ACC PM 01/03/18

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Chemicals and Consumers

   Mar 1, 2018 | The New York Times

   By Robert Simon
   
   
   In “What Poisons Are in Your Body?” (column, Feb. 25), Nicholas Kristof painted a number of chemicals with a broad brush and left readers to believe that the mere presence of these chemicals in the body posed an imminent threat to human health.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Report: U.S. Withdrawal from NAFTA Would Hurt Chemicals Exports

   Mar 1, 2018 | World Trade Online

   U.S. chemical exports could drop by roughly 45 percent if the U.S. pulls out of NAFTA, leading to price increases for American consumers and an opportunity for China to supply chemicals to Mexico and Canada instead, the American Chemistry Council says in a new report .
3. (ACC Mentioned) Three Sticking Points Could Hamper NAFTA Deal – ACC

   Mar 1, 2018 | ICIS

   By Joseph Chang
   
   
   Three major sticking points in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico and Canada are of major concern to the US chemical sector, the head of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday.
4. (ACC Mentioned) In the Stores of the Future, Plastic Will Be a Thing of the Past

   Mar 1, 2018 | The Week Magazine

   By Diane Selkirk
   
   
   For a store of the future, The Soap Dispensary and Kitchen Staples shop in Vancouver, Canada, has a cozy old-style feel.
5. (ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Moves Toward Ban on Ocean-Polluting Takeout Food Containers

   Mar 1, 2018 | News Deeply

   By Erica Cirino
   
   
   Hawaii, a state with a $17-billion tourism industry and a persistent plastic pollution problem, is moving toward a groundbreaking ban on polystyrene food containers.
6. (ACC Mentioned) Brace Yourself for (Possible) Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Today

   Mar 1, 2018 | Politico

   By Adam Behsudi
   
   
   BRACE YOURSELF FOR (POSSIBLE) STEEL AND ALUMINUM TARIFFS TODAY: The invites were sent out last night for steel and aluminum CEOs to gather at the White House today to flank President Donald Trump as he announces his decision to hit imports of the metals with steep, new tariffs.
7. (ACC Mentioned) Zinke Marks Year One with Nominee Backlog

   Mar 1, 2018 | Politico

   By Kelsey Tamborrino
   
   
   HAPPY ANNIVERSARY: Today marks one year with Ryan Zinke at the helm of Interior — and the department he heads is still largely lacking in its build-out, according to the secretary and at least one senator who has been keeping close eye.

LCSA News

8. (ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Accuses Enviros of Reform Bill 'Misinterpretation'

   Mar 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

   By Corbin Hiar
   
   
   The chemical industry's top trade group today accused its erstwhile partners in the Toxic Substances Control Act reform effort of intellectual dishonesty.
9. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Official Invites Industry Help on Chemical Review Procedure

   Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

   By Julie A. Miller
   
   
   A key US EPA official has invited industry to collaborate on procedures that could speed up determinations on new chemicals, and said a lack of data is often the key element holding up approvals.

Chemical Management News

10. (ACC Mentioned) US Court Rules on Glyphosate Labelling, Threatening Reach of Prop 65

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    The requirement on a manufacturer to label a product as a carcinogen violates the company's free speech rights if the statement is not clearly true, a US federal court judge has ruled.
11. Mind the Store Campaign to Target More US Retailers in 2018

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Tammy Lovell
    
    
    A campaign that evaluates the efforts of US retailers to eliminate toxic chemicals is widening its net in 2018, to assess more companies and sectors.
12. For the Cosmetics Industry, a Regulatory Makeover Awaits

    Mar 1, 2018 | Wall Street Journal

    By Thomas M. Burton
    
    
    At a time when Washington is pushing to deregulate industry, a congressional effort is under way to intensify federal regulation over cosmetics and personal-care products for the first time in 80 years.
13. Echa's MSC Departs from PBT Guidance for UVCBs

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Emma Davies
    
    
    Echa's member state committee (MSC) has been grappling with how best to assess persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (PBT) for substances with unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological materials (UVCBs) being evaluated for the community rolling action plan (Corap).
14. Echa Round-Up

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Echa has advised that the harmonised classification (CLH) of some substances, or the revision of their existing classification, will be legally applied from 1 March, according to the ninth adaptation to technical progress (ATP).

Energy News

15. Russian Meddling on Social Media Targeted U.S. Energy Industry, Report Says

    Mar 1, 2018 | Wall Street Journal

    By Georgia Wells and Timothy Puko
    
    
    A Russian-backed propaganda group used social media in an attempt to disrupt the U.S. energy industry and influence energy policy, according to a new congressional staff report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
16. These Provocative Images Show Russian Trolls Sought to Inflame Debate Over Climate Change, Fracking and Dakota Pipeline

    Mar 1, 2018 | The Washington Post

    By Craig Timberg and Tony Romm
    
    
    Russian trolls used Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to inflame U.S. political debate over energy policy and climate change, a finding that underscores how the Russian campaign of social media manipulation went beyond the 2016 presidential election, congressional investigators reported Thursday.

Chemical Security News

17. Reports Warn of 'Hidden Arms Race' for Hacking Infrastructure

    Mar 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    A "hidden arms race" for hacking critical computer networks picked up steam in 2017, according to a trio of reports from the Maryland-based cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

18. Washington State Is Set to Vote on a Carbon Tax. For the Governor, It’s a Gamble.

    Mar 1, 2018 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport
    
    
    This week in the statehouse in Olympia, Wash., Gov. Jay Inslee is battling to bring a vote on a historic climate change policy that he has pursued for years: instituting the nation’s first tax on planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution.
19. Here's What the EPA's Website Looks Like After a Year of Climate Change Censorship

    Mar 1, 2018 | TIME

    By Laignee Barron
    
    
    Throughout the Trump administration’s first year in office, the Environmental Protection Agency has been quietly scrubbing mentions of climate change and tweaking related language on its website – an effort critics have decried as scientific censorship.
20. The Known Unknowns of Plastic Pollution

    Mar 1, 2018 | The Economist

    Mr McGuire had just one word for young Benjamin, in “The Graduate”: plastics.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Chemicals and Consumers

   Mar 1, 2018 | The New York Times

   By Robert Simon

   To the Editor:

   In “What Poisons Are in Your Body?” (column, Feb. 25), Nicholas Kristof painted a number of chemicals with a broad brush and left readers to believe that the mere presence of these chemicals in the body posed an imminent threat to human health.

   But this ignores information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported:

   “The measurement of an environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine is an indication of exposure; it does not by itself mean that the chemical causes disease. … Research studies, separate from these data, are required to determine which blood or urine levels are safe and which are associated with disease.”

   Mr. Kristof’s concerns come at a time when chemical oversight is stronger than it has ever been thanks to a law enacted in 2016, which significantly strengthened the regulation of chemicals in commerce.

   This means that consumers can benefit from various lifesaving and life-enhancing chemicals, knowing that chemicals are subject to rigorous federal review.

   The writer is vice president in the Chemical Product and Technology Division, American Chemistry Council.

   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/chemicals-consumers.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Report: U.S. Withdrawal from NAFTA Would Hurt Chemicals Exports

   Mar 1, 2018 | World Trade Online

   U.S. chemical exports could drop by roughly 45 percent if the U.S. pulls out of NAFTA, leading to price increases for American consumers and an opportunity for China to supply chemicals to Mexico and Canada instead, the American Chemistry Council says in a new report . The report, released on Feb. 28, says NAFTA has allowed U.S. chemical exports to flourish. They are projected to reach $59 billion by 2025, it states. However, a withdrawal would have “virtually the opposite...

   §  Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

   Story can be found here: 

   https://insidetrade.com/trade/report-us-withdrawal-nafta-would-hurt-chemicals-exports
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) Three Sticking Points Could Hamper NAFTA Deal – ACC

   Mar 1, 2018 | ICIS

   By Joseph Chang

   Three major sticking points in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico and Canada are of major concern to the US chemical sector, the head of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday.

   The three issues at stake are the US administration’s proposals to eliminate the investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism between private companies and governments, to put a five-year sunset provision on NAFTA, and to revise rules of origin levels on products eligible for free trade status.

   “I don’t think the odds are [likely] that we will have an absolute withdrawal from the NAFTA agreement, but I can’t totally rule that out because I think some of these provisions, especially on the investor-state dispute [resolution] and the sun-setting, and perhaps even the rules of origin – some of those are non-starters unless they’re modified fairly significantly, with Canada and Mexico,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the ACC, on a special conference call on NAFTA.

   “If the administration drives a hard line on those three areas, they really create a situation where it’s going to be very hard, for Mexico in particular when they’re poised to see their elections occur in the near term, that they’re going to be willing to accept those,” he added.

   Dooley believes NAFTA can be modernised but points out it’s critical not to jeopardise the integrated North American market that is benefiting the US, Mexico and Canada.

   INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

   Under the ISDS mechanism, foreign investors can bring lawsuits against host governments if they believe certain policies or actions infringe on their investments. The disputes are resolved not by the local government, but by an international arbitration panel.

   “We think this is a key tool to ensure that private companies have some recourse to an egregious action by a governmental entity in another country that could result in a retaliation against, or an impediment to trade in products that are manufactured in the US,” said Dooley.

   The US administration contends that if US companies didn’t have the recourse that ISDS provides for an inappropriate action abroad, that they would be “more likely to make that investment – not in Mexico – but in the United States”, said Dooley.

   However, for the chemical industry, it’s important to have certain production close to consumers, as many materials are not easily transported across long distances, he noted.

   “What’s also important to understand is that… it’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. [A company’s] operations in the US actually benefit and expand when they have the opportunity to have an affiliate or an operation located in Mexico, because they’re supplying a lot of products to them,” said Dooley.

   “With our sector, that argument that… they’d be more likely to invest in the US just doesn’t work. This investment wouldn’t be replicated in the US – this is an additional investment that actually also [benefits US operations],” he added.

   This is the result of highly integrated manufacturing supply chains between the US, Mexico and Canada.

   Across all industries, 42% of US exports to Mexico are to related parties, as are 40% of US exports to Canada. And 71% of imports to the US from Mexico are from related parties, along with half of the imports from Canada, according to the ACC.

   FIVE-YEAR SUNSET PROVISION

   And a five-year sunset provision in NAFTA as proposed by the US would be problematic for chemical companies and overall manufacturing investment in the US, said the ACC head. Under this clause, NAFTA would have to be renewed every five years by all three countries.

   Of the $188bn in US chemical investments completed, under construction or in the permitting phase since the shale gas boom, “a lot of those are individual investments of $5bn or more”, said Dooley.

   “Those $5bn investments are not made on a five-year horizon – they’re being made on a 40-year horizon and are also predicated on having some consistent rules of trade and market opportunities,” he added.

   RULES OF ORIGIN

   The third sticking point, but of somewhat less concern than the first two, are the rules of origin, said Dooley.

   Rules of origin are the criteria that determine the national origin of a product. In free trade agreements (FTAs), they have major implications on tariffs or lack thereof on imported products.

   The US is proposing more stringent levels of local content for products to qualify for free trade, and also a minimum requirement for US content in certain products such as autos.

   While Dooley did not address rules of origin in detail, he said this is another sticking point that could hinder a deal.

   STAKES ARE HIGH

   Dooley highlights what’s at stake if the US withdraws from NAFTA. First and foremost, it would diminish the inherent competitive advantage of the US chemical industry in the global market.

   Without NAFTA, US chemical exports to Mexico and Canada in the worst case scenario could fall by up to $22bn, or 45% of the current export total. This would create a total loss of chemical demand on the order of around $29bn, when accounting for decreased demand from key end-use sectors such as automotive, electronics and appliances, according to the ACC.

   The ACC estimates US chemical exports to Mexico and Canada will reach around $44bn in 2018, growing to $59bn by 2025 in a status quo scenario.

   If the US were to withdraw from NAFTA, tariffs on US chemical exports to Mexico and Canada would likely snap back to Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariff schedules at a minimum, said the ACC CEO.

   “On average, we calculate for Mexico this would be in the range of 6% or so. When you look at that impact in terms of our exports, we anticipate that it would result in a decline of about 12% from our baseline,” said Dooley.

   “That’s significant… You would have US chemical products we would be exporting to Mexico that would almost suddenly become 6% more expensive,” he added.

   That would open the door to other suppliers around the world, from Europe, Brazil and China, among others, he noted.

   In the worst case scenario, Mexico could go to its “Final Bound” tariff rate which averages 36.2% across all products, according to the ACC.

   https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/02/28/10198076/three-sticking-points-could-hamper-nafta-deal-acc/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) In the Stores of the Future, Plastic Will Be a Thing of the Past

   Mar 1, 2018 | The Week Magazine

   By Diane Selkirk

   For a store of the future, The Soap Dispensary and Kitchen Staples shop in Vancouver, Canada, has a cozy old-style feel. Jars and bins line the long counter; all the products on the shelves are package-free and easy to pick up and examine. "People come here to talk about the things they buy," owner Linh Truong explains. "Shopping is a collaboration. Staff take each order and touch every product."

   The busy counter, which buzzes with neighborly greetings, is about as far from anonymous online shopping as it gets. Not only do many of the products come in bulk (you bring your own bottles, containers, and shopping bags), but most customers are hyper-local and walk or cycle to the shop to pick up items — everything from mundane kitchen staples like olive oil, to the unusual, like a new pigment for handmade eye shadow.

   With single-use plastic, like grocery bags and water bottles, now accounting for nearly 40 percent of global plastic production, and the world's consumers thinking twice about the waste they generate, Truong explains that stores like hers are an essential part of the plastic-trash solution. "Consumers need to demand we do better," she says, "and business needs to listen."

   It's hard to argue against the urgency of our plastic problem. Estimates say less than a third of the plastic used globally each year is recovered and recycled. Across the planet, tons of the synthetic material finds its way into the oceans, leaving people who eat seafood ingesting up to 11,000 pieces of micro plastic every year. A recent study found even our drinking water is becoming contaminated by plastic.

   While it is easy to imagine an ideal community where stores are free of plastic bags, coffee shops shun single-use cups, and restaurants offer compostable take-out containers, getting to that ideal is deceptively difficult. Plastics-industry-supported groups like the American Progressive Bag Alliance and American Chemistry Council have spent millions on rebranding plastic with programs focused on convincing consumers that reducing our dependence on plastic is unnecessary.

   Community efforts to eliminate plastic bags have also come up against well-funded pro-plastic campaigns. City legislation in several states, including Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Idaho, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana is being stopped in its tracks by pre-emptive industry-supported state laws that prohibit local governments from banning or putting fees on plastic bags — essentially banning plastic bag bans.

   Even efforts by big box businesses to do things differently haven't worked out as well as hoped: Decreasing the thickness of packaging for products like milk resulted in more spillage, and the effort to use more recycled plastic has been hampered by poor recovery outcomes — less than 6 percent of new plastic is made from recycled material.

   Despite all that, research does show consumers are eager to break their dependence on plastic and other non-reusables. Small business owners are in a unique position to help fulfill this desire. By experimenting with new plastic-free initiatives and products and seeing what works, small businesses can both subvert legislation and avoid the pitfalls experienced by bigger companies.

   And so far, it seems to be working. Throwaway polystyrene coffee cups, soup bowls, plates, and fast food cartons are slowly but surely disappearing, thanks to community-level legislation in places like Portland, Seattle, and New York City. Elsewhere, groups like Surfrider and their Ocean Friendly Restaurant program and Responsible Cafes in Australia are increasing awareness by encouraging business owners to phase out plastic dishes, bottles, and straws in neighborhood restaurants.

   In the case of The Soap Dispensary, Truong says she initially opened her store because it was the sort of place where she herself wanted to shop but couldn't find. "First-time customers are excited — but they usually have questions and want to know how it works." Indeed, for people who have spent all their lives shopping in big-box stores where everything is individually packaged for them, there's a bit of a learning curve when they're confronted with aisles and aisles of loose products. But it's nothing a quick lesson can't remedy: Yes, you can refill any container. No, they don't have to be empty — you can add shampoo to shampoo or dish soap to dish soap. Yes, you will save money.

   Once The Soap Dispensary was up and running in 2011 and customers became enthusiastic regulars, Truong says there was huge demand for her to expand her operation, first by opening a bigger store, and then by adding kitchen staples in 2017. "Small businesses should work in partnership with their customers," Truong explains. Almost everything she sells in her store was at the direct urging of her customers. This is how the store came to carry hand-made bath bombs, as well as cocktail mixes made from local fruit. The customers did the research and found the new ideas, "I just empowered them by listening," Truong says. Where big businesses may struggle to maintain a relationship with customers, small companies like hers can truly tap into what the shoppers of today want for their communities tomorrow.

   "It's what shoppers want and what the planet needs," Truong says. "And as small businesses, it's just good customer service to pay attention to what our customers ask for."

   http://theweek.com/articles/755490/stores-future-plastic-thing-past
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. (ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Moves Toward Ban on Ocean-Polluting Takeout Food Containers

   Mar 1, 2018 | News Deeply

   By Erica Cirino

   Hawaii, a state with a $17-billion tourism industry and a persistent plastic pollution problem, is moving toward a groundbreaking ban on polystyrene food containers.

   While hundreds of cities and counties have passed local ordinances eliminating polystyrene in food containers or in other uses, no legislation has so far been successful at the state level in the United States. A similar effort failed recently in California, while Maryland’s General Assembly is now also considering introducing legislation in early 2018. Internationally, a few nations have imposed strong regulations against the importation and use of polystyrene, including Zimbabwe and the Seychelles, which has banned the use of all disposable plastic items.

   All plastic debris is a concern for marine and coastal health because it does not biodegrade and can end up polluting beaches and the ocean, where it breaks up into tiny pieces that can be eaten by marine life. Lightweight polystyrene foam is particularly worrisome in an island state such as Hawaii because it easily blows out of trash cans and eventually out to sea.

   “The ban would be a positive step forward in preventing more plastic debris from affecting Hawaiian shores and waters,” said Mark Manuel, Pacific Islands Marine Debris Program regional coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Honolulu.
   

   On Monday, spectators packed a small room in the Hawaii State Capitol building and watched as five senators read public testimony from supporters and opponents of Senate Bill 2498. This is the first time in 10 years that a statewide polystyrene foam prohibition bill has moved through Hawaii’s Senate, according to the Surfrider Foundation’s Oahu Chapter, and follows bans passed in Maui and the Big Island of Hawaii last year.

   After the hearing, the members of the Senate’s Commerce, Consumer Protection and Health committee unanimously voted to move the bill forward. If passed by the full Senate, and the House passes its own version, the provision would take effect January 1, 2019, if signed into law by the governor.

   Garbage on Mokuleia Beach in Oahu, Hawaii. (Education Images/UIG via Getty Images)

   The proposed ban wouldn’t forbid all uses of the polystyrene foam, commonly called by the trade name Styrofoam, just the kind used in food service businesses. However, because so many food vendors in Hawaii distribute polystyrene food containers daily, supporters say the ban could greatly reduce plastic litter across the islands and in the surrounding waters. (The popular Hawaiian plate lunch, for instance, is commonly served up in polystyrene containers.) Senator Stanley Chang, a co-sponsor of the bill, said polystyrene foam is one of the most common sources of litter and marine debris in Hawaii. A 2014 study found that polystyrenefoams are the most commonly seen visible plastic material at sea.

   “The polystyrene debris is affecting the quality of our marine environment and harming our wildlife, both in our major population centers and as far away as the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, where birds and aquatic life often die because of their consumption of human-generated debris,” said Chang.

   Takeout container pollution is particularly dangerous to marine wildlife. The lightweight material easily breaks into pieces that can be eaten by animals, disrupting their digestive system and contaminating their blood with toxins.

   Douglas McCauley, a University of California, Santa Barbara marine biologist, estimates that 98 percent of all albatross chicks found dead on the islands contain plastic, including polystyrene foam. He said Hawaii’s polystyrene foam pollution is contributing to a mess “in a place that should be famous for generating sunsets, good waves, Mai Tais and memories.”

   He said, “This ban is not going to fix the problem of plastic pollution in Hawaii, but it will be a big step in the right direction.” McCauley also added, “It will cut back on a particularly insidious form of plastic pollution that is easy to replace and that is known to harm ocean wildlife.”
   

   Hawaii asks residents to dispose of polystyrene foam in the trash. In Oahu, polystyrene is burned along with other garbage at H-Power, its waste-to-energy plant. Elsewhere on Hawaii, it is sent to a landfill. Polystyrene can technically be recycled, but few recycling centers handle the material and there are none in Hawaii.

   Opponents of the ban – including the American Chemistry Council, Hawaii Restaurant Association, Hawaii Food Industry Association, Hawaii Chamber of Commerce and local polystyrene manufacturer KYD – argue efforts to deal with plastic pollution should focus on litter prevention. They contend that switching to eco-friendly food containers would be prohibitively expensive for small businesses, and that alternate materials would not be sturdy enough to hold classic Hawaiian plate lunches – which are often served hot and drenched in sauces.

   At the hearing Monday, opponents to the legislation submitted comments, but they were outnumbered by individuals, scientists, environmental organizations, food vendors and companies. Surfrider Foundation’s Oahu Chapter, a major supporter of the ban, pushed the public to post testimony supporting the bill on social media. In Hawaii’s public schools, teachers asked dozens of students to send letters to their senators. Only one individual – a Hawaii state resident – submitted written testimony in opposition to the bill, stating that polystyrene is “practical” and that the state should instead focus on solving its homelessness problem in order to reduce littering.

   “This is a bold bill, but it is way overdue,” said McCauley. “Hawaii is usually a global leader on oceans. People in Hawaii know, perhaps better than any other place on the planet, that ocean health and human health are intertwined. This has been a part of Hawaiian knowledge systems for thousands of years.”

   https://www.newsdeeply.com/oceans/articles/2018/03/01/hawaii-moves-toward-ban-on-ocean-polluting-takeout-food-containers
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. (ACC Mentioned) Brace Yourself for (Possible) Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Today

   Mar 1, 2018 | Politico

   By Adam Behsudi

   BRACE YOURSELF FOR (POSSIBLE) STEEL AND ALUMINUM TARIFFS TODAY: The invites were sent out last night for steel and aluminum CEOs to gather at the White House today to flank President Donald Trump as he announces his decision to hit imports of the metals with steep, new tariffs. But the question still remains whether there will be any party to show up to.

   White House aides and others familiar with the issue cautioned late Wednesday that the details of the announcement were still in flux. Administration officials were engaged in a fierce debate Wednesday night about whether to make the announcement today — or delay it altogether, according to administration and industry sources briefed on the planning.

   One administration official said aides were still ironing out the legal details of the tariffs, so any announcement is expected to include few details. Another person briefed on the matter said the administration is not far enough along in the process to have something ready for the president to sign today.

   Trump has told people in recent days that he's interested in imposing a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports, according to one person briefed on the issue. But it remained unclear Wednesday night exactly what levels he will announce. Read the full story from yours truly and POLITICO’s Andrew Restuccia.

   A tiny China wrinkle: The timing of an announcement could be further clouded by the presence of an important visitor from China, which is blamed for driving overcapacity in steel and aluminum production and arguably the reason why Trump wants to take action.

   President Xi Jinping’s top economic adviser, Liu He, is expected at the White House today for a meeting with Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn; Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The high-level talks comes as Trump is considering a number of trade actions that could strain relations with the United States’ No. 1 trading partner and third-largest export destination. However, most Chinese steel and aluminum imports are already subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties in the U.S. market.

   "We expect a frank exchange of views on the trade and economic relationship, and that talks will focus on the substantive issues," a White House official said. However, it appeared unlikely the meeting would lead to resumption of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, which the Trump administration abandoned after it delivered only meager results last year. Doug Palmer has more on the meeting here.

   IT’S THURSDAY, MARCH 1! Welcome to Morning Trade, where your host is wondering who wore it better here: Hope Hicks or Robert Lighthizer? Do you know what POTUS is thinking on steel and aluminum? Drop me a line: abehsudi@politico.com or @abehsudi.

   ** Our dedicated readers get the play-by-play on trade here each morning. Your brand can reach this niche audience. Contact: partnerships@politico.com for advertising opportunities. **

   LIGHTHIZER WORKSHOPPING NAFTA LABOR PROPOSAL: Lighthizer is showing some responsiveness to Democratic demands that the administration step up its labor proposal in NAFTA talks, but the effort may not be enough for Lighthizer to realize his bipartisan dream for the beleaguered pact.

   USTR has been circulating among labor unions and lawmakers revisions to its proposal that would be limited to altering language that was viewed as the central reason the U.S. lost a years-long labor dispute against Guatemala. The Central American country was accused of violating labor rules under the separate Central American Free Trade Agreement, but a tribunal ultimately ruled in Guatemala’s favor because it held that the country's actions didn’t meet a legal threshold that requires a violation to occur in a “manner affecting trade.” USTR is trying to find a way to modify that language, which has become standard in subsequent U.S. trade deals, to avoid a similar ruling in the future, according to sources familiar with the proposal.

   Sources said the proposed changes still don’t address many of the basic concerns that most of the House Democratic caucus laid out in a letter to Lighthizer in late January. In that letter, the lawmakers blamed Mexico for failing to proceed with constitutional labor reforms and criticized the country’s “authoritarian-style labor structure, stacked labor boards and government-aligned unions.” A congressional aide wasn’t aware of any new, broader U.S. proposals for the labor chapter. Read the full story from your host here.

   USTR WANTS FAST TRACK: USTR made it known in its annual report on the U.S. trade agenda report released on Wednesday that the administration wants an extension to Trade Promotion Authority legislation. Trump faces an April 1 deadline to formally request an extension of trade promotion authority in a letter to Congress. Capitol Hill lawmakers could block the request by passing a resolution of disapproval, but that is not expected to happen, as Republicans control both the House and the Senate.

   "We intend to ask the Congress to extend the president’s Trade Promotion Authority — also known as 'fast track' authority — to obtain an up or down vote on new trade agreements submitted to Congress. Based on our discussions with congressional leaders, we believe that there is strong support for such an extension, which would mean that fast-track authority will remain in place until 2021," Lighthizer said in the report.

   However, in welcoming news that Trump plans to seek the renewal, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch indicated that might not be as sure a thing as the administration expects. "I look forward to reviewing the administration’s conduct of trade policy over the next several months and its explanation of how it would use the authority to achieve the TPA negotiating objectives, if extended," he said. Read the full story here.

   U.S. EXPLAINS HOW IT REALLY FEELS ABOUT THE WTO APPELLATE BODY: USTR also used the annual report to put forward a detailed accounting of why it increasingly views the WTO’s Appellate Body as a legal institution gone rogue. “Successive administrations and the Congress have voiced those concerns, and the United States called for WTO adjudicators to follow their role as laid out in the DSU [Dispute Settlement Understanding]. But the problem has been growing worse, and not better,” the report states.

   The document lays out five specific grievances with the WTO’s top judicial body that explain why it believes the legal body has exceeded its mandate. Among those is a complaint that has gotten the most attention, over a decision that allows Appellate Body members continue to work on cases despite their terms ending.

   It outlines the concern that the Appellate Body routinely blows past the 90-day deadline set under WTO rules for it to decide appeals. The report also faults the panel for issuing advisory opinions on issues that aren’t necessary to resolve disputes, probing the meaning of a country’s laws as a basis for making a ruling, and claiming that previous Appellate Body reports be used as precedent in future cases.

   U.S. CONTINUES APPELLATE BODY BLOCK: For the reasons stated in the report, the United States on Wednesday once again rejected an effort to restart a process to appoint Appellate Body judges, raising fears that the WTO’s premier dispute forum will be rendered useless with too few judges to handle cases.

   Mexico introduced a proposal, sponsored by 63 members, calling for establishment of a selection committee to recommend judges to the dispute settlement body for approval, a Geneva trade official said.

   There are three vacancies on the seven-person appellate body, and that number will rise to four by the end of the year. Two other judges will see their terms expire in 2019 and 2020. Each appeal requires a panel of three judges. Mexico’s proposal, reflecting the sense of urgency that many members feel to resolve the issue, called for the selection committee, once established, to receive submissions for new judges within 30 days and issue its recommendations within 60 days, according to the Geneva trade official.

   The United States argued yet again that it was not in a position to support the proposal, which was introduced previously in a slightly different form. Most of the United States' concerns stem from panel decisions that affect its anti-dumping program. Read the full story here.

   THE GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF TRADE: You may have thought President Ronald Reagan was the inspiration behind Trump’s trade philosophy, but it really goes all the way back to George Washington.

   "President Trump's trade agenda rests on principles as old as the republic itself," Lighthizer said in an introduction to the administration's annual report on the U.S. trade agenda. "President Washington, in his farewell address, warned his fellow citizens that when it comes to trade negotiations, 'There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon, real favors from nation to nation.'"

   Lighthizer said the Trump administration's trade policy is based on "five major pillars": supporting U.S. national security, strengthening the U.S. economy, negotiating better trade deals, aggressively enforcing U.S. trade laws, and reforming the multilateral system. More here.

   LIGHTHIZER SEEMS ALL IN ON GETTING ISDS OUT: Lighthizer appears ideologically committed to eliminating investor-state dispute settlement from NAFTA, even when confronted with business opposition to the controversial U.S. proposal, a top official in the chemicals sector said Wednesday.

   Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said the board of his organization met recently with Ross and had an audience with Lighthizer just last week, during which board members brought up the organization's opposition to the U.S. proposal in the NAFTA talks, which would make the deal's dispute settlement mechanism optional. He said Lighthizer gave the same reasoning for ditching ISDS, arguing that it was an “insurance policy” for companies to make a return on their investment. He added that Lighthizer continues to argue that without the recourse ISDS provides to companies overseas, firms could be more inclined to invest in the U.S. rather than being given an incentive to invest abroad.

   Dooley said he argued that Lighthizer’s reasoning doesn't apply to the chemical industry, where companies often are unable to transport products over long distances and, as a result, must establish operations abroad to be close to consumers, which are generally manufacturers in those countries.

   When confronted with a counter-argument to his position on ISDS, Dooley said Lighthizer focused mainly on the need to provide assistance to sectors of the economy that suffer trade deficits. He said Lighthizer has “really not focused in terms of how do they ensure they don’t disadvantage or undermine the global competitiveness of industries such as the chemical manufacturing sector, which has a significant trade surplus.”

   ISDS writing on the wall: Although it doesn’t specifically mention ISDS, Lighthizer’s annual trade policy agenda released Wednesday said the Trump administration is “determined to avoid provisions that will encourage outsourcing.”

   “If a company decides to build a factory in Mexico – and it has legitimate, market-based reasons for doing so – then it should act as the market dictates,” the agenda states. “But we reject the notion that the U.S. government should use NAFTA – or any other trade deal – to encourage outsourcing.”

   TIMING STILL MURKY FOR NAFTA TALKS ON AUTOS: Don’t expect Canada, Mexico and the U.S. to resume talks this week on the contentious issue of automotive rules of origin, a Canadian auto official said Wednesday.

   Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, said the idea that talks would be rescheduled for later this week was “misplaced,” noting that doing so would require rescheduling negotiations on other chapters taking place at the seventh round of NAFTA talks in Mexico City this week.

   The auto rules discussions, which are considered one of the thorniest issues in the talks, were initially scheduled to run Sunday through Tuesday but were postponed after Jason Bernstein, the U.S. lead negotiator on the topic, was called back to Washington for meetings that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was holding with Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler. Read Megan’s first dispatch from Mexico City here.

   IP GROUPS FRET ABOUT BEING LEFT FOR LAST: Industry groups focused on the modernization of intellectual property rights and protections in NAFTA 2.0 are concerned that the subject is being “overshadowed” so far in trilateral discussions, pushed from the forefront by topics like autos and government procurement that have so far grabbed more headlines. The growing worry, some sources close to the talks say, is that negotiators are failing to recognize that IP issues are just as controversial, and that they will leave the issue to the end only to recognize too late that opposing views — particularly between the United States and Canada — will be difficult if not impossible to overcome.

   The sense among U.S. intellectual property groups is that the Trump administration has learned from the pitfalls of its predecessor and recognizes that the Obama administration’s push to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership passed through Congress failed largely because of IP concerns, a lobbying source said. To avoid a similar scenario, U.S. negotiators are making sure to push for strong provisions including on areas like biologics, knowing they need to appease Congress in this area in order to win members’ support, the source said.

   To draw attention to the issue, IP groups including ACTION for Trade and the Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center held an event on the sidelines of the NAFTA negotiations in Mexico City on Wednesday, where industry representatives emphasized a need to harmonize IP rules among all three countries in order to boost trade in the region.

   "Shared intellectual property rights become a connective tissue that facilitates greater levels of trade among the economies," said Stephen Ezell, the vice president of global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, who moderated a panel at the event. "Ultimately, respect for creativity and innovation and the protection of IP rights must be a paramount trade priority."

   INTERNATIONAL OVERNIGHT

   — EU, Japan seek to push through trade deal before Brexit, Reuters reports.

   — Mexico plans retaliation if U.S. imposes steel tariffs, Bloomberg reports.

   — South Korea export growth in February was the slowest since 2016, Reuters reports.

   — Canada will launch trade negotiations with South American trade bloc Mercosur next Friday, The National Post reports.

   — USTR expects to start WTO talks with the U.K. this year, POLITICO Pro reports.

   — Chemical producers warn NAFTA withdrawal could jeopardize major projects, POLITICO Pro reports.

   https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/03/01/brace-yourself-for-possible-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-today-120440
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. (ACC Mentioned) Zinke Marks Year One with Nominee Backlog

   Mar 1, 2018 | Politico

   By Kelsey Tamborrino

   HAPPY ANNIVERSARY: Today marks one year with Ryan Zinke at the helm of Interior — and the department he heads is still largely lacking in its build-out, according to the secretary and at least one senator who has been keeping close eye. When the former Montana lawmaker was confirmed a year ago, he pledged to uphold the values of President Theodore Roosevelt and protect public lands. In the time since, Zinke has shrunk national monuments and come under heavy scrutiny for his travel and meetings with big donors. And he's faced considerable blowback from states of late over Interior’s controversial expanded offshore drilling proposal.

   While in Pennsylvania earlier this week, the Interior secretary told Fox Business News he was concerned with the holdup of nominees at his agency. "It's hard to get things done when you have a group of, quite frankly, Democrats that want obstruction," Zinke said. "Our nation is better than that." Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Lisa Murkowskisaid Wednesday she too is fed up with nominee delays, but instead placed the burden of blame on a different culprit: the White House presidential personnel office.

   "What’s the holdup? Where is everybody?” Murkowski asked. “Everybody’s focused on the maintenance backlog and what we’re going to do within the parks, and we don’t have a parks director. Why?” She said Zinke shares her frustrations, but: "It’s just like this dark hole.”

   Interior is missing 11 of its 17 Senate-confirmed senior officials, and President Donald Trump has yet to even announce nominees for six of those positions, including the directors of the Bureau of Land Management, National Parks Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Another five nominees are awaiting Senate confirmation, according to tracking done by The Washington Post and Post and Partnership for Public Service.

   Murkowski highlighted the case of Tara Sweeney, announced as the administration’s pick to run the Bureau of Indian Affairs last October but whose paperwork has still not been sent to the Senate. There’s been a snarl in the personnel office over a perceived conflict of interest since Sweeney is an Alaskan native nominated to run the Indian Affairs office. "To effectively tell somebody in order to serve in this capacity you have to sell your birthright is a pretty incredible thing,” Murkowski said.

   — Green groups are using Zinke's one-year mark to highlight what they see as problematic leadership at Interior. The Wilderness Society released a parody videoWednesday in anticipation of the anniversary. It also released a list of “low points in year one as In(f)erior Secretary” here, while the Center for Western Priorities today released an updated website tracking Zinke’s "dirty deals" here.

   PRUITT TO FLY COACH: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will begin flying in coach instead of first class at least part of the time, he told CBS News' Major Garrett Wednesday. Pruitt noted that his security detail was alarmed by hostile encounters while traveling and recommended he always fly first class, as POLITICO reportedlast month. But that travel has attracted significant criticism, and Pruitt said he has instructed his security detail “to accommodate those security threats in alternate ways, including — up to and including, flying coach going forward,” Pruitt said in an excerpt released last night. Pruitt said he would fly coach "on my very next flight." It’s not clear what other “alternative” security measures are available while flying coach. The full Pruitt interview will be released on "The Takeout" podcast on Friday.

   IT’S THURSDAY! I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino, and DOE’s Diane Meck was first to identify the five most recent physicians-turned-senators: Bill Cassidy, Rand Paul, John Barrasso, Tom Coburn and Bill Frist. Now for a geography question: The Danube River touches 10 countries on its way to the Black Sea. What are they? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.

   RFS INDUSTRY PLAYERS GATHER IN THE WHITE HOUSE: Trump will hold his third meeting of the week today on the Renewable Fuel Standard, this time meeting with industry players on both sides of the issue. As of Monday, the only guest of the White House ME could confirm is Jeff Broin, CEO of ethanol producing giant POET, and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said his deputy, Steve Censky, would be there. But if any of these other folks cancel a meeting with you today, they might be at the White House: Iowa corn farmer Bill Horan, Renewable Energy Group CEO Randy Howard, Sheetz executive VP Mike Lorenz, Iowa farmer Bill Horan, Absolute Energy president Rick Schwarck, Michael Irmen from the Anderson Ethanol group, Philadelphia Energy Solutions CEO Greg Gatta, and someone from the United Steelworkers.

   ** A message from Chevron: Advanced technology is helping us find safer ways to deliver energy. We’re piloting a program that uses drones to monitor tanks and pipelines. Watch the video: http://politi.co/2Cc52Fl **

   
   SOONER OR LATER? Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe thinks there’s a deal to be made on RFS this year, but he doesn’t think it’ll come from the ongoing negotiations led by Sen. Ted Cruz. “You’re overlooking the bigger player and that would be [Senate Majority Whip John] Cornyn,” he told ME. "We have talked about compromises that might be acceptable to both sides.” Chuck Grassley has been resistant, along with other ethanol backers, to tweaking the program until 2022.

   QUOTED: "I want to say this very clearly, not so much for you in the audience, but I want to say it for the press that has written several different things. Hear me clearly, all of you," Perdue said in a speech Wednesday. "I will not, I have not and will not support any policies in this country that diminish the demand, undermine the RFS and are harmful to our agricultural producers." More here from Pro’s Catherine Boudreau.

   TRUMP READIES STEEL, ALUMINUM TARIFF: The White House has begun reaching out to steel industry officials in advance of a tariff announcement on steel and aluminum that could come as soon as today. One source on the matter said the administration was not far enough along on talks to make the announcement, which would have far-reaching global effects, today, POLITICO’s Andrew Restuccia and Adam Behsudi report. But Trump has told people in recent days that he's interested in imposing a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports, according to one person briefed on the issue.

   INDUSTRY ASKS COURT TO BLOCK NEWLY REVIVED METHANE RULE: Oil and gas industry groups Wednesday night asked a federal judge in Wyoming to issue a nationwide injunction blocking Interior's methane waste rule following a California judge's ruling last week that reinstated the rule's compliance deadlines. The Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America wrote in their motion that the methane rule “has unexpectedly sprung back into effect, and oil and gas operators face immediate compliance obligations that cannot be met anytime soon.” But they argued an injunction “would not harm the environment and would avoid the financial and administrative costs of temporarily implementing an unlawful, duplicative rule."

   Quick refresher: Another judge in January 2017 declined to issue an injunction against the rule. But the industry groups argue circumstances have changed now that Interior has proposed repealing key provisions of its own rule.

   The industry groups' request is something of a split from North Dakota and Texas. Those states on Monday asked for the Wyoming lawsuits over the methane rule to be revived, but argued the judge should rule quickly on the merits of the methane rule itself instead of considering whether to issue an injunction, "which will initiate an entirely new briefing schedule."

   GRID SECURITY FOCUS OF ENR HEARING: Grid cybersecurity will be the focus of a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing this morning, where NRECA CEO Jim Matheson will encourage Congress to continue funding research and development. Matheson will ask lawmakers to pursue legislation for “voluntary, enhanced FBI background checks to improve the ability of co-ops to prevent insider threats.” If you go: The hearing begins at 10 a.m. at 366 Dirksen.

   — Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James will testify today in front of the Senate EPW Committee during a hearing on the president’s infrastructure plan. If you go: The hearing begins at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen. Chao told transportation officials Wednesday they could soon expect "a fuller picture of the reasoning behind the president's infrastructure plan and the goals as well."

   INTERIOR AIDE RESIGNS AFTER BIGOTED REMARKS: Christine Bauserman, an aide to Zinke, resigned Wednesday after CNN documentedinflammatory social media remarks she made about Muslims, former President Barack Obama, gay people and black people. Bauserman had been on the beachhead team during the transition and most recently was special assistant in the office of the assistant secretary for land and minerals management. "The positions expressed by Ms. Bauserman are inappropriate and unacceptable, and they are not consistent with those of the Secretary or the Trump Administration," Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said in an email. Pro’s Ben Lefebvre reports more here.

   ROYALTY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS LOWER FEES: As expected, Interior's advisory committee voted Wednesday to send recommendations to Zinke's desk that call for cutting government royalties on oil and gas produced on federal lands, Ben reports. One recommendation the committee approved asks Interior to value coal at the amount the producer sells it to a subsidiary. The group's offshore energy recommendations also suggested simplifying the process for lowering royalty rates “for declining or particularly costly fields.” Read more.

   Murkowski seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach on the recommendations. "For us, right now, it’s not that significant. Going into the future, there’s clearly impact,” she said of the call for lower royalties. "They’ve made a recommendation. Sometimes recommendations actually take off and sometimes they’re just a recommendation from a working group, so let’s see where this goes.”

   DOE RESPONDS TO GAO REPORT: Following a GAO report that found ARPA-E funding delays caused “uncertainty” at the agency, DOE spokesperson Shaylyn Hynes defended the department and said it implemented a review process of all financial assistance last year, including ARPA-E. “Ultimately, all commitments to ARPA-E programs were honored,” Hynes said. “The GAO report today made no recommendations to DOE and confirms that the Department did not illegally withhold funding.”

   FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN DESK: The D.C. Circuit saidWednesday that it will livestream audio from oral arguments March 16 over EPA's long-term delay of the Obama-era chemical safety rule, also known as the Risk Management Plan update. The challengers and EPA have agreed to ask for 40 minutes total, more than the 30 minutes the court typically grants, though the court has not yet agreed to lengthen the hearing. The case will be heard by Judges Judith Rogers, Brett Kavanaugh and Robert Wilkins. Audio will be available here at 9:30 a.m. on March 16.

   CONFIRMED: Russell Vought was confirmed Wednesday on a 50-49 party-linevote to be deputy director of OMB. Vice President Mike Pence was called on to cast a tie-breaking vote. Vought, now No. 2 at OMB, has worked for Heritage Action for America, as policy director for the House Republican Conference and as executive director of the Republican Study Committee.

   PARTS AND CONTROL MAKERS TEAM UP ON VEHICLE STANDARDS:Groups representing auto parts makers and pollution control manufacturers will team up today for a new "informal alliance" to push for EPA and the Transportation Department to decide sooner rather than later about vehicle emissions standards through the 2020s. Chris Miller, executive director of the Advanced Engine Systems Institute, told ME the new Automotive Technology Leadership Group won’t be lobbying or running public campaigns, at least for now. But the members are “a little concerned about the trajectory of things,” he said, noting that like automakers, parts manufacturers need years of lead time to plan their business.

   EPA must decide by April 1 whether it will weaken the 2022-2025 standards. If it chooses change, EPA will have to go through a whole new rulemaking, likely followed by lawsuits, all of which increase uncertainty. Miller said the new group doesn’t have a specific standard in mind, but that they want certainty about the future. “Our companies are making planning decisions for model ’21, ’22 now, and really looking further out. If they’re going to change, we need to know what the roadmap is,” he said. And if the U.S. is going to weaken the standards, parts makers may look abroad “where there are standards that are being strengthened — in China, in Europe and other places,” Miller said. The ATLG is made up of AESI, the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, The Aluminum Association, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association and the Emission Control Technology Association.

   USTR SEEMS CONTENT ON ISDS CUT: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seems committed to eliminating the investor-state dispute settlement from NAFTA, Adam reports. Even as business groups mount to preserve the proposal, Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, told reporters Wednesday the administration — whether it’s Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross or Lighthizer — is "very consistent in the intellectual argument they make for eliminating ISDS.”

   MUCH ADO ABOUT RUSSIA: The Atlantic Council released a report today on the effects of U.S. and European Union sanctions on Russia’s energy sector. In the report, Global Energy Center non-resident senior fellow Bud Coote says it can be argued sanctions intended to delay Russia’s ability to develop oil and gas projects, actually “did Moscow a favor by delaying projects that are too expensive to undertake in the oil price environment that has persisted since late 2014.” Read it here.

   HEARING WATCH: Rep. John Shimkus’ E&C energy subcommittee will hold a "future of transportation fuels" hearing next week. “Because of the evolving nature of the Renewable Fuel Standard, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, the growth of electric vehicles, continued technological innovation, and demands of consumers, things are likely to progress and change in the years and decades to come” Shimkus said in the hearing announcement.

   MAIL CALL: Reps. Don Beyer, Raúl Grijalva and Donald McEachin requested a briefing from Interior on the department’s body camera and policing policies, following a DOJ report on the topic. Read the letter here.

   The nonprofit Mountain Pact, which focuses on Western mountain towns, is out with a new report today with recommendations for BLM one year into the administration. Read it here.

   MOVER, SHAKER: The Environmental Council of the States announced Sambhav Sankar was named its new executive director and general counsel, effective March 12.

   QUICK HITS

   — Emails: EPA staff aired concerns on Pebble announcement, E&E News.

   — Californians bash Trump for bid to end climate change plan, Associated Press.

   — Another U.S. solar company seeks exemption from Trump's tariff, Bloomberg.

   — SEC charges Texas oil operators with fraud, alleging investor cash used for booze, strippers, Chron.

   — Exxon quits Russian joint ventures, cites U.S. and EU sanctions, Reuters.

   — White House debates new punishments for Venezuela as April elections approach, McClatchy.

   https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/03/01/zinke-marks-year-one-with-nominee-backlog-119778
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

8. (ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Accuses Enviros of Reform Bill 'Misinterpretation'

   Mar 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

   By Corbin Hiar

   The chemical industry's top trade group today accused its erstwhile partners in the Toxic Substances Control Act reform effort of intellectual dishonesty.

   The claim came after Cal Dooley, the president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, acknowledged that "we wouldn't have been able to get TSCA reform moved through Congress if it wasn't for the strong relationship and engagement we've had with Environmental Defense Fund and a few of the other [nongovernmental organizations]."

   He added, "We totally value that relationship."

   But Dooley, in remarks at the opening of ACC's annual GlobalChem conference, went on to say that "we see a little bit of a reinterpretation of some of the provisions of TSCA by some of those groups."

   Similar charges have previously been leveled at ACC by the Environmental Defense Fund.

   Last month, EDF senior scientist Richard Denison accused the lobbying powerhouse of "doubling down on its revisionist history" of the changes to new chemical reviews under the landmark overhaul of the nation's chemical safety law.

   In a blog post citing dozens of comments from lawmakers, Obama administration officials and Dooley himself, Denison claimed the ACC was persisting "in its wishful thinking that the law's provisions on new chemicals are meant to maintain the status quo and that this is what stakeholders wanted."

   He was specifically referring to comments ACC gave U.S. EPA earlier this year. The trade group said it believes the agency "significantly changed its previous implementation of the New Chemicals Review Program since enactment of [TSCA reform] in a manner inconsistent with congressional intent."

   As a result, there is a "a substantial and growing backlog in the review of premanufacture notices (PMNs) for new chemicals, blocking the ability of businesses to manufacture and bring new chemistries to market in the United States," ACC said.

   But, as Denison's post notes, the authors of TSCA reform specifically called for sweeping changes to the new chemical review program, which previously allowed most chemicals to enter into commercial use without regulators verifying they wouldn't harm human health or the environment.

   "Our bill gives EPA new authorities to develop testing data and requires a finding of safety before new chemicals — as many as 1,500 a year — enter the market," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the lead sponsors of the reform package, said upon its passage in December 2015. "The finding on safety needs to be done not like it is done today, but before they enter the marketplace."

   Dooley's speech didn't specifically address that potential contradiction and didn't elaborate on how EDF or other environmental groups had reinterpreted TSCA reform.

   Instead, he said ACC prides itself "on taking an intellectually consistent, science-based approach to the implementation of TSCA. We are not deviating in any way in terms of what we committed to do when we committed to working with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle."

   Dooley also welcomed any groups "who think that we have changed our constituency to bring it to my attention ... and we will work with them."

   EDF didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Dooley's remarks.

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060075191/search?keyword=%22american+chemistry+council%22
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Official Invites Industry Help on Chemical Review Procedure

   Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

   By Julie A. Miller

   A key US EPA official has invited industry to collaborate on procedures that could speed up determinations on new chemicals, and said a lack of data is often the key element holding up approvals.

   Speaking at the American Chemistry Council’s GlobalChem conference in Washington DC, Jeff Morris, director of the US EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, asked industry representatives to "talk about the type of information that would be most helpful in setting a goal of a 'one and done' evaluation" of new chemicals "so that one of these determinations can be done within the statutory review period".

   "I will dedicate as many resources as I can to make this happen," Dr Morris said. He envisioned building a "template" for a collaborative review process. This is "so we can, if not institutionalise it, make it a general course of business" and create "a path for moving valuable new chemistries into commerce."

   The chemical industry has been dissatisfied with the pace of new chemical reviews under the amended TSCA.

   "One of the things we got with the Lautenberg Act is a commitment that 90 days would be the benchmark" for completing assessments, Karyn Schmidt, director of chemical regulation at the ACC, said at the conference.

   The EPA announced in August 2017 that it had eliminated its backlog of pending new chemical reviews. However, the claim that the number of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) under review had returned to a typical baseline of about 300 depended on eliminating from consideration cases where the submitter was developing new information.

   Ms Schmidt presented data indicating that the number of pending PMNs dipped below 400 in the summer of 2017, but had jumped back to 450 by October. It "has been in a steady state" since then, she said.

   "The backlog still exists" although "there has been some significant movement", she said.

   Ms Schmidt also said that because the vast majority of new chemicals are now subject to significant new use orders (Snurs), it takes a long time to finalise that language even once a review is completed.

   "There's a gulf or a delta between what the EPA says with respect to the review being completed and what industry sees as allowing [a new chemical] to go to market," she said.'Insufficient data'

   Dr Morris acknowledged that there has been a significant shift in practice. The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to issue affirmative findings that new chemicals are "not likely to present an unreasonable risk", rather than dropping reviews if the specific proposal before the agency was not seen as problematic.

   "A drop is not the same as a 'not likely'," Dr Morris said. Instead he suggested that the law specifically addressing "sufficiency" of data is a major contributing factor in delaying determinations.

   It was a significant change in the statute to have that element articulated, he said. "We are finding a lot of cases where we are really wrestling with [this]."

   In these cases, the EPA can issue an "insufficient data" finding, but Dr Morris said it also "may be a concern that pushes it over" into a finding of "may present an unreasonable risk".

   Many substances whose reviews were "dropped" in the pre-Lautenberg era would have fallen into the category, Dr Morris said.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/64465/epa-official-invites-industry-help-on-chemical-review-procedure
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

10. (ACC Mentioned) US Court Rules on Glyphosate Labelling, Threatening Reach of Prop 65

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    The requirement on a manufacturer to label a product as a carcinogen violates the company's free speech rights if the statement is not clearly true, a US federal court judge has ruled.

    The ruling temporarily blocks California from requiring labelling of products containing the herbicide glyphosate.

    And, if the interpretation sticks, the state could be forced to defend the scientific basis underlying the listing of chemicals under Proposition 65, rather than simply accepting the findings of any one "authoritative body" referenced in the law.

    "We hope this ruling will lead to further examination of how out of hand California's Proposition 65 law has become and constructive reforms to this problematic law," American Chemistry Council (ACC) president Cal Dooley said in a statement.Authoritative body

    Proposition 65 requires that employees and consumers be warned when they are exposed to a chemical listed as "known" to cause cancer or reproductive harm. One route to listing under Prop 65 is a finding by an "authoritative body".

    The July 2017 decision by the Office of Environmental Health Assessment (Oehha) to list glyphosate is based on an International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) finding that it is "probably" carcinogenic to humans.

    Monsanto, which manufactures the herbicide RoundUp, and agricultural industry groups, brought the suit back in January 2016, when Oehha first announced its intention to list glyphosate.

    They made multiple legal arguments, but the 26 February decision turns on the argument that requiring the Prop 65 label violates Monsanto's free speech rights under the US Constitution.Earlier decision

    A January 2017 lower court ruling that favoured Oehha did not consider the free speech argument on the grounds that there can be no violation until the labelling mandate goes into effect, as it is scheduled to do in July.

    The new decision holds that Monsanto is likely to win its free speech claim and would be "irreparably damaged" if the rule went into effect.

    District Judge William Shubb applied standards set by the US Supreme Court in another case involving government-mandated commercial speech. The high court ruled that businesses could be required to disclose "purely factual and uncontroversial information" about products, as long as the requirements are "reasonably related" to a substantial government interest.

    The problem with the Prop 65 mandate is that the statement that glyphosate is carcinogenic is not "uncontroversially" true, Judge Shubb wrote. He found industry's argument persuasive that other regulatory bodies, including the US EPA, have decided glyphosate is not hazardous at current levels of exposure.

    "On the evidence before the court, the required warning for glyphosate does not appear to be factually accurate and uncontroversial because it conveys the message that glyphosate's carcinogenicity is an undisputed fact, when almost all other regulators have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer," Judge Stubb said.Final decision awaited

    The ruling is not a final decision in the lawsuit, and does not require Oehha to remove glyphosate from the Prop 65 list, though it halts the labelling mandate while the case proceeds.

    "We are pleased that the listing of glyphosate remains in effect, and we believe our actions were lawful," Oehha said in a statement.

    The agency had argued that the labelling mandate would not "harm" Monsanto because it expects to finalise before the July effective date a regulation establishing a "safe harbour" level of glyphosate below which a product would not have to carry a warning.

    Judge Shubb agreed with industry that this does not sufficiently mitigate the impact of having to pay for testing and defend against private actions under Prop 65, which are expensive even if they have no foundation.

    Iarc's findings on glyphosate have been the central point of contention in recent attacks on its procedures in the US Congress. The ACC launched its campaign to alter Iarc's practices more than a year ago, but stepped it up in January with the formation of the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research Coalition.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64457/us-court-rules-on-glyphosate-labelling-threatening-reach-of-prop-65
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Mind the Store Campaign to Target More US Retailers in 2018

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Tammy Lovell

    A campaign that evaluates the efforts of US retailers to eliminate toxic chemicals is widening its net in 2018, to assess more companies and sectors.

    The Mind the Store coalition of NGOs has produced a ‘retailer report card’ for the past two years, ranking companies on criteria such as chemical policy, transparency and continuous improvement. Its 2018 retailer report card will be published in November. 

    Speaking at a Chemical Watch webinar last week, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, Mike Belliveau, set out the campaign’s priorities for the year. It will pursue "direct results in reducing chemical footprint and replacing chemicals of high concern with safer alternatives", he said.

    Particular emphasis, he added, will be placed on encouraging retailers to phase out those chemicals of high concern which, he said, are currently neglected by federal agencies.

    These include:methylene chloride;perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs); andortho-phthalates.

    Last year, the US EPA announced plans to ban methylene chloride in paint strippers under a section 6 TSCA rule, but the proposals were later shelved.

    Mr Belliveau said this is "the perfect moment" for retailers to "exhibit leadership" and send the market a signal that they intend to abandon products that contain methylene chloride. And the campaign "would welcome the commercial introduction of alternatives that work just as well".PFASs

    There is a growing body of research, Mr Belliveau said, which shows PFASs are persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT). The campaign will encourage those in the textiles sector to follow the lead of Swedish retailer Ikea, which phased out the use of PFAS compounds in its textiles in 2016. The campaign will also focus on the presence of PFASs in food packaging and in the food supply.Ortho-phthalates

    The primary pathway of exposure to ortho-phthalates is through the food chain, Mr Belliveau said. They have been banned for most food contact uses in the EU, but not in the US. He suggested that retailers could play a role in phasing them out, as had already been seen in the flooring sector.

    "We’re very pleased by the leadership Home Depot demonstrated in 2015 when they worked with their suppliers to phase out phthalates in vinyl flooring and others followed quickly," he said.Flame Retardants

    Retailers have been instrumental in the widespread voluntary phase-out of halogenated flame retardants in the residential upholstered furniture sector, Mr Belliveau said. There is now "growing hazard and exposure data about triaryl phosphates, which are dominant in the market and need further attention".

    Mind the Store will focus on encouraging retailers to phase out flame retardants in children’s products, electronics and household appliances.Chemical Footprint

    In addition, the campaign will focus on further alignment with the Chemical Footprint project – an initiative of the NGO Clean Production Action and other partners, which helps corporations measure their progress on transitioning to safer chemicals.

    Mind the Store campaign director, Mike Schade, said that brands and retailers often find responding to numerous consumer, NGO and brand surveys a tiresome exercise. Therefore, he added: "It’s important for us to send similar market signals" about the "best in class" approaches to safer chemical management.

    Mike Schade will be discussing the Mind the Store initiative on day one of the Global Business Summit, taking place on 13-14 March 2018 in Amsterdam. To find out more about the event click here. 

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64468/us-mind-the-store-campaign-to-target-more-retailers-in-2018
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. For the Cosmetics Industry, a Regulatory Makeover Awaits

    Mar 1, 2018 | Wall Street Journal

    By Thomas M. Burton

    At a time when Washington is pushing to deregulate industry, a congressional effort is under way to intensify federal regulation over cosmetics and personal-care products for the first time in 80 years.

    Senate staffers from both parties have reached a tentative agreement to stiffen oversight of safety standards for beauty products including skin creams, deodorants, hair dyes, shampoo and mascara, which until now have only been lightly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

    Consumer-safety groups have long petitioned for more stringent regulation of the cosmetics industry amid concerns about chemicals found in beauty and hair-care products, but past efforts to increase regulation have failed, most notably in 2013. Then, a proposal negotiated by the FDA and industry that would have given the agency the power to widely test the safety of chemicals in cosmetics collapsed as some big manufacturers balked at the last minute.

    This time around, however, powerful businesses and trade group Personal Care Products Council generally support the effort to produce a new law. Companies are eager to have a consistent federal law that could pre-empt a range of state laws.

    The industry has faced growing pressure from retailers and consumers to ensure products are free from risky ingredients, such as chemicals like phthalates, lead and formaldehyde, which are under growing suspicion that they may lead to cancer or changes in human development. Big brands especially are fighting a reputation that their products contain harsh or unsafe chemicals, and are losing share to smaller companies with a focus on natural ingredients.

    One such big-brand maker, Procter & GambleCo. , said it supports “the bipartisan effort currently under way to strengthen and modernize FDA oversight of the cosmetic industry.”

    The House of Representatives has yet to show its hand on the current attempt. Its Energy and Commerce Committee said it is “gathering information” from the FDA, industry and consumer groups. The Senate, though, is pushing forward under Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, and Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, which oversees the FDA.

    The two have worked successfully on health bills before, and Mr. Alexander has said he hopes to get cosmetics legislation passed this year. The tentative agreement, known as a discussion draft, is aimed at getting a bill on the Senate floor in coming months.

    It would mark a major shift for the cosmetics industry, which is projected to generate annual sales of $89 billion in 2018, according to market-research company Euromonitor International.

    Governed by a 1938 law called the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the industry has faced little in the form of meaningful government scrutiny. For instance, the FDA can’t compel makers of products like shampoos, deodorants, lipstick and children’s eye makeup to report safety problems—or even register with the agency at all.

    Earlier this year, Claire’s Stores Inc. pulled 17 products from their retail sites after scientists reported finding asbestos in some children’s products. These included glitter and eye shadow. Claire’s said the findings were “unfounded” and that four independent laboratories analyzed the products and found no asbestos.

    In recent years, the FDA has received dozens of reports about hair-straightening treatments that contain the carcinogen formaldehyde and can make salon workers and customers ill with burning and blistering in the nose and throat. While the agency can ban specific ingredients now, the FDA can’t compel companies to file adverse-reaction reports that would give it a sense of a safety issue’s scope.

    The draft agreement in the Senate would require companies to register with the FDA no later than 60 days after beginning to make cosmetics and beauty products. They would then need to notify the agency within 15 days of any bad reaction from cosmetics. The FDA would be required to evaluate a number of ingredients for safety. It isn’t clear how the agency would fund such scientific assessments, which is generating concern among consumer groups that the bill would give theoretical authority without the budget to actually assess safety.

    The bill would create a generally more complex safety standard, with products considered safe if there is a “reasonable certainty” that they are “not injurious to health” under uses recommended in labeling.

    Some public-health groups are urging lawmakers to adopt a tougher standard, but generally welcome the congressional initiative.

    Scott Faber, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, called the discussion draft “an important landmark” and said that “recent reports of contaminated cosmetics should be ample proof that cosmetics reform is long overdue.” His group has been active in a yearslong effort to strengthen regulation of cosmetics.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cosmetics-industry-may-get-a-regulatory-makeover-1519900201?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=3
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Echa's MSC Departs from PBT Guidance for UVCBs

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Emma Davies

    Echa's member state committee (MSC) has been grappling with how best to assess persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (PBT) for substances with unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological materials (UVCBs) being evaluated for the community rolling action plan (Corap).

    Not only does the MSC need to agree on proposals for which constituents in a complex mix should be tested first, it also decides on the specific tests for P, B, and T.

    At its February 2018 meeting, the committee decided to recommend a case-specific departure from Echa's PBT guidance, which describes first testing for persistence, followed by bioaccumulation, and toxicity.

    Bioaccumulation first

    In one case (SEV-DE-014), the MSC agreed with Germany's suggestion to first test a selected constituent for bioaccumulation, only moving on to persistence tests if the substance proved to be very bioaccumulative. The evaluating member state argued that the substance is highly likely to be persistent, given available evidence. If the substance is considered very bioaccumulative, then it will still be necessary to carry out simulation degradation tests to decide if it is persistent or very persistent, said MSC chair Watze de Wolf.

    "We decided at MSC that we could reverse the general order from the guidance document." Watze de Wolf

    "We had quite some discussion, but decided at the MSC that we could reverse the general order from the guidance document," he said.

    The MSC also made a similar decision for a "relatively complex" UVCB being evaluated by Spain (phenol, 4-methyl-, reaction products with dicyclopentadiene and isobutylene; SEV-ES-019).

    The UVCB has many unidentified constituents at low concentrations. In this case too, the committee decided that starting with bioaccumulation testing before moving onto persistence would be "technically more feasible". Following bioaccumulation testing, the idea is that certain constituents can then be put forward for persistence tests.

    In both cases, the MSC was clear that tests on water accommodated fractions (WAF) are not suitable for the PBT/vPvP assessment of UVCBs, as suggested by some registrants. The test is carried out on mixtures.

    "The MSC agreed not to accept WAF testing for PBT assessment of UVCBs," Dr de Wolf told Chemical Watch.

    "If there is toxicity, it is going to be very difficult to assess which constituent drives it," he said. "In general, the WAF approach can only be used if the water solubilities are very comparable for each of the constituents," he added. "We can use the WAF for classification and labelling, but it is not a tool for risk assessment."Extended one-generation

    At its February meeting, the MSC also returned to the familiar topic of the extended one generation reproductive toxicity study (Eogrts). During a compliance check for the antibacterial triclocarbon, the MSC discussed whether Eogrts should include cohorts for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) and immunotoxicity (DIT).

    France is also evaluating the substance as a potential endocrine disruptor under Corap. After considering "additional information" that became available late in the day, the MSC agreed unanimously to remove the Eogrts study from the compliance check so that France could deal with it in its substance evaluation.

    Meanwhile, the MSC decided against a DNT cohort for chloroethane, used as a thickening agent and binder in paints and cosmetics. The substance has also been used as an anaesthetic in the past. The compliance check had a proposal for amendment (PfA) to include a DNT cohort based on the fact that an anaesthetic with a similar vapour pressure causes some developmental neurotoxicity.

    Finally, the committee celebrated unanimously approving 1000 agreements and decisions in 10 years. Many of these resulted from dealing with PfAs. Over the next decade, Dr de Wolf said he is keen to see fewer PfAs, reflecting "less divergent views" between Echa and member states. "If it takes us 20 years to reach the next 1000, then I think that is success," he said.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64464/echas-msc-departs-from-pbt-guidance-for-uvcbs
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Echa Round-Up

    Mar 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Updated CLH for some chemicals effective 1 March

    Echa has advised that the harmonised classification (CLH) of some substances, or the revision of their existing classification, will be legally applied from 1 March, according to the ninth adaptation to technical progress (ATP). Substances affected include lead (massive and powder form).

    This adaptation deletes Table 3.2 containing the harmonised classification according to the Dangerous Substance Directive.CLH intention

    The agency has received an intention to harmonise the classification and labelling (CLH) of tetrakis(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-m-phenylene biphosphate, used as a fire preventing agent in electronic apparatus.Echa invites suggestions for Euon reports

    Echa has asked stakeholders to suggest topics that the EU’s Observatory for Nanomaterials (Euon) should consider for future reports.

    Euon plans to run two to three studies each year to address relevant knowledge gaps relating to nanomaterials on the EU market.

    The planned reports will be targeted at specific audiences, such as regulators or researchers. Some of them will be aimed at the general public.

    Echa said that suggestions from stakeholders should cover at least one of the following areas:health and safety aspects of nanomaterials, including hazard and risk assessment, exposure to nanomaterials and worker safety and protection;uses of nanomaterials by consumers or workers; andmarkets for nanomaterials, focusing on EU markets.

    Suggestions, and questions, should be sent by email to nano-observatory@echa.europa.eu.Substance evaluation guide

    Echa has published what it calls a "practical guide about substance evaluation".

    The guide explains how substances are selected and evaluated and clarifies what actions registrants may take in providing the requested information. It also addresses data sharing and communication between registrants.33 testing proposals

    Echa has launched 33 new public consultations on testing proposals. The deadline to comment is 16 April.D6 added to ongoing restriction intention for D4 and D5

    At the request of the European Commission, the agency has added dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) to the intention, originally submitted on 13 April 2017, for octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5).

    It is preparing a restriction in personal care products and other consumer/professional products (for example, dry cleaning products, waxes and polishes, washing and cleaning products) in concentrations >0.1% for submission on 13 January 2019.Lead registrant list updated

    Echa has updated the list of substances for which a lead registrant has been declared in REACH-IT. There are now around 13,800 joint submissions, it says. The list enables you to see substances for which a registration has already been submitted or will be submitted by 31 May 2018.Two new REACH 2018 webinarsThe first webinar on 8 March gives last-minute advice on how to successfully submit a REACH registration dossier. The second, on 15 March, covers manual checks performed by the agency as part of the completeness check and most common failures. There will be advice on how to avoid these failures and prepare a dossier that can be successfully submitted. The webinars also offer the opportunity to put questions to Echa's experts. Prompt registration is advised to secure a place.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64459/echa-round-up
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

15. Russian Meddling on Social Media Targeted U.S. Energy Industry, Report Says

    Mar 1, 2018 | Wall Street Journal

    By Georgia Wells and Timothy Puko

    A Russian-backed propaganda group used social media in an attempt to disrupt the U.S. energy industry and influence energy policy, according to a new congressional staff report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

    Unlike other Russian campaigns to stir political unrest in the U.S., this effort by the tech-savvy Internet Research Agency on energy is characterized as mostly one-sided, agitating against American fossil-fuel production in a way lawmakers believe was aimed at benefiting Russia, the world’s largest oil producer.

    Starting in 2015, workers at the IRA posted photos and messages on Facebook , Instagram and Twitter encouraging protests of pipeline construction in the U.S., calling for the abandonment of fossil fuels and stoking American controversy around climate change, according to the upcoming report by the majority staff on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

    It isn’t clear how much influence, if any, the campaign had on U.S. energy policy. Many of the posts were shared by only a handful of followers, the report says. But the posts came at a critical time for Russia, after oil and gas prices began to plummet due to booming output in the U.S., maybe the greatest threat to one of Russia’s most important industries.

    “To the extent that America produces more energy of any kind, it guarantees Russia more competition,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Science Committee. “Russia wants to reduce competition from the United States.”

    The Russian embassy in Washington declined to comment on the new allegations. In response to questions, it sent prior comments from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denying claims that Russians used social media to create discord in the U.S.

    The new report was written by Republican staff on the House Science Committee. It is based on data supplied by Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc., which have faced criticism from lawmakers over the role of their social networks in facilitating the spread of misinformation and divisive content.

    Mr. Smith said Facebook and Twitter cooperated with the committee’s requests. Both companies have said they took down the IRA accounts last year because they violated their policies.

    People close to Facebook and Twitter confirmed they shared data with the House Science Committee. A Twitter spokeswoman added that the IRA’s tweets represented an “extremely small” portion of the broader energy discussion on Twitter.

    The IRA opened its opinion-influencing unit in 2014 with the goal of spreading distrust in the U.S., according to the federal indictment secured by special counsel Robert Mueller in mid-February.

    The IRA in 2015 started targeting U.S. energy policy in its posts on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, according to the report. Around this time, the U.S. energy boom had begun putting the U.S. and Russia in fierce competition. U.S. production had burst out of a long decline as companies learned how to tap shale rock for oil and natural gas.

    Between 2015 and 2017, the IRA posted more than 9,000 times about U.S. energy policy or an energy event, according to the report. More than 4% of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, compared with the 8% of the IRA tweets related to the U.S. election, the report says.

    “If true, this is extremely troubling, and not just from the perspective of the pipeline industry,” said Don Santa, leader of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which represents interstate gas pipeline companies. “It would illustrate the pervasiveness of Russia’s attempt to sabotage our economy and energy security and undermine trust in our government."

    Russia has responded to the growth of American oil production with an unprecedented deal to cut its oil production in coordination with other big exporters, an effort to cap supply and stabilize plunging prices. President Donald Trump seized on the issue early in his tenure and promised policies to boost output and exports even further as a bulwark against Russia.

    Pipelines were allegedly one of the primary targets of the Russian actors. Many of the posts encouraged protests of pipeline construction, including the Dakota Access Pipeline, Keystone XL and Colonial pipelines, the report says.

    “Dakota access pipeline has already leaked 84 gallons of oil. Like if you want justice!” said one of the posts on Russian-backed Instagram page “bornliberal” in May. The post received more than 1,500 likes, according to the report.

    The Russian actor’s strategy outlined in the report mirrored other campaigns the group has carried out to amplify divisions that already exist in American society. The U.S. energy industry’s rapid growth hasn’t always been welcome at home, one obstacle for producing and exporting even more oil and gas. A growing, though slim majority of Americans have turned against “hydraulic fracturing,” the process used to tap oil and gas from shale, according to Gallup surveys from 2016 and 2017.

    The report says some Russian posts also focused on fossil fuels and framing the U.S. as a nation fixated on oil, to the detriment of U.S. political and social institutions. One post on Instagram in late 2016 depicted a bald eagle, overlaid with text that said, “Did someone say oil?” The post received 784 likes, the report added.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-meddling-on-social-media-targeted-u-s-energy-industry-report-says-1519902001?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. These Provocative Images Show Russian Trolls Sought to Inflame Debate Over Climate Change, Fracking and Dakota Pipeline

    Mar 1, 2018 | The Washington Post

    By Craig Timberg and Tony Romm

    Russian trolls used Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to inflame U.S. political debate over energy policy and climate change, a finding that underscores how the Russian campaign of social media manipulation went beyond the 2016 presidential election, congressional investigators reported Thursday.

    The new report from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee includes previously unreleased social media posts that Russians created on such contentious political issues as the Dakota Access pipeline, government efforts to curb global warming and hydraulic fracturing, a gas mining technique often called “fracking.”

    One Facebook post created by a Russian-controlled group called “Native Americans United” shows what appears to be a young girl in a braid peering out over an unspoiled prairie. “Love Water Not Oil, Protect Our Mother, Stand With Standing Rock,” a reference to an Indian tribe that opposed the Dakota Access pipeline. The post also said, “No Pipelines. No Fracking. No Tar Sands.”

    The 21-page report drew from documents submitted in the fall by Twitter and Facebook, which owns Instagram, for congressional investigations into the social media influence campaign during the 2016 presidential election. Those probes focused on the efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm in St. Petersburg that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicted in February for disrupting and influencing U.S. politics.

    The committee’s report found that between 2015 and 2017, more than 9,000 posts and tweets dealt with U.S. energy policy produced by 4,334 Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts controlled by the Internet Research Agency. Twitter told the committee that more than 4 percent of tweets produced by the Russians dealt with energy and climate issues.

    “This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market,” said committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) in a statement that accompanied the release of the report Thursday morning. “The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

    Smith is a longtime advocate for increased oil and gas drilling in the United States and counts the industry as one of his biggest political benefactors. It has contributed more than $772,000 to his reelection campaigns, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

    The lawmaker, who has announced plans to retire after this congressional term, has questioned the veracity of climate science. During a particularly contentious, March 2017 congressional hearing, Smith charged that much of that science “appears to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions than on the scientific method.”

    Facebook declined to comment on the report.

    Twitter issued a statement seeking to minimize the reach of the Russian disinformation campaign. “In our report to Chairman Smith we noted that a small subset (413) of these accounts participated in conversations related to energy, that their total volume of Tweets was relatively small (5,594 original Tweets, 2,223 Retweets), and that these Tweets represented an extremely small portion of the broader discussion of energy issues on Twitter.”

    The report underscores how Russians worked on both sides of contentious American political issues. The Facebook posts — which typically were accompanied by identical posts shared by affiliated Instagram accounts — appeared designed to specifically appeal to either liberal or conservative audiences. There were posts, for example, expressing concern about climate change and others mocking it.

    This tracks previous reports about how the Russian disinformation campaign worked to inflame other sensitive political issues — and worked both sides — on racial and religious matters, immigration policy and same-sex marriage.

    One post from the Facebook account “Blacktivist” — an Internet Research Agency-tied account that had sought to stoke racial tensions online — included an apparent image of law enforcement battling protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline. “We’re about to celebrate thanksgiving and tell schoolchildren we made peace w Native Americans while DAPL protesters are being tear gassed,” the post read. It was shared 497 times on Facebook, according to the committee.

    Smith’s investigation also contends that Russian trolls advocated for “the complete abandonment of specific fuel sources, such as fossil fuels, by touting exaggerated claims about alternative energy sources.”

    One such post from the Internet Research Agency account “Born Liberal” — appearing on both Facebook and Instagram — highlighted how oil giants reaped billions of dollars in profits last year as public schools lacked funding.

    Republicans on the House’s top science panel say that Russian posts sought to link climate change to catastrophic weather events, claiming that the Internet Research Agency aimed to “generate further domestic controversy” about the environmental issue.

    Other online accounts tied to the Internet Research Agency sought to promote drilling and to question climate science, including in Smith's home state of Texas.

    The top Democrat on the House committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, said in a statement, "It has become apparent that the Russians have been attempting to interfere across our society. Most importantly, it is ‘incontrovertible’ that the Russians interfered in our 2016 election and repeatedly attempted to penetrate our election infrastructure."

    She said the committee should be focusing its attention on Russian threats to American election systems. "To ignore known meddling in the very foundation of our democracy while focusing solely on Russia’s influence on the U.S. energy market – a market that is currently booming – seems irresponsible at best."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/03/01/congress-russians-trolls-sought-to-inflame-u-s-debate-on-climate-change-fracking-and-dakota-pipeline/?utm_term=.7bf51c41843c
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

17. Reports Warn of 'Hidden Arms Race' for Hacking Infrastructure

    Mar 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    A "hidden arms race" for hacking critical computer networks picked up steam in 2017, according to a trio of reports from the Maryland-based cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc.

    Last year, researchers unearthed two samples of malware, dubbed "CrashOverride" and "Trisis," aimed at wreaking havoc in power grids and a petrochemical facility, respectively.

    Only three other threats targeted at industrial control systems (ICS) have cropped up since 2010, suggesting 2017 may mark "a break-through moment, as opposed to a high-water mark" in such activity, Dragos analysts concluded in their "Year in Review."

    "We regrettably expect ICS operational losses and likely safety events to continue into 2018 and the foreseeable future," noted one of the reports released this morning.

    Dragos cast the year-in-review documents as a way to fill perceived gaps in cyber incident reporting at the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, DHS has spread the word about cyberthreats to critical infrastructure through its Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team. The agency recently merged that office into a larger cybersecurity division, and Dragos decided to step in with its own annual summaries.

    "It's really about raising awareness and building community knowledge about what this environment looks like," said Joe Slowik, adversary hunter at Dragos.

    Industrial cyberthreats and vulnerabilities are notoriously murky, with information trickling out through a mix of vendor advisories, cybersecurity reports and data volunteered through government agencies like DHS and the Department of Energy. Authorities at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, frustrated by a perceived lack of clarity on cyberthreats to the power grid, recently proposed new requirements for utilities to open up about hacking threats to their systems (Energywire, Feb. 28).

    Slowik said he and his team are tracking five hacking groups with an active interest in control systems, but said that may represent the tip of the iceberg. "If you told me that the groups we've identified were the only ones operating in this [ICS] space, I would be shocked," he said.

    Of the threat actors, with nicknames like "Dymalloy" and "Chrysene," the "Electrum" group is most worrisome, according to Slowik. That team is believed to be responsible for crafting a sophisticated hacking tool that disabled parts of Ukraine's power grid in late 2016, and could be used elsewhere with a few tweaks (Energywire, June 13, 2017).

    Slowik called Electrum "the most committed and technically successful group that we're tracking," noting that while it went quiet in 2017, "they're still working" on new capabilities.

    The Trisis malware also alarmed cybersecurity experts last year, though Slowik and company have stopped short of tying the malicious tool to a specific group or country. First uncovered by the cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc., Trisis is believed to have briefly brought down a petrochemical facility in the Middle East last summer. The malware was built to disable a crucial industrial safety system that serves as a backstop to prevent loss of life during an emergency (Energywire, Dec. 15, 2017).

    Reid Wightman, senior vulnerability analyst at Dragos, pointed out that both attacks leveraged the fundamental designs of the equipment they targeted, rather than some more readily fixable facet of their operating software.

    In Trisis' case, that meant overwriting safety controllers with unverified, malicious code, while the hackers behind CrashOverride exploited unauthenticated communications channels to flip circuit breakers at a large substation outside Kiev, Ukraine.

    "This 'insecure by design' issue that we harp on all the time — it's really what the attackers are using," Wightman said.

    He also crunched the numbers on 163 vulnerability advisories issued in 2017 that carried the potential to impact control systems in sites like wastewater facilities, power grids and manufacturing plants.

    Most of those flaws in ICS devices were difficult to patch, due to problems in the design of the ICS components, Wightman found. However, the vast majority — 85 percent — of the weaknesses could only be exploited by hackers already burrowed within a victim's network.

    In other words, "by the time somebody gets to these vulnerable systems, they've already broken through probably several layers of systems," Wightman said.

    Dragos CEO Robert M. Lee is likely to raise some of his firm's statistics on the Hill today at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on emerging cyberthreats to the grid (E&E Daily, Feb. 26).

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/01/stories/1060075109
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

18. Washington State Is Set to Vote on a Carbon Tax. For the Governor, It’s a Gamble.

    Mar 1, 2018 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport

    This week in the statehouse in Olympia, Wash., Gov. Jay Inslee is battling to bring a vote on a historic climate change policy that he has pursued for years: instituting the nation’s first tax on planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution.

    It’s a tough sell, even in his traditionally Democratic, West Coast state. But the State Senate vote, expected in the next few days, will be watched around the country, and around the world. Economists broadly agree that taxing the carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is the most efficient way to fight climate change. But politicians agree that it is also a nearly surefire way to get voted out of office.

    After all, a carbon tax is, by design, an energy tax. Among other things it would most likely raise the prices that voters pay for gasoline and electricity, which is why the idea has long been seen as politically toxic.

    Governor Inslee said he would like to change that perception. “We are not afraid of being a vanguard,” he said in an interview in Washington, D.C. “We invented commercial jet airliners and the best software in the world,” he said, referring to Boeing and Microsoft, two global companies that were founded in his state. “In this case, we’re developing a new policy system, and we hope it would be followed.”

    But even if Governor Inslee’s carbon tax bill fails this time, he intends to keep pushing the plan either as a ballot initiative this year or possibly as part of a platform in a 2020 challenge against President Trump for the presidency. Governor Inslee declined to say whether he intends to run for President, but his name is increasingly appearing on lists of possible Democratic contenders.

    If he does run, Governor Inslee is expected to make climate change central to his platform. Governor Inslee, who has spent the past decade of his political career focusing on climate change, earning the sobriquet “greenest governor in America,” sees the issue as a way to directly attack Mr. Trump, who has mocked established climate science, rolled back environmental regulations and promised to withdraw the United States from the landmark Paris climate accord.

    This past Sunday, Governor Inslee said, he made his views clear at a governors’ breakfast with Scott Pruitt, the head of Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency and the president’s point man in undoing climate change rules. “I told him, you’re killing my state,” Governor Inslee said of his conversation with Mr. Pruitt. “My state is going up in smoke because our forests are involved in these catastrophic fires.” He added, “I told him, this administration is not just irresponsible but morally reprehensible.”

    An E.P.A. official didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Mr. Pruitt.

    The global interest in the Olympia vote comes as several state leaders are signaling to the world that they intend to act on climate change with or without the Trump administration. More significantly, the state has drawn attention as a major global economy that is willing to buck conventional wisdom by taking on a carbon tax at all.

    “This is very significant. Washington is not just any state, it’s home to so many global companies: Starbucks, Microsoft, Amazon,” said Erik Solheim, the head of the United Nations Environment Program, speaking by phone from New Delhi, India. “It is part of the signal to the world that the major states, big business are in disagreement with the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and they are doing something about it.”

    Opponents of climate change policy, including the fossil fuel industry and allies of the Trump administration, also see the upcoming Washington state vote as seminal. “We’re watching this vote intensely,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist and political strategist who advised Mr. Trump’s campaign and transition.

    Already, carbon tax bills have been introduced in the legislatures of Utah, Maryland, New York, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and Washington, D.C.

    Mr. McKenna is one of many analysts and strategists who see Governor Inslee’s push to pass a carbon tax in his home state as his first step toward a national campaign. “This is not just about the state of Washington. This is about Jay positioning himself is a national leader on climate change,” Mr. McKenna said. “He is testing out themes and strategies.”

    Even if Governor Inslee’s tax brings him a victory in his home state and in the eyes of environmental advocates around the world, Republicans see it as a political liability, and are preparing to attack him on it.

    “I’m a big fan of having votes on carbon taxes,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that supports fossil fuels and supplied the Trump administration with its energy policy blueprint, including rolling back climate change regulations and expanding coal and oil exploration. He recounted the history of politicians losing their jobs as a result of backing a price on carbon pollution.

    There was Al Gore in 1993 when, as vice president, he urged Congress to pass an energy bill that would have taxed the heat content of burning fossil fuels. After Democrats pushed the bill through the House, Republicans attacked them for backing an energy tax, and the vote was seen as a key reason that Democrats lost control of the House in 1996.

    The pattern was repeated in 2009, when President Barack Obama tried to push Congress to pass a so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would have required carbon polluters to pay for permits to pollute. The bill passed in the House but cost coal-state Democrats their seats.

    Carbon taxes have helped fell politicians around the world. In 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia successfully pushed to pass a carbon tax. The following year, she was ousted from office in a campaign that was partly seen as a referendum on the tax.Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions.

    We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.

    Although Hillary Clinton campaigned in 2016 on a pledge to tackle climate change, she stopped short of endorsing a carbon tax. “Even Obama recognized, even Hillary Clinton recognized, that a carbon tax is politically toxic,” Mr. Pyle said. Governor Inslee, he said, is “going to find out real quickly that it doesn’t play in Peoria.”

    Even some people who have voted for Governor Inslee express concern about how a carbon tax might be used against him in the hardball of a national political campaign. “I would like to see him run,” said Dan Rystrom, 56, a retired investor from a suburb of Seattle who identified himself as a Democrat. “But I think it would be the end of him,” he said, describing the political ads he expected to see across the country, saying: “Who is this man from the West Coast who just raised the prices of gasoline?”

    Still, there are signs that other politicians might be willing to take the carbon tax plunge. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pushing to implement a national carbon tax by the end of the year. And while Washington would be the first state in the nation with a straight carbon tax, it is not the first to force polluters to pay for emitting carbon dioxide: As governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a cap-and-trade law in 2006.

    Many environmental economists say that in order for a carbon tax to significantly cut planet-warming pollution, it should be set at a rate of $30 to $50 per ton of pollution. The proposed Washington state tax is $12 a ton, although it would increase at $2 per year until it reaches $30.

    The tax is also likely to have a smaller impact on Washington’s economy than it might in other states, because of its unique energy mix. The state gets most of its electricity from carbon-free hydropower, rather than coal.

    In the interview, Governor Inslee said that whoever ultimately runs against Mr. Trump in 2020 on the Democrat side should put climate change front and center in his or her campaign. The politics of global warming are changing, he said, as more Americans experiencing economically damaging weather events that scientists can attribute to the changing climate.

    “Climate change used to be an abstraction. It used to be a graph,” he said. “Now we’re seeing biblical events play out on the 6 o’clock evening news.”

    “I believe it is a successful and winning issue,” Governor Inslee said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/climate/jay-inslee-carbon-tax.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Here's What the EPA's Website Looks Like After a Year of Climate Change Censorship

    Mar 1, 2018 | TIME

    By Laignee Barron

    Throughout the Trump administration’s first year in office, the Environmental Protection Agency has been quietly scrubbing mentions of climate change and tweaking related language on its website – an effort critics have decried as scientific censorship.

    The EPA is far from the only federal agency to get a Trump-era work over. But monitoring organizations say it has suffered the most extensive revisions over the past year.

    These alterations, which began within days of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, reflect a marked departure from the EPA’s roots in an era of burgeoning environmental activism. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson ignited an advocacy movement with her book Silent Spring, which warned that humans were poisoning their environment with pesticides, and, in turn, the environment would eventually poison humans too. The message, compounded by environmental disasters of that decade, attracted the sympathies of President Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 in part to regulate the impact of human activities on the environment.

    Nearly five decades later, the current administration is waging a blitzkrieg against the widely held consensus that human activity is a driving force behind climate change. This reorientation has triggered a purge of environmental websites, and especially, the EPA’s, which once boasted readers had “come to the right place” for the latest information on climate change.

    According to former government officials and EPA staffers, the level of scrutiny is without precedent. In the hands of an administration that has eschewed facts for their alternative cousins, the agency’s site is increasingly unmoored from its scientific core.

    “In my experience, new administrations might come in and change the appearance of an agency website or the way they present information, but this is an unprecedented attempt to delete or bury credible scientific information they find politically inconvenient,” Heather Zichal, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, and previously President Barack Obama’s top White House adviser on energy and climate change, tells TIME.

    The EPA’s site is now riddled with missing links, redirecting pages and buried information. Over the past year, terms like “fossil fuels”, “greenhouse gases” and “global warming” have been excised. Even the term “science” is no longer safe.

    Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA Administrator under George W. Bush, says the overhaul is “to such an extreme degree that [it] undermines the credibility of the site”.

    “The message they’re sending, particularly to young people, is that science doesn’t matter,” she tells TIME. “Don’t get me wrong – questioning is fine and good, but when you have overwhelming consensus on something, you concede to that. Undermining science means there is no basis on which to act based on fact, which is dangerous.”

    Scientists say the year-long overhaul has unraveled decades’ worth of research, while undermining the agency’s mission, which promises to source the “best available scientific information”.

    “The idea that the science of climate change is in doubt – and that this justifies changing EPA websites – is simply false,” Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center, tells TIME.

    “I see no way to avoid concluding that [the current EPA administration] places the interests of the fossil industry above those of the people it is charged to protect,” he added.

    During his campaign, Trump vowed to “get rid” of the EPA. Once in office, he proposed gutting the budget by 31%, appointed a notorious climate change skeptic to head it and issued a series of executive orders aimed at decimating any work deemed an impediment to energy production. He also immediately ordered the removal of climate change information from the site, according to Reuters.

    Of the more than 25,000 web pages tracked by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) since Trump’s election, they say the EPA’s have been hit hardest. One section, which provided local communities with resources for combating climate change, disappeared for months only to resurface heavily redacted, including just 175 of its 380 pages.

    Although the EPA did not return requests for comment, it said in a statement in April that it was “removing outdated language” on the website and acknowledged that “content related to climate and regulation is also being reviewed.”

    “We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt,” says the error message now ubiquitous across the site.Burying climate change information

    When Scott Pruitt’s name emerged for the EPA administrator position, scientists raised concerns about the effect he could have on Americans’ access to climate science. Pruitt billed himself as the “leading advocate” against the “activist agenda” of the agency, which he sued 14 times. Now spearheading the EPA, Pruitt is seen as pivoting the agency away from environmental activism toward a more private business-friendly stance. He calls his approach a “back-to-basics agenda” that prioritizes engaging with partners, and implementing “sensible regulations for economic growth”.

    Read more: Inside Scott Pruitt’s Mission to Remake the EPA

    This shift in outlook is immediately apparent on the EPA’s new homepage. The previous homepage welcomed viewers with a pledge that “cleaning up our communities and taking action on climate change are among our priorities”. That’s been replaced with an appeal to “learn how EPA is increasing transparency and public participation in litigation against the agency”.

    But the changes go beyond rhetoric. After the EPA announced its website “update” last April, months after the alterations began, the “Climate Change” section was taken down.

    This vast section had existed in various forms for over two decades. Initially launched as a section on “Global Warming”, it served as a hub for basic scientific background on what climate changes is and how human are contributing. “What can we do about this change?” it asked, and provided tools like a carbon footprint calculator and resources for teachers.

    “Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change,” one page read, adding, “The choices we make today will affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere in the near future and for years to come.”

    Previously, the climate change section was accessible via the EPA homepage. Now, its URL – www.epa.gov/climatechange – prompts the message, “This page is being updated.”

    http://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorship/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. The Known Unknowns of Plastic Pollution

    Mar 1, 2018 | The Economist

    Mr McGuire had just one word for young Benjamin, in “The Graduate”: plastics. It was 1967, and chemical engineers had spent the previous decade devising cheap ways to splice different hydrocarbon molecules from petroleum into strands that could be moulded into anything from drinks bottles to Barbie dolls. Since then global plastic production has risen from around 2m tonnes a year to 380m tonnes, nearly three times faster than world GDP.

    Unfortunately, of the 6.3bn tonnes of plastic waste produced since the 1950s only 9% has been recycled and another 12% incinerated. The rest has been dumped in landfills or the natural environment. Often, as with disposable coffee cups, drinks bottles, sweet wrappers and other packets that account for much of the plastic produced in Europe and America, this happens after a brief, one-off indulgence. If the stuff ends up in the sea, it can wash up on a distant beach or choke a seal. Exposed to salt water and ultraviolet light, it can fragment into “microplastics” small enoughto find their way into fish bellies. From there, it seems only a short journey to dinner plates.

    Countries as varied as Bangladesh, France and Rwanda have duly banned plastic bags. Since last year anyone offering them in Kenya risks four years in prison or a fine of up to $40,000. In January China barred imports of plastic waste, while the European Union launched a “plastics strategy”, aiming, among other things, to make all plastic packaging recyclable by 2030 and raise the proportion that is recycled from 30% to 55% over the next seven years. A British levy on plastic shopping bags, introduced in 2015, helped cut use of them by 85%. On February 22nd Britain’s environment secretary, Michael Gove, mused about prohibiting plastic straws altogether.

    Fearful for their reputations, big companies are shaping up. Coca-Cola has promised to collect and recycle the equivalent of all the drinks containers it shifts each year, including 110bn plastic bottles. Consumer-goods giants such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble vow to use more recycled plastics. McDonald’s plans to make all its packaging from recycled or renewable sources by 2025, up from half today, and wants every one of its restaurants to recycle straws, wrappers, cups and the like.

    The perception of plastics as ugly, unnatural, inauthentic and disposable is not new. Even in “The Graduate” they symbolised America’s consumerism and moral emptiness. Visible plastic pollution is an old complaint, too (years ago, plastic bags caught in trees were nicknamed “witches’ knickers”). What is new is the suspicion that microplastics are causing widespread harm to humans and the environment in an invisible, insidious manner. “Blue Planet 2”, a nature series presented by Sir David Attenborough that aired in Britain last October and in America in January, made the case beautifully. But the truth is that little is known about the environmental consequences of plastic—and what is known doesn’t look hugely alarming.

    A load of rubbish

    We can be surest about how much plastic is produced and where it ends up. In a paper published last year in Science Advances, Roland Geyer of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his colleagues put the cumulative amount of solid plastic waste produced since the 1950s that has not been burned or recycled at 4.9bn tonnes (see chart 1). It could all have been dumped in a landfill 70 metres deep and 57 square kilometres in area—that is to say, the size of Manhattan.

    If only it had all remained on land, or even washed up on beaches, where it could be collected. A bigger environmental worry is that much plastic has ended up in the ocean, where, dispersed by currents, the stuff becomes virtually irretrievable, especially once it has fragmented into microplastics. Computer models suggest that seas hold as many as 51trn microplastic particles. Some are the product of larger pieces breaking apart; others, like microbeads added to toothpaste or face scrubs, were designed to be tiny.

    Whereas salt and sunlight can cause plastics physically to break apart into smaller pieces, chemically the hydrocarbons linked together into the polymer chains of which plastics are made do not spontaneously decompose into other compounds. Like crude oil, from which most polymers are derived, that happens only if they are burned at a high temperature to release mainly carbon dioxide and water. In normal conditions plastic simply accumulates in the environment, much as carbon dioxide does in the atmosphere.

    Even if the flow of plastic into the sea, totalling perhaps 10m tonnes a year, was instantly stanched, huge quantities would remain. And the flow will not stop. Most of the plastic in the ocean comes not from tidy Europe and America, but from countries in fast-developing East Asia, where waste-collection systems are flawed or non-existent (see map). Last October scientists at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, in Germany, found that ten rivers—two in Africa and the rest in Asia—discharge 90% of all plastic marine debris. The Yangtze alone carries 1.5m tonnes a year.

    On current trends, by 2050 there could be more plastic in the world’s waters than fish, measured by weight. Such numbers frighten people and change their behaviour. Nine in ten Europeans worry about plastic’s impact on the environment. More than half told pollsters for Eurobarometer in 2017 that they try to forgo plastic bags when shopping. By comparison, only one-tenth consider fuel-efficiency when buying a new car. Unlike other kinds of pollution, plastic is an eyesore, notes Liz Goodwin of the World Resources Institute, a think-tank. Yet if a comprehensive league-table of environmental ills existed—which it does not—plastics would not top it.

    Just 10% of 3.6m tonnes of solid waste discarded each day the world over is plastic. Whereas filthy air kills 7m people a year, nearly all of them in low- and middle-income countries, plastic pollution is not directly blamed for any. A report last year by the Lancet Commission on pollution and health, which put the total number of pollution-related deaths at 9m, mentions plastics once in its 45 pages.

    On land, the damage from litter, which exercises many anti-plastic campaigners, is limited. Most refuse does not spread too far beyond population centres, where (at least in principle) it can be managed. At sea, most plastics end up in vast rubbish patches fed by ocean circulation patterns, the biggest of which can be found in the north Pacific.

    Mid-ocean gyres are fortunately neither especially rich in fauna nor particularly biodiverse. The effects of plastics on busier bits of the ocean, such as reefs, have been little studied. One paper, published this year in Science by Joleah Lamb of Cornell University and colleagues, linked plastic litter to coral disease near Indonesia and Myanmar. But little similar work exists for other sedentary species, let alone slippery migratory ones.

    Researchers have identified 400 species of animal whose members either ingested plastics or got entangled in it. It is known that because polymers repel water (which is why droplets form on their surface), plastic particles also attract certain compounds from their surroundings. Some of these could be toxic. Laboratory studies have shown that if swallowed by fish, compounds in plastic fragments can be absorbed from the digestive tract into flesh. However, no studies have so far been performed to test whether such toxins concentrate up the food chain, as mercury does in fish. The only direct evidence of plastic entering the human diet is a study by Belgian scientists who discovered plastic fragments in mussels. Unlike fish, bivalves are eaten whole, guts and all.

    Munching moules-frites seasoned with a pinch of plastic may sound unappetising but need not be worrisome, says Stephanie Wright, who studies the subject at King’s College, London. Polymers are chemically inert, and so do not themselves present a health risk. Some common additives such as phthalates (which soften PVC) or bisphenol-A (which hardens many types of plastic used in consumer goods) are chemically akin to human hormones, and might therefore disrupt them in high concentrations. For decades both have been licensed for use in everything from pipes to shampoo bottles because human exposure was unlikely to exceed safe limits. America now bans some phthalates in toys and child-care products because of potential harm to growing children.

    Weighing the damage

    Trucost, a research arm of Standard & Poor’s, a financial-information provider, has estimated that marine litter costs $13bn a year, mainly through its adverse effect on fisheries, tourism and biodiversity. It puts the overall social and environmental cost of plastic pollution at $139bn a year. Of that half arises from the climate effects of greenhouse-gas emissions linked to producing and transporting plastic. Another third comes from the impact of associated air, water and land pollution on health, crops and the environment, plus the cost of waste disposal.

    To put that into perspective, the United Nations Development Programme says that the costs of overfishing and fertiliser run-off amount to some $50bn and $200bn-800bn a year, respectively. By 2100 ocean acidification, which is caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolving into water, could cost $1.2trn a year. The costs of rapid ocean warming caused by human-induced climate change are hard to fathom but are likely to be enormous.

    The overall cost of plastic pollution compares favourably with other sorts of man-made harm mostly because plastics are light. Making a kilogram of virgin plastic releases 2-3kg of carbon dioxide, about as much as the same amount of steel and five times more than wood. But a product made of plastic can weigh a fraction of a comparable one made of other materials.

    That is why replacing plastic with other things could raise environmental costs at least fourfold, according to Trucost’s analysts. This is even true of the various virtue-signalling alternatives to plastic bags. A British government analysis from 2011 calculated that a cotton tote bag must be used 131 times before greenhouse-gas emissions from making and transporting it improve on disposable plastic bags. The figure rises to 173 times if 40% of the plastic bags are reused as bin liners, reflecting the proportion in Britain that are so repurposed. The carbon footprint of a paper bag that is not recycled is four times that of a plastic bag.

    And other materials could not replace plastics in all circumstances. Imagine a hospital without surgical gloves, or promiscuity without condoms. By keeping food fresh for longer, plastic packaging substantially reduces organic waste, itself a growing environmental concern. In 2015 J. Sainsbury, a British grocer, reduced waste in a beefsteak line by more than half by using plastic vacuum packaging.

    Plastic pollution “is not the Earth’s most pressing problem”, in the words of one European official. But, he immediately adds, just because plastics may not be the biggest problem facing humanity does not make them trouble-free. As scientists never tire of repeating, more research is needed. It is the absence of evidence about how plastics influence health rather than evidence of absence that explains their bit part in the Lancet Commission report, says Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, who chaired it.

    Fresh science may be forthcoming. In the past two years Ms Wright has noticed an uptick in grants for plastics-related research. Erik van Sebille, of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, recalls that a few years ago a seminar on ocean plastic pollution organised by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration drew perhaps 200 participants. This year organisers had to cap attendance at 600 and turn people away.

    While researchers get a better handle on the science, campaigners badger politicians and browbeat consumers to kick the polymer habit. They often invoke the precautionary principle. If the impact of something is uncertain but could be great, the argument goes, better forestall it just in case. As the proliferation of plastic bans and strategies suggest, they are having some success.

    PET peeves

    Much of this activity makes scarcely a dent in the world’s plastic pollution problem, however. Some has unintended consequences. Making plastics biodegradable, by adding corn starch or vegetable oil to petroleum-derived hydrocarbons, renders them harder to recycle. Recyclers already struggle to invest in capacity or innovation even in countries that collect lots of their rubbish. Periodic declines in the oil price, which makes virgin plastic cheaper, can bankrupt recyclers, many of which are small or medium-sized companies, says Peter Borkey of the OECD, a rich-country think-tank.

    Meanwhile consumer-goods firms sometimes say that too little recycled plastic is available to buy. With costs of some recycled plastic competitive with virgin stuff, “supply is a bigger issue than cost,” says Virginie Helias, Procter & Gamble’s vice-president for sustainability. In other words, erratic demand appears to dampen supply while insufficient supply inhibits demand. Recyclers everywhere face that problem. There is no guarantee that targets like the EU’s will solve it.

    China’s import ban may provide the necessary jolt. Introduced as part of a broader clampdown on pollution, it took waste exporters by surprise. In 2017 European countries shipped a sixth of their plastic waste for disposal abroad. Most sailed to China. In the short run some surplus waste can go to Malaysia or India, but those countries’ capacity is a fraction of China’s. Eventually, refuse exporters will have to deal with more of it at home.

    Building recycling capacity is one option. Incineration is falling out of favour for heating or electricity generation as coal-fired plants are replaced with gas, which emits less greenhouse gases than waste-to-energy plants. From an ecological standpoint, landfilling is not as bad as it looks, so long as additives that might leach out of the polymers are prevented from escaping. Plasma recycling, where refuse is heated to as much as 5,000°C, turning it into unadulterated hydrocarbons plus a solid residue, looks promising but remains some way from commercialisation.

    To be disposed of, though, plastic waste must be collected. In Europe, America and other developed places, virtually all of it is. To eliminate marine litter in particular, more rubbish needs to be picked in the leaky Asian countries.

    China’s anti-pollution drive may bring about improvements, although the country now pays more attention to filthy air and water, which are more pressing concerns. Indonesia has launched its own National Action Plan on marine plastic. The other big polluters are eyeing similar measures. What happens there over the next few decades will matter more than any number of Western plastic-bag bans.

    https://www.economist.com/news/international/21737498-so-far-it-seems-less-bad-other-kinds-pollution-about-which-less-fuss-made
    

    Return to headline | Return to top