads to Speed up PTC Implementation
Jan 3, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao is urging Class Is, intercity passenger railroads and state and local transit agencies to implement positive train control (PTC) by the congressional deadline of Dec. 31.
In letters to railroad executives, Chao said the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is concerned that many of the nation's railroads are behind in implementing the federally mandated PTC technology by the Dec. 31 deadline.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will work with the railroads "to help create an increased level of urgency to underscore the imperative of meeting existing timeline expectations for rolling out this critical rail safety technology," Chao wrote.
Dated Dec. 27, 2017, the letter follows last month's fatal Amtrak Cascades derailment in DuPont, Washington. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators have said the train was moving about 80 mph on a 30 mph area of track when the accident occurred. PTC was not operational on the route, according to the NTSB.
The train was on its inaugural run of service between Seattle and Portland, Oregon, when it derailed. Three people died and dozens of others were injured.
Last week, U.S. senators representing Washington, Oregon and other states called on Chao to hold railroads "accountable" when they fail to implement PTC and other safety measures.
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.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Chao-calls-on-railroads-to-speed-up-PTC-implementation--53579
-
Trump Admin Misses Deadline for Emissions Report
Jan 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Trump administration has missed a New Year's Day deadline to report U.S. progress on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The State Department was due to join other countries in submitting a biennial report to the United Nations detailing its progress on meeting emissions reduction targets for 2020, but the Jan. 1 deadline has lapsed. The State Department did not respond to inquiries on when or if it would meet the obligation.
President Trump last year announced plans to exit the Paris climate treaty in 2020, but the United States will remain a member of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The reporting requirement falls under the UNFCCC, so the United States would be obligated to report on its emissions every second year even after it is no longer a party to the Paris accord.
Since 2010, the UNFCCC has collected these biennial reports from countries on their progress toward 2020 emissions reduction targets that helped pave the way for agreement in Paris in 2015. The United States offered a 2010 commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The Obama administration later built upon that near-term target when it issued its Paris commitment to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025.
The biennial report that President Obama's State Department issued on Jan. 1, 2016, provided an inventory of emissions sources, an overview of federal and subnational regulations and actions aimed at ratcheting down greenhouse gas output, and a restatement of its commitment to provide $3 billion to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.
"The United States is firmly committed to taking action and working collaboratively with our global partners to minimize the risks posed by climate change," the 2016 report stated. "Those policies are keeping us on track to reach our 2020 emission reduction target and are preparing the foundation for realizing our ambitious, but achievable, 2025 emission reduction goal."
But Trump walked away from the Paris emissions commitment last June and said $2 billion in Green Climate Fund commitments will not be delivered. Furthermore, some reports show the United States may fall short of even the 17 percent commitment despite substantial reductions linked to cheaper and more plentiful natural gas.
Paul Bodnar of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a senior White House adviser under Obama, said the Trump administration's failure to submit its reports on time undermines U.S. advocacy for greater transparency from other countries when it comes to climate action.
"The cardinal importance of transparency in the system ends up boiling down to just a few requirements," he said. "It's hard to harangue China about the lack of transparency of its emissions policies when you haven't filed your one report you're supposed to do every two years on time."
While Trump officials rarely mention climate change, some within the White House and State Department have held out the deployment of lower-carbon fossil fuels as one way to bring down emissions. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in October that the U.S. natural gas boom had made the country the world's leader "with respect to our CO2 footprint in reductions."
The administration could have highlighted those alleged improvements in a communiqué to the United Nations, said Jake Schmidt, international climate change director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"If you were cutting emissions faster than any other country in the world, wouldn't you want to share an analysis that shows that?" he said.
There are no formal repercussions for missing the deadline.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/03/stories/1060069945
-
A Bunch of House Republicans Accept Warming. Is It Real?
Jan 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Back in 2016, the Sierra Club was in South Florida to get out the vote during Rep. Carlos Curbelo's race. Curbelo, perhaps now the most vocal congressional Republican on climate change, was facing a challenge from a seasoned ex-lawmaker — the same one he'd ousted from office two years prior.
But the Sierra Club wasn't in town to support the moderate Republican who blames human activity for climbing temperatures.
Curbelo had kicked out a Democrat, Joe Garcia, and the environmental group wanted to help Garcia get his seat back. Its members canvassed the South Florida district, an area vulnerable to sea-level rise and any number of climate calamities.
Despite this, Curbelo won (and with backing from another legacy green group, the Environmental Defense Action Fund). Since then, he's emerged as a leading GOP critic of President Trump's climate policies as a member of the House Climate Solutions Caucus.
And still, that might not be enough to keep him in office — or even out of environmentalists' crosshairs — in an election year that some prognosticators say could yield a Democratic wave.
Environmental groups are at odds about how to treat a growing number of Republicans who are speaking out on climate change. They're caught between wanting to encourage GOP movement on the issue and the sense that Democrats are reliable votes willing to go further, faster, on climate change.
"It's encouraging that there are a small but slowly growing number of Republicans that acknowledge climate change is real. That's a pretty low bar, but we're glad there's a growing number of Republicans clearing it. We will work with Republicans to develop legislation," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "When they prove themselves to be reliable and courageous champions for the environment, then those candidates like Curbelo and others would have their shot at earning the Sierra Club's support."
In a heightened midterm election year, one of the biggest climate stories is how a subset of Republicans in competitive races will try to distance themselves from Trump. The president's contrarian and misinformed views on climate change present a chance for many Republicans to seize on an issue that highlights their differences with a historically unpopular president.
How those Republicans act — and whether action meets oratory — on climate will be scrutinized by environmental groups and a new set of eco-right organizations and donors. At the same time, those green organizations will similarly be watched for how they handle elections in swing districts that, with a little push, Democratic candidates who traditionally prove more reliable votes on climate change might win.
"There are many environmental and climate groups like the Citizens Climate Lobby and Friends Committee on National Legislation that want to see genuine progress on climate issues," Curbelo spokeswoman Joanna Rodriguez said in an email. "They are part of the solution. It's unfortunate that some environmental groups are actually unregistered agents of the Democratic Party and put partisan interests over advancing sound environmental policy. They are part of the problem."
At the center of this experiment is the House Climate Solutions Caucus, a 62-member group split evenly between Democrats and Republicans whose purpose and utility has divided the environmental community.
One opinion holds that these GOP lawmakers are swing-district opportunists looking to cloak themselves in climate-friendly rhetoric to ward off anti-Trump sentiments. Critics contend those words are empty, with little policy or legislation coming from all the bluster.
Illustrating the vulnerability of these incumbents, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is targeting all but three of the 28 Republicans running for re-election in an attempt to flip the seats blue. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report labels eight of those races as toss-ups, seven as "lean Republican" and four as "likely Republican," while two of the open seats are "lean Democrat" and another is "likely Republican" (Climatewire, Dec. 5, 2017).
While the ranks of the caucus, which aims to produce policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions, are growing, Brune and others said there's a lot to be desired. Simply put: What have those Republicans actually done?
"So Congress should solve this, they should do something, and yet we are supposed to jump up and down and spew happy talk because now there's a safe space for people to talk about climate change?" Brune said of the caucus. "Forgive me if I'm not happy."
Others say that Republicans will be unlikely to speak with GOP voters about climate change if environmental groups aren't willing to give them credit. Republicans also complain that environmental groups have unfairly targeted them for policy positions outside the realm of climate change.
"There is a narrative within the halls of Congress of why would you spend time with environmentalists when they're going to drop you at the first sign of a Democratic challenger?" said Danny Richter, vice president of federal affairs with Citizens' Climate Lobby. "And I think that rings true. And the fact that does ring true prevents the depoliticization of Congress."
Curbelo hadn't been as outspoken on climate change in 2016 when Sierra Club pounded the pavement for his opponent, Brune said. R.L. Miller, who runs the Climate Hawks Vote political action committee, said the reason Curbelo didn't garner environmental support was fairly obvious: His voting record wasn't good enough. He scored a 33 percent on the group's scorecard.
But even in the time since, some environmental groups question whether Curbelo and other GOP lawmakers in the Climate Solutions Caucus have done anything to warrant a green endorsement.
"These members have joined something called the Climate Solutions Caucus, so I think it's reasonable to hold them to the standard of what do they think are actual solutions for climate change?" said Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director with the League of Conservation Voters. "I think it's fair to conclude that some of them aren't exactly meeting the standard they set for themselves when they joined something called the Climate Solutions Caucus."
Snagging an endorsement, of course, would be a high bar. Environmental groups haven't backed Republicans in recent years as the party has grown more doctrinaire in its positions on climate change.Helping, by holding a punch
Environmental groups are exploring some subtle ways to at least acknowledge the effort made by some Republicans on climate change. Endorsement may be a ways off, but what about staying out of a race that features a Republican who's shown climate chops? That's a possibility. Running advertisements to clear a path for a GOP candidate — in a primary, maybe, or even in a general election — without endorsing? Just maybe.
Such steps, while seemingly small, would invite controversy in the environmental community.
While environmental groups have in the past endorsed Republicans, they've been fairly safe picks like Maine Sen. Susan Collins. But the League of Conservation Voters in 2016 teased this electoral strategy when it decided not to enter the New Hampshire Senate race because the incumbent, then-Sen. Kelly Ayotte, was the only Republican to formally support former President Obama's Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
"That felt like the right posture for us," Taurel said. Ayotte eventually lost to Democrat Maggie Hassan, the former governor.
The Sierra Club is also considering some measures below the level of endorsement in specific races. "It's not simply black-and-white 'do you endorse or not endorse a candidate'," Brune said.
Richter said he's talking to several environmental groups about those subendorsement options.
Still, some activists think environmental groups are trending in the wrong direction when it comes to building bipartisan support for climate change.
"It appears that some groups are kind of falling back into that trap where they just think if Democrats ran things we'd be OK. But we already know that doesn't work or didn't work," Rob Sisson, president of ConservAmerica, a conservative environmental group, said in a reference to the 2010 failure of cap-and-trade legislation in a Democratic Congress.
Richter, with the Citizens' Climate Lobby, is troubled by the expansion of the Sierra Club's metrics for support, which often include progressive causes like labor rights, abortion rights and social justice. Even LCV's scorecard, a sort of gold standard among lawmakers seeking environmental credentials, included votes on nonenvironmental matters that would face strong headwinds in the Republican caucus, such as building a wall along Mexico's border and repealing the Affordable Care Act.
Rather than focusing on a single issue where there may be some bipartisan agreement, like climate change, Richter said environmental groups are gravitating into the broader fabric of left-wing politics. That, in turn, could justify Republican criticisms that those groups are extensions of the Democratic Party, he said.
"They've bought into this idea that we need to move together, we being the left," Richter said. "I see that perpetuating the partisan split we've seen. I don't think it allows enough flexibility for coalition building on particular issues. I think that creates paralysis."The 'peacock' caucus
For the Rev. Mitch Hescox, the idea that an environmental group would talk to his evangelical Christian parishioners about abortion rights or describe environmental degradation in terms of overpopulation is tone deaf. He said it's derivative of environmental organizations being more aligned with liberal politics than focusing on the issues those groups were founded to solve.
Hescox, who's president of the Evangelical Environmental Network, said his congregation cares about the planet, but it's a people-first philosophy. He's worked with Republicans in Congress on clean energy under a utilitarian framework — people are here, everyone needs to eat and support themselves financially, but we should do it in a responsible way. Hescox said he won't work with groups like the Sierra Club because they're hellbent on positioning climate change as a progressive cause, which, he said, doesn't help attract his members whose care for the environment comes from a different perspective.
"Every time they hear me say 'pro-life,' they get all red in the face. I say, 'Look, you don't have to be pro-life, but I am, and so is my community, so don't talk about population control,'" Hescox said. "Let that go, accept who we are because my community sees the Sierra Club as Earth worshippers, and that's a turnoff. We want to care about all of God's creation, but our priority is all our children."
Miller of Climate Hawks Vote PAC is tired of the illusion that Republicans can be brought into a constructive climate change conversation.
It's the GOP that has drifted from sensibility on environmental issues, not the left or environmental organizations, Miller said. Voting patterns on that are clear, she said, and the influence of dark money tied to fossil fuel companies has only exacerbated the split. And if a group is judged by its weakest link, Miller said the Climate Solutions Caucus is deserving of criticism.
Miller, who has taken to calling it the climate "peacock" caucus, has called for the disbandment of the group because she says it's too weak on climate. Just one member — Curbelo — scored above 50 percent on the LCV's 2016 scorecard.
"The caucus is a joke. I don't actually want to call it a joke because it's dangerous. The Republicans aren't actually doing anything helpful, and the Democrats are giving them political cover," Miller said. "The last straw for me was the admission of Matt Gaetz — Matt 'terminate the EPA' Gaetz."
Gaetz, a Florida Republican congressman, has sponsored legislation titled "To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency." It reads: "The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018."
Other Republicans have drawn sideways glances from the climate community. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who was sharply critical of Obama's green jobs initiative, is a member of the caucus. So, too, is Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who professes not to know whether humans play a role in climate change — though he does know Tesla Inc. is locating its battery factory in his district.
Environmental groups are growing impatient, believing many in the group are wearing climate camouflage to fool moderates into voting for them.
"Look at what this Congress has done," Brune said. "They have not passed strong environmental legislation, period."
Even when lawmakers have taken a verbal stand, they've sometimes failed to live up to their own words: A number of caucus members signed a letter against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — the undisturbed Alaskan wilderness area that's been at the heart of environmental campaigns for decades — included in a tax cut bill passed last month. Several, including Curbelo, voted for the measure anyway.
"They all failed the test," Miller said.Vote 'em out
The caucus' supporters, though, are urging patience.
"I think it's true that if there's not a policy test to join the Climate Solutions Caucus you can't control what individual members are saying," said Emily Wirzba, a legislative representative with Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker organization. "It's our job to both push and pull."
Wirzba has been recruiting Republicans to the caucus for nearly five years and has seen "tremendous" progress, she said. She said that joining the caucus is the first thing many of the GOP lawmakers have done on climate change. Now that they're in, Wirzba is trying to find ways to advance legislation or take pro-climate votes that work for each member.
That process is gradual. She said the caucus at least can help "create this notion of a positive feedback loop" in which Republicans can feel confident for taking a climate-friendly stance rather than fear the retribution from populist conservative voters that have generally ignored or rejected climate change.
Sisson of ConservAmerica added that critics of the caucus ignore the potential pitfalls for GOP lawmakers. The chance of caucus membership striking a sour note with the conservative base is significant and could open the door to a well-funded primary challenger.
"If you're a Republican in Congress, they're taking a substantial risk in joining this caucus," he said.
Rather than picking off some pro-climate Republicans in vulnerable swing districts for the benefit of flipping the House to Democrats, groups backing the Climate Solutions Caucus said a long-term climate strategy would include fostering relationships with GOP lawmakers taking substantive steps toward addressing emissions.
"We tried this eight years ago, and it didn't work," Wirzba said, referring to cap and trade. "The policy will be stronger if even Democrats take control of Congress, you know you'll have Republicans that support climate policy."
Added Hescox: "If we don't make this what I like to call an 'all-American issue,' we will never have an energy plan for the United States, and we will never address the climate."
But look at the flip side, Miller said. The White House and Congress are in Republican hands, and given the pace of rollbacks, they're enjoying quite a bit of success dismantling Obama's climate policies.
All the while, the planet is getting warmer. The world can't wait for U.S. climate politics to cool off, Miller said.
It's time to fight fire with fire.
"We are right now seeing a stable anti-climate policy and a one-party governing system. So I think if we have one good party, we could have a stable and sane climate policy," she said. "We don't want to reason with Republicans. We don't want to bring them to the table. We don't want to bring them into proceedings. We just want to vote them out."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/03/stories/1060069957
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested