Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 16/07/18
-
(ACC Blog) ACEEE Symposium: Energy Efficiency is a Sustainability Strategy
Jul 16, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)’s International Symposium on Energy Efficiency (#ISEE18) in Washington last month provided a prime opportunity to explore how energy efficiency can contribute to a sustainable future. -
Agency Defends FOIA Process, Says It Welcomes Scrutiny
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA is defending how it handles Freedom of Information Act requests after coming under increasing criticism from the top Democratic watchdog in the House. -
Cummings Seeks Subpoena on EPA's FOIA Interference
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is asking committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to subpoena EPA for documents shedding light into the agency's political interference in answering Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. -
The EPA Should Not Restrict The Science They Use To Protect Us
Jul 16, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Andrew Rosenberg
On Tuesday morning, the Environmental Protection Agency is holding their only hearing on their proposed rule that would restrict the science that the agency is allowed to consider in developing health and safety protections. -
Ewire: Wheeler Pledges to be 'Stabilizing Force' at EPA
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
Andrew Wheeler, the new acting EPA administrator, is pledging to be a “stabilizing force” at the agency and to put his head down and implement the Trump administration's agenda to reduce regulatory burdens on industry, a role he could play through the remainder of President Donald Trump's term. -
(ACC Mentioned) ATSDR Extends Consultation on PFAS Tox Profile
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has extended by 30 days the comment period on its draft toxicological profile of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). -
Gov. Snyder Asks State to Sue 3M Over Chemical Pollution
Jul 16, 2018 | Detroit News (In E&E Greenwire)
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) intends to sue industrial plastics giant 3M Co. over contamination identified near current and former military sites. -
Secret Documents Expose Monsanto’s War on Cancer Scientists
Jul 16, 2018 | Truthout
By Stacy Malkan
DeWayne Johnson, a 46-year-old father dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, became the first person to face Monsanto in trial last week over allegations the company hid evidence about the cancer-causing dangers of its Roundup weedkiller. -
Why You Should Still Breastfeed – Even Though U.S. Delegates Blocked WHO Breastfeeding Resolution
Jul 16, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Isabel Walston
On July 8, health advocates were shocked when U.S. delegates stoppeda World Health Assembly resolution to encourage breastfeeding. -
Maintenance Worker May Have Caused D.C. Boil-Water Advisory
Jul 16, 2018 | The Washington Post (In E&E Greenwire)
A boil-water advisory issued Friday that affected about 100,000 residents in northeast and northwest Washington, D.C., was likely caused by a maintenance worker who left a valve open at a pumping station, said officials who are familiar with the investigation. -
NGO Calls for 'Humane' EU Chemicals Regulations
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU should use the recent passing of the final REACH registration deadline as an opportunity to review and revise chemicals legislation to eliminate cruelty to animals, NGO Cruelty Free International has said. -
Trump’s Coal Bailout, Repeal of Clean Power Plan Would Bring Early Death to Many Americans
Jul 16, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
The Trump administration’s proposals to prop up the coal industry and roll back clean air rules would mean early deaths for tens of thousands of Americans, according to new research. -
Commentary: Energy Industry Motivated to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Jul 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By John Williams
In today's political climate, policy solutions may seem distant. -
Republicans Duel on Climate Measures Behind the Scenes
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Forty-three House Republicans who say they want to address climate change could face a political test this week when they're asked to vote on a carbon tax. -
Lawmakers Aim to Use Spending Bill to Block Offshore Drilling
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House lawmakers in both parties are hoping to use a spending bill to block offshore oil and natural gas drilling in the waterways off their states’ coasts. -
Putin on High Gas Prices: There Is 'Space for Cooperation Here'
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Russian President Vladimir Putin said there's “a space for cooperation” between the U.S. and Russia when it comes to lowering gas prices. -
FRA Hosts PTC Symposium on Interoperability Issues
Jul 16, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today is holding the second of three symposiums for the 41 railroads required to implement positive train control (PTC) systems. -
Kavanaugh vs. Garland on the Environment
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
For Democrats and environmentalists, President Trump's Supreme Court announcement this week set off another round of what-could-have-been if the Senate had allowed Merrick Garland's nomination to move forward. -
3 Dems Seek Safeguards Against Censoring Climate Data
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
The EPA and Interior Department would be barred from muzzling employees who want to talk about climate change under a new measure filed by three House Democrats. -
Adidas To Only Use Recycled Plastics in Its Products by 2024
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Adidas plans to use only recycled plastic in its products by 2024.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) ACEEE Symposium: Energy Efficiency is a Sustainability Strategy
Jul 16, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)’s International Symposium on Energy Efficiency (#ISEE18) in Washington last month provided a prime opportunity to explore how energy efficiency can contribute to a sustainable future. Leaders from business, government and academia shared best practices in “doing more with less.”
Chemistry has an essential role. For over a century, chemistry has enabled solutions to some of the world’s most daunting sustainability challenges. This includes the desire to use energy wisely – making supplies go further while reducing emissions and lowering costs for families and businesses.
Chemistry is the power behind building insulation, sealants and wraps that save energy in our homes, offices and factories; lightweight plastic and composite auto parts that improve fuel efficiency; and new technologies that are revolutionizing the way we generate and store energy — from solar cells and wind turbines to rechargeable batteries and more.
Here are a few highlights from the ACEEE symposium:Adopting updated building energy codes helps ensure the construction of energy-efficient buildings and homes, but some states are lagging behind, said ACEEE’s Jennifer Amann.Vehicle efficiency improvement can be achieved through complementary approaches including performance standards and technological innovation, said Zifei Yang of ICCT.The French government has launched a plan to renovate 500,000 homes per year to make them energy efficient and cut heat loss, electricity consumption and emissions, said Carine Sebi of Grenoble Business School. Individual coaching and training is a key part of the program. Bon travail!Industrial strategic energy management enables more cost-effective and rapid investment in advanced energy efficient technologies, said Paul Scheihing of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Chemistry drives energy efficiency innovation
The chemistry industry is a leader in the use of combined heat and power (CHP), which provides electric power and heat from a single fuel source. Because energy is generated close to where it’s needed, little is lost in transmission. CHP facilities are often twice as efficient as older coal-burning utilities. Increased use of CHP and other forms of distributed generation could help ease a major transition in the U.S. power sector as many coal-fired plants are retired.
The chemical industry has been a pioneer in the development of catalytic technologies. Catalysts are added substances that increase the rate of chemical reactions. Less energy is used per unit of product. Today, about 90% of all chemical processes employ catalysis in production, and there is enormous potential for additional energy savings. Advancements are possible in the areas of feedstock, fuels and production of some high-volume chemicals.
Improving energy performance in our own operations
Our commitment to sustainability includes our own companies and facilities. Responsible Care® is the chemical manufacturing industry’s environmental, health, safety and security performance initiative. Member companies are required to consider operational energy efficiency as well as waste minimization, reuse and recycling when developing their environmental, health, safety and security plans.
The Responsible Care Energy Efficiency Awards program is one of many ACC initiatives to improve energy efficiency. In May, ACC honored 13 of its member companies for implementing energy efficiency improvements in 2017, presenting a total of 39 awards to these companies, 13 of which were deemed programs of “Exceptional Merit.”
Learn more: www.ScienceBehindSustainability.org #ScienceBehindSustainability
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/07/aceee-symposium-energy-efficiency-is-a-sustainability-strategy/
-
Agency Defends FOIA Process, Says It Welcomes Scrutiny
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA is defending how it handles Freedom of Information Act requests after coming under increasing criticism from the top Democratic watchdog in the House.
In a letter dated yesterday, Kevin Minoli, EPA's principal deputy general counsel and designated agency ethics official, told Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that he was ready to brief panel staff on how the agency processes FOIA requests.
Minoli, essentially EPA's top career lawyer, described how the agency set up the FOIA Expert Assistance Team in 2013 at the direction of then-acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe, an Obama administration appointee, to help reduce the crushing workload of FOIA requests and litigation pouring into the agency.
The unit is tasked with handling the most complex and sensitive requests, and managed EPA responses for documents on the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis; the Gold King mine disaster; and the Volkswagen emissions cheating scheme.
It coordinates with other offices within EPA, as well as the White House when requests involve the president, and makes senior leaders aware of pending releases of records.
"This 'awareness review' process does not itself violate FOIA and can be completed without causing undue delay," Minoli said.
Minoli said EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson asked the special unit to help the administrator's office improve its its FOIA processing after a surge of requests under the Trump administration.
By April this year, FEAT and four EPA offices, known as AO4 — the administrator's office, the public affairs office, the congressional relations office and the policy office — launched a project to improve FOIA responses at EPA.
FEAT has hired three employees to support the project, and new information experts have been recruited by the four EPA offices, as well, according to Minoli. Requesters have since been updated on the status of their FOIAs, and new processes have been put in place to help get documents out.
Cummings was not satisfied with EPA's response. "This letter has some nice talking points, but it does not provide any of the documents I requested and does not answer any of the problematic questions I raised," he said in a statement.
A Democratic committee aide said EPA provided Minoli's letter to the press before sending it to Cummings. The aide also noted that the letter is not from the agency's chief of staff or the chief FOIA officer.
Minoli acknowledged that EPA's handling of FOIA requests has had problems. The agency now faces more than 70 lawsuits under the public records law.
But the EPA lawyer invited Cummings, other members of his committee and its staff to visit the agency "to see first-hand the effort that is being made and the work that has been done to put the agency on the cusp of that future."
"EPA's FOIA program is far from perfect," Minoli said. "The work of the FEAT and the AO4 Team, however, has laid a foundation from which EPA's FOIA program could be a model of what a FOIA program should be, not an example of what a FOIA program should not be."
On Friday, Cummings had demanded that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Oversight panel, subpoena EPA for documents related to its FOIA process (Greenwire, July 13).
In a letter, the committee's lead Democrat released excerpts of transcribed interviews with top EPA officials conducted as part of the panel's investigation into the agency under former Administrator Scott Pruitt, who resigned earlier this month after being swamped with ethics allegations.
Cummings said requests deemed "politically charged," using Jackson's words, were given extra scrutiny by President Trump's political appointees at the agency.
"Information recently obtained by the Committee confirms that EPA is using a process in which political appointees review FOIA requests and hand select requests to be processed by a different team if they are complex or 'politically charged,'" Cummings wrote.
"Responses to FOIAs are at times deliberately delayed, and political appointees review responses to FOIA requests before they are released."
Today in his statement, Cummings said, "Chairman Gowdy should issue the subpoena I asked for and compel the agency to comply so that we can get the documents we need to do our job."
The EPA inspector general said last week that in the wake of Pruitt's resignation, it will continue its audit of how the agency is preserving emails and text messages, as well as how it processes FOIA requests. The watchdog office also noted it is too early to say when that report will be released (E&E News PM, July 12).
That IG investigation was sparked after Senate Democrats expressed worry that not all of Pruitt's multiple email accounts were being searched in response to FOIA requests.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089249
-
Cummings Seeks Subpoena on EPA's FOIA Interference
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, is asking committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to subpoena EPA for documents shedding light into the agency's political interference in answering Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Cummings in a July 13 letter to Gowdy said the request for a subpoena was prompted by EPA staff testimony to the committee as part of its investigation into former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's alleged ethics and spending violations.
“I am writing to request that you issue a subpoena to compel the [EPA] to produce documents it has failed to produce about policies implemented by ousted Administrator Scott Pruitt to withhold information about his tenure in response to [FOIA] requests. . . . Information recently obtained by the Committee confirms that EPA is using a process in which political appointees review FOIA requests and hand select requests to be processed by a different team if they are complex or 'politically charged.'”
Cummings wants Gowdy to demand documents and communications related to FOIA request reviews by Trump administration political appointees including White House employees.
Cummings says if Gowdy does not issue the subpoenas himself, “then we ask you place this matter on the agenda” for a committee vote.
In a statement on the letter, Cummings says information obtained by the committee also confirms that “[R]esponses to FOIAs are at times deliberately delayed, and political appointees review responses to FOIA requests before they are released. In at least one instance, EPA gave favorable treatment to an industry lobbyist.”
Cummings notes he wrote seeking such documents in June but EPA's only response was an email linking to documents already cited in his previous letter, where he charged that Pruitt was slowing or limiting FOIA disclosures.
EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, who served Pruitt and continues to serve in that role for Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, was interviewed by committee staff June 29 and confirmed that EPA is using the new process, where he or Elizabeth Beacham run a list of FOIA requests through the Office of Public Affairs to determine which ones will be processed.
Those generally involved requests of people who work in the administrator's office, he said.
Jackson cited as an example of a politically charged request by the Sierra Club seeking emails sent or received by a group of people who worked at EPA at the beginning of the Trump administration, what Jackson termed “a fishing expedition,” adding that “FOIA is not meant . . . to be as if, you know, the requester is a fly on the wall.”
Jackson also testified that some FOIA responses were deliberately delayed though he declined to say the reasons for the delay. He also confirmed that political appointees can review responses before they are released and that he has weighed in to recommend redactions, though he said those were mostly limited to shielding personal information.
And he admitted asking for processing help for an industry friend, but said he would do the same for Sierra Club and other groups if they more narrowly tailored their requests.
In response, the watchdog group American Oversight, which is pursuing nine lawsuits and has submitted more than 50 FOIA requests to EPA, said that even though it has been clear that EPA was interfering with FOIA, “it's still shocking to read this admission in black and white.” FOIA “gives all Americans the right to know what our government is doing, and it doesn't allow political appointees to pick favorites or cover up embarrassing documents.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/cummings-seeks-subpoena-epas-foia-interference
-
The EPA Should Not Restrict The Science They Use To Protect Us
Jul 16, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Andrew Rosenberg
On Tuesday morning, the Environmental Protection Agency is holding their only hearing on their proposed rule that would restrict the science that the agency is allowed to consider in developing health and safety protections. My colleagues and I have written extensively about this proposal. On Tuesday, I will have the opportunity to speak directly to the agency about this proposal. I will have five minutes. Here is what I intend to say:
“Good morning. I am Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. We advocate for the role of science in public policy. I am here today to ask that you rescind this proposed rule because it would only restrict EPA’s ability to use the best available science to fulfill its mission of protecting public health and the environment, while doing nothing to improve transparency in decision-making.
First and foremost, this proposal is fatally flawed because it provides almost no justification or analysis of the impacts of the proposed change in policy. There is no cost benefit analysis of the rule with respect to the agency and external researchers, nor how it would affect EPA’s mission-critical work. Additionally, the proposal would effectively prevent the EPA from using many kinds of scientific studies vital to its decision-making. This includes, but is not limited to, studies that rely on personal health data, confidential business information, intellectual property, or older studies where the authors or data sources may not be accessible. Without the ability to use this scientific information, EPA would be unable to meet its mission and statutory obligations. This proposal would make it significantly harder for EPA to use the best available science to protect the public, including from:Harmful emissions of hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter and ozoneExposure to dangerous chemicals in commerceDrinking water contaminated with toxic chemicals such as PFAS or lead
Further, CBO has calculated that such restrictions would substantially increase costs and burdens to an agency that is already experiencing budget cuts, reorganizations, and understaffing, thus undermining the ability of EPA to make decisions based on science.
The proposed rule could also prevent the agency from addressing the impacts of dangerous chemicals at low concentrations where direct measurements are very difficult. This would have the effect of leaving Americans unprotected even when there was clear indication of harms to human health.
I have over 30 years of experience in government service, academia, and non-profit leadership. I have authored or reviewed 100s of peer reviewed scientific papers. As part of my government service, I worked as a scientist and in a policy position at a regulatory agency. In universities as a faculty member and dean. I understand how agencies use science in policymaking, how research at universities is conducted, and how these entities incorporate best practices of transparency into their scientific work. As a frequent peer reviewer I do not review the raw data for studies, since that would tell me little. I review the research questions, the methods, the summarized data, the results and conclusions in order to assess the quality of the work. EPA’s proposed rule would do nothing to improve transparency for scientists, policy-makers or the public. Crafting the rule without consulting with the scientific community is a fatal error for this proposal. Even the agency’s own Science Advisory Board has noted the need to consult with scientists in any further development of this proposal.
A further fatal flaw is that the proposed rule would replace scientific evidence with political judgement. The rule would grant the EPA administrator broad authority to exclude individual studies or entire decisions from being subject to its provisions. Decisions on what science to rely on should be made by the agency’s scientific experts based on established criteria for best available science.
Five minutes is not enough time to cover all of the problems with this proposal. At best, this proposed rule is a misguided attempt at transparency. At worst, it is a backdoor attempt to prevent EPA from protecting public health.
UCS supports real transparency reforms. We support scientific integrity policies that prevent political interference in scientific analyses and reporting. We do not believe researchers should be put in the absurd position of choosing between protecting study participant privacy or informing the EPA ‘s efforts to protect public health and safety.
On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and our 500,000 supporters I urge the EPA not to move forward with this rulemaking and to continue to allow the agency’s scientists and policy analysts to use the best science available to inform their work.”
https://blog.ucsusa.org/andrew-rosenberg/the-epa-should-not-restrict-the-science-they-use-to-protect-us
-
Ewire: Wheeler Pledges to be 'Stabilizing Force' at EPA
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
Andrew Wheeler, the new acting EPA administrator, is pledging to be a “stabilizing force” at the agency and to put his head down and implement the Trump administration's agenda to reduce regulatory burdens on industry, a role he could play through the remainder of President Donald Trump's term.
Part of that, according to a Wall Street Journal story on his first few days at EPA, includes meeting with Democrats and environmentalists opposed to that agenda -- a step rarely taken by his predecessor, Scott Pruitt. “I'm not going to get lasting changes in programs by just talking to my friends,” Wheeler said.
Overall, the Journal piece quotes several industry sources describing Wheeler as a smooth deregulatory operator. “When the new rules come out, you'll see a lot more t's crossed and i's dotted,” said Stephen Brown of refiner Andeavor, according to the story.
Rich Gold of Holland & Knight also told the paper that Wheeler “is much more formidable to environmentalists and Democrats in terms of finalizing agency actions that can survive challenges.”
The Journal reported that one of the chief criticisms of Pruitt “was that some of his regulatory changes had already lost in court, while others appeared vulnerable because his team hadn’t laid out enough of a legal rationale or evidence for their new rules.”
Inside EPA's Doug Obey recently included a similar theme in this must-read news analysis, writing that Wheeler “could be more effective in doing so by relying on established processes, consulting with staff rather than isolating himself as Pruitt did, and focusing on day-to-day operations rather than preparation for elected office.”
However, it is worth noting that these contemporary recollections of Pruitt sloppily approving rule rollbacks -- with his various ethics scandals only compounding the troubles -- clash with the conventional wisdom from just a few weeks ago that Pruitt was the most effective member of President Donald Trump's Cabinet.
In May, for instance, top fossil fuel executives who are friendly with Trump -- including Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm and Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray -- urged the president to keep Pruitt in his position because they believe he has been effective at rolling back burdensome rules.
Arguments at the time pushed by environmentalists that Pruitt wasn't quite as effective as some believed were dismissed as political attacks.
Just a few weeks before Trump forced Pruitt to resign, conservative commentator Matt Lewis wrote that while such stories could be considered “liberal spin,” he was “starting to hear some conservatives quietly admit this, too.”
The latest version of reality also conflicts with the official version of events from Trump, who in his tweet announcing Pruitt's ouster said that he “has done an outstanding job” with the agency -- and only alluding to his ethical troubles.
And in June, the president said EPA is “doing really, really well” and that “somebody has to say that about you a little bit. You know that, Scott.”
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that Wheeler could keep his current job for years without a Senate vote.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-wheeler-pledges-be-stabilizing-force-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) ATSDR Extends Consultation on PFAS Tox Profile
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has extended by 30 days the comment period on its draft toxicological profile of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
Published last month, the profile reflects minimal risk levels (MRLs) well below EPA recommended levels for four of the 14 assessed substances: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA. The document came amid a flurry of controversy that other federal agencies were suppressing its release, amid fears of a "public relations nightmare".
The ATSDR – which is housed under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – says it is interested in receiving "relevant, additional studies" on the health effects of the substances. It will "evaluate the quality and relevance of such data or studies for possible inclusion in the profile".
Among those requesting extensions were the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) chemicals products and technology division, and the Responsible Science Policy Coalition (RSPC). The lattermost group says it was formed "to advance the application of sound science, decisional transparency and wide public participation to governmental regulatory and semi-regulatory decision-making concerning health and environmental impact assessment of chemicals substances".
The new comment deadline is 20 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68717/atsdr-extends-consultation-on-pfas-tox-profile
-
Gov. Snyder Asks State to Sue 3M Over Chemical Pollution
Jul 16, 2018 | Detroit News (In E&E Greenwire)
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) intends to sue industrial plastics giant 3M Co. over contamination identified near current and former military sites.
On Friday, he asked state Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) to prosecute the company.
3M's production of firefighting foam and Scotchgard produced PFAS, PFOA and PFOS pollution, according to the state.
"Michigan has made extensive progress in identifying sites that have been contaminated by PFAS, raising awareness of this national public health threat and working to eradicate the products that caused the contamination," Snyder said.
"Because of the scale and the scope of this problem and the associated expenses, it is necessary to pursue legal action against those who continued to produce and market these products, even once they were identified as the cause of this environmental contaminant."
The attorney general's office is reviewing the request.
This comes days after reports surfaced that the state environmental agency ignored an internal 2012 report warning of widespread PFAS pollution and calling for immediate action.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089207
-
Secret Documents Expose Monsanto’s War on Cancer Scientists
Jul 16, 2018 | Truthout
By Stacy Malkan
DeWayne Johnson, a 46-year-old father dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, became the first person to face Monsanto in trial last week over allegations the company hid evidence about the cancer-causing dangers of its Roundup weedkiller. Johnson is the first of some 4,000 people suing Monsanto in state and federal courts claiming their cancers were caused by glyphosate-based Roundup. The litigation, and documents coming to light because of it, are shining light on the heavy-handed tactics Monsanto (now a subsidiary of Bayer) has used to deny cancer risk and protect the chemical that is the lynchpin of its profits.
“Monsanto was its own ghostwriter for some safety reviews,” Bloomberg reported, and an EPA official reportedly helped Monsanto “kill” another agency’s cancer study. An investigation in Le Monde details Monsanto’s effort “to destroy the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible” to save glyphosate.
Two recent journal articles, based on reviews of the Roundup trial discovery documents, report corporate interference in a scientific publication and a federal regulatory agency, and other examples of “poisoning the scientific well.”
“Monsanto’s ghostwriting and strong-arming threaten sound science and society,” wrote Tufts University Professor Sheldon Krimsky in a June essay. The discovery documents, he said, “uncover the corporate capture of science, which puts public health and the very foundation of democracy at risk.”
This corporate war on science has major implications for all of us, considering that half of all men in the U.S. and a third of women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lifetimes, according to the National Cancer Institute.The Documents the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to See
For years, the food and chemical industries have set their sights on one particular target in the science world: the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the independent research group that for 50 years has worked to identify cancer hazards to inform policies that can prevent cancer.
“I’ve been fighting IARC forever!!! :)” one former Kraft Foods scientist wrote to a former Syngenta scientist in an email obtained through a state open records request. “Foods and ag are under siege since Glyphosate in March 2015. We all need to gather somehow and expose IARC, as you guys did in the paper. Next priorities are all food ingredients: aspartame, sucralose, dietary iron, B-carotene, BPA, etc. IARC is killing us!”DONATE
Stories like this are more important than ever!
To make sure Truthout can keep publishing them, please give a tax-deductible donation today.
The IARC expert panel decision to classify glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” created a rallying point for the panel’s foes to gather forces. A key Monsanto document released via litigation reveals the plan of attack: discredit the cancer scientists with the help of allies across the food industry.
Monsanto’s public relations plan assigned 20 corporate staffers to prepare for the IARC carcinogenicity report on glyphosate, with objectives including “neutralize impact,” “establish public perspective on IARC,” “regulator outreach,” “ensure MON POV” and “engage industry associations” in “outrage.”
The document identified four tiers of “industry partners” to help advance the three objectives named in the PR plan: protect the reputation of Roundup, prevent “unfounded” cancer claims from becoming popular opinion, and “provide cover for regulatory agencies” to keep allowing the use of glyphosate.Uncovering Monsanto’s network of “industry partners”
The industry partner groups Monsanto tapped to discredit the IARC scientists included the largest pesticide and food industry lobby organizations, CropLife International, BIO and the Grocery Manufacturers Association; industry-funded spin groups such as GMO Answers and the International Food Information Council; and “science-y” sounding front groups like Sense about Science, the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review – all using similar messaging and often referring back to each other as sources.
Documents obtained by the U.S. Right to Know investigation illuminate on how these partner groups work together to promote the “MON POV” about the safety and necessity of pesticides and GMOs.
One set of documents revealed how Monsanto’s PR operatives organized “Academics Review” as a neutral-sounding platform from which they could launch attacks against a target list of foes, including the Sierra Club, author Michael Pollan, the movie Food, Inc. and the organic industry.
The architects of Academics Review – co-founders Bruce Chassy and David Tribe, Monsanto executive Eric Sachs, former Monsanto communications director Jay Byrne, and former VP of the biotech industry trade group Val Giddings – talked openly in the emails about setting up Academics Review as a front group to promote industry interests and attract industry cash, while keeping corporate fingerprints hidden.
Even now with their playbook exposed – and their primary funding identified as coming from a trade group funded by Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta and DowDuPont – Academics Review still claims on its website to accept donations only from “non-corporate sources.” Academics Review also claims that the “IARC glyphosate cancer review fails on multiple fronts,” in a post sourced by the industry-funded PR website GMO Answers, the industry-funded front group American Council on Science and Health, and a Forbes article by Henry Miller that was ghostwritten by Monsanto.
Miller and the Academics Review organizers Chassy, Tribe, Byrne, Sachs and Giddings are all also members of AgBioChatter, a private listserver that appeared in Monsanto’s PR plan as a tier 2 industry partner. Emails from the AgBioChatter list suggest it was used as a forum to coordinate industry allies on messaging and lobbying activities to promote GMOs and pesticides. Members included senior agrichemical industry staff, PR consultants and pro-industry academics, many of whom write for industry media platforms such as GMO Answers and Genetic Literacy Project, or play leadership roles in other Monsanto partner groups.
Genetic Literacy Project, led by longtime chemical industry PR operative Jon Entine, also partnered with Academics Review to run a series of conferences funded by the agrichemical industry to train journalists and scientists how to better promote GMOs and pesticides and argue for their deregulation. The organizers were, again, dishonest about the sources of their funding.
These groups cast themselves as honest arbiters of science even as they spread false information and level near hysterical attacks against scientists who raised concerns about the cancer risk of glyphosate.
A search for “IARC” on the Genetic Literacy Project website brings up more than 220 articles with industry messaging, maligning the cancer scientists as “anti-chemical enviros” who “lied” and “conspired to misrepresent” the health risks of glyphosate, and arguing that the global cancer agency should be defunded and abolished.
Many of the anti-IARC articles posted on that site, or pushed by other industry surrogates, ignore the many news reports based on the Monsanto Papers documenting corporate interference in the scientific research, and focus instead on the misleading reporting of Kate Kelland, a Reuters’ reporter who has close ties to the Science Media Centre, the sister organization of Sense About Science, a group Monsanto suggested in its PR plan to “lead industry response” in the media.
The battle against IARC, based on these attacks, has now reached Capitol Hill, with Congressional Republicans led by Rep. Lamar Smith investigating and trying to withhold U.S. funding from the world’s leading cancer research agency.Who Is on the Side of Science?
Monsanto’s lobbying and messaging to discredit the IARC cancer panel is based on the argument that other agencies using risk-based assessments have exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk. But as many news outlets have reported, along with the two recent journal articles based on the Monsanto Papers, evidence is piling up that the regulatory risk assessments on glyphosate, which rely heavily on industry-provided research, have been compromised by undisclosed conflicts of interest, reliance on dubious science, ghostwritten materials and other methods of corporate strong-arming that puts public health at risk, as the Tufts Professor Sheldon Krimsky wrote.
“To protect the scientific enterprise, one of the core pillars of a modern democratic society, against the forces that would turn it into the handmaiden of industry or politics, our society must support firewalls between academic science and the corporate sectors and educate young scientists and journal editors on the moral principles behind their respective professional roles,” Krimsky wrote.
Policy makers must not allow corporate-spun science to guide decisions about cancer prevention. Media must do a better job reporting and probing into conflicts of interest behind the corporate science spin. It’s time to end the corporate war on cancer science.
https://truthout.org/articles/secret-documents-expose-monsantos-war-on-cancer-scientists/
-
Why You Should Still Breastfeed – Even Though U.S. Delegates Blocked WHO Breastfeeding Resolution
Jul 16, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Isabel Walston
On July 8, health advocates were shocked when U.S. delegates stoppeda World Health Assembly resolution to encourage breastfeeding.
The resolution was also meant to limit inaccurate advertising and misleading marketing claims by formula manufacturers. But the current administration is more interested in serving the $70 billion formula industry than promoting the health of infants and their mothers.
“As physicians who care for women and children, we urge the United States and every country to protect, promote and support breast-feeding for the health of all women, children and families,” Dr. Colleen Kraft, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Dr. Lisa Hollier, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in response.
EWG recommends breastfeeding, if possible, for at least the first 12 months of your baby’s life, in line with World Health Organizationrecommendations.
Breast milk is the nutritional standard used to develop feeding substitutes. Breast milk can provide more than half of a child’s source of energy and nutrients between the ages of 6 and 12 months, and helps fight illness and reduce mortality among malnourished babies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, breast milk reduces an infant’s risk of asthma, obesity, type 2 diabetes, ear and respiratory infections, and SIDS. In addition, mothers who breastfeed lower their risk for type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, heart disease and ovarian cancer, according to the CDC.
Breastfeeding is an investment in the next generation’s cognitive abilities. According to the WHO, breastfed children often perform better on aptitude tests and have better school attendance records, which usually results in higher future income potential as an adult. And when it comes to your family’s budget, breastfeeding is less expensive than formula.
While breastfeeding is best, sometimes it isn’t possible. One in four American newborns consume formula from birth. Around two-thirds of American infants have had some formula by the time they are 3 months old. If you use formula, there are steps you can take to ensure it is the healthiest formula possible.
When feeding your newborn formula, it is important to be aware of what’s in the product – and what’s in the container. For example, the Food and Drug Administration allows the toxic rocket fuel chemical perchlorate in the packaging of some baby formulas, despite its known health hazards.
It is equally important to know what contaminants are in the water you mix with the formula.
A baby fed only powdered formula mixed with tap water drinks the most water for their small size of any age group. Tap water can be 85 percent of a formula-fed baby’s diet, and this period of intense exposure can last four to six months – until parents start supplementing formula with food. A 2018 Mother Jones investigationrevealed that in communities that lack clean water, formula increased infant mortality by 9.4 per 1,000 births.
Check out EWG’s Tap Water Database to see what’s in your local tap water. You also may want to consult EWG’s Water Filter Buying Guideto find an effective water filter to reduce or remove the chemicals detected in your drinking water. Learn more about how you can optimize your little one’s healthy development from EWG’s Children’s Health Initiative.
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22146/why-you-should-still-breastfeed-even-though-us-delegates-blocked-who#.W0y8F9Uza6I
-
Maintenance Worker May Have Caused D.C. Boil-Water Advisory
Jul 16, 2018 | The Washington Post (In E&E Greenwire)
A boil-water advisory issued Friday that affected about 100,000 residents in northeast and northwest Washington, D.C., was likely caused by a maintenance worker who left a valve open at a pumping station, said officials who are familiar with the investigation.
After the open valve was discovered Thursday night, officials concluded that the pressure had dropped low enough that contaminants may have been able to enter the water.
D.C. Water has not publicly revealed the cause of the problem. Officials said they will release a report within 30 days.
Water at a test site was found to have coliform bacteria, which can be an indicator that other pathogens are present. Coliform bacteria alone isn't likely to cause illness.
Residents and local lawmakers criticized the utility, saying its communication about the issue was confusing and slow.
David Gadis, D.C. Water's chief executive, said it's difficult to reach everyone — including residents, visitors and people who commute to the city for work — instantly.
"All [boil-water] alerts have one thing in common: They must be shared broadly with customers who are quite literally drinking and using tap water 24 hours a day," he said. "It involves reaching a massive amount of people instantly, a unique challenge in these fast-moving times."
The water advisory was fully lifted yesterday.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089219
-
NGO Calls for 'Humane' EU Chemicals Regulations
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU should use the recent passing of the final REACH registration deadline as an opportunity to review and revise chemicals legislation to eliminate cruelty to animals, NGO Cruelty Free International has said.
It is concerned that the risk of animal testing in Europe has now increased "due to the way in which European authorities are implementing safety requirements to satisfy REACH in addition to the subsequent knock-on effect to cosmetics legislation", it added.
CFI has drawn up a six-point plan for "more humane chemicals regulation". This comprises:the European Commission should speed up implementation of the test methods Regulation to ensure all "bureaucratic and administrative obstacles" holding up the validation of alternative methods are removed;along with member states the EU executive must ensure that the desire for international harmonisation of chemicals regulation does not lead to the continued use of animal testing anywhere in the world where an alternative method has already been recognised as suitable for use in Europe;Echa must do more to support the appropriate use of alternative methods through positive guidance to industry and member states on what is required to avoid animal testing;EU member states should support articles in REACH that state animal testing should be a last resort and reject speculative requests for animal testing for substance evaluation;the Commission and member states should dedicate more funding to alternative methods; andthey should honour both public opinion in Europe and the political will expressed in the cosmetics Regulation and in the European Parliament’s recent resolution to end cosmetics animal testing globally. This would be achieved by doing all they can to secure international agreement and by putting a stop to testing under REACH of both new and existing chemicals used in cosmetics.
"We are deeply saddened that so far at least 2.2 million animals have been forced to suffer in laboratories for REACH," CFI's Katy Taylor said.
The plan has been proposed to members of the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee to consider at their meeting this month.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68691/ngo-calls-for-humane-eu-chemicals-regulations
-
Trump’s Coal Bailout, Repeal of Clean Power Plan Would Bring Early Death to Many Americans
Jul 16, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
The Trump administration’s proposals to prop up the coal industry and roll back clean air rules would mean early deaths for tens of thousands of Americans, according to new research.
If implemented, the administration’s proposals would increase two kinds of air pollution from coal plants: ozone and fine particles. These pollutants damage the lungs, heart and brain, triggering an increase in premature deaths. The proposals would also mean that hundreds of thousands more children would suffer from respiratory disease.
The president’s scheme to force utilities to use electricity from coal plants, even if cheaper and cleaner sources are available, would lead to up to 815 deaths in just two years, economists from the nonprofit research group Resources for the Future said.
In the longer term, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed repeal of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan would mean 36,000 premature deaths and more than 600,000 cases of childhood respiratory disease each decade, according to Harvard University experts on the human impact of public health policies.
In an analysis published in the journal of the American Medical Association, Harvard economist David Cutler and Harvard biostatistician Francesca Dominici wrote:
President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt have pledged to reexamine landmark environmental policies and to repeal regulations. In their view, excessive regulations are harming US industry, and thus reducing regulation will be good for business. As Donald Trump has said, seemingly without irony, “We are going to get rid of the regulations that are just destroying us. You can’t breathe—you cannot breathe.” … As has become apparent, however, it is the changes Trump is proposing that are likely to make breathing more difficult.
Pruitt resigned earlier this month amid a storm of ethical and spending scandals. But in October, he issued a proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which would require states to reduce carbon pollution from coal plants and increase their use of renewable energy. And last month, Trump ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to come up with a plan to require regional power grids to buy a percentage of their electricity for the next two years from coal plants that otherwise will be shut down because they’re losing money.
Daniel Shawhan and Paul Picciano of Resources for the Future said that the coal bailout would lead to between 353 and 815 premature deaths by 2020. Because the bailout would only save about 1,600 coal jobs, they calculate that “each year, one American would die from air pollution for every two to 4.5 coal-mine jobs supported by the policy.”
The administration’s foolhardy attempt to stop the looming shutdown of money-losing coal plants is, in part, political payback to Robert Murray, CEO of the nation’s largest coal mining company, who was a major contributor to Trump’s campaign. With Pruitt gone, Murray’s influence with the administration could actually increase. Pruitt’s chief deputy, Andrew Wheeler, was formerly a longtime lobbyist for Murray Energy. Now that Pruitt is out, Trump has appointed Wheeler as acting EPA administrator.
But coal has become an economic loser and should be allowed to die. Coal plant costs are rising, and they are being pushed out of the market by cheaper natural gas plants, and wind and solar energy. In April, Bloomberg Energy Finance found that nearly half of coal plants now operating lose too much money to stay open on the free market. An EWG analysis last year showed 75 coal and nuclear units are expected to close by 2020, as wind and solar installations continue to rise rapidly.
The Resources for the Future and Harvard studies, among others, demonstrate how devastating coal-fired power is to human health. We now have the ability to replace coal plants with clean energy. The Trump administration can either save lives and protect children by supporting the transition to clean energy, or continue down the path of crony capitalism and protect expensive, obsolete coal plants.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/07/trump-s-coal-bailout-repeal-clean-power-plan-would-bring-early-death-many#.W0y9WdUza6I
-
Commentary: Energy Industry Motivated to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Jul 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By John Williams
In today's political climate, policy solutions may seem distant. At the same time, this challenging landscape offers opportunities for companies to demonstrate that meaningful solutions can be achieved through voluntary, collaborative efforts. It's happening now in the energy sector, and the U.S. is breathing easier as a result.
Thanks largely to greater use of clean natural gas in electricity generation, U.S. carbon emissions have plunged to 25-year lows. The United States leads the world in reduction of carbon emissions, and clean natural gas is a proven solution to reducing other pollutants, too – including ozone, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.
But America's energy industry isn't stopping there. Oil and natural gas companies have been working together to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases even further, including methane -- the primary component of natural gas and the second most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
The industry is highly motivated to reduce methane emissions. First, our workers take pride in delivering a clean fuel source that has helped keep energy prices low. In addition, methane is the primary component of natural gas, so companies also have a financial motivation to capture as much as possible.
From 1990 to 2016, methane emissions decreased by 14 percent even as natural gas output increased by more than 50 percent. That's a testament to the focus the industry has brought to reducing its emissions. At the same time, companies are looking to do more and increase collaboration to improve even further.
One way we are doing this is through a new initiative, The Environmental Partnership. The Environmental Partnership is made up of oil and natural gas producers of all sizes who share a commitment to take action, learn and collaborate with one another to decrease our environmental footprint.
Participants in the Partnership have agreed to implement environmental performance programs that will reduce methane emissions within their own operations. These companies have also agreed to submit data to the Partnership, which will then be compiled and released publicly so the public can follow our progress.
Another important component of The Environmental Partnership is the ability to learn and collaborate. The Partnership is hosting workshops around the country where industry workers can come together and learn about the best practices, technologies and techniques for improving their company's environmental performance. After launching last December, The Environmental Partnership has already grown by 50 percent. It now has more than 40 participating companies, representing over 30 percent of our nation's natural gas industry.
Another industry group, known as the ONE Future coalition, consists of some of the largest companies in the natural gas sector. Members of the coalition have committed to achieving an average rate of emissions across all our facilities that is equivalent to 1 percent (or less) of total natural gas production by 2025.
These industry-led efforts are some of the most effective ways to reduce emissions and help the environment in the short- and long-term. Apache Corporation is proud to serve as a founding member of both The Environmental Partnership and ONE Future. Last December, we earned the top score on an annual investor scorecard that ranks companies on methane management and reporting practices. We have also reduced our methane emissions intensity by 12 percent from 2015 levels and by 43 percent from 2012 levels.
Leading by example can make a difference, but far more can be accomplished when we work together, learn from one another, and hold each other accountable. Solutions need not always take the shape of one-size-fits-all regulations that don't always work for such a diverse industry. Industry-led efforts like The Environmental Partnership and ONE Future represent the future of responsible industry leadership for the benefit of our communities.
John Williams is director of Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs at Apache Corp.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Commentary-Energy-industry-motivated-to-cut-13072684.php
-
Republicans Duel on Climate Measures Behind the Scenes
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Forty-three House Republicans who say they want to address climate change could face a political test this week when they're asked to vote on a carbon tax.
The House Rules Committee will decide tomorrow whether to allow a resolution from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) to the floor. It describes a carbon tax as "detrimental" to the economy. Congress adopted a similar resolution in 2016 with the support of every Republican and six Democrats.
The move by Scalise to undermine the idea of taxing carbon dioxide emissions comes as Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), co-chairman of the Climate Solutions Caucus, prepares to introduce legislation that would support doing just that.
Curbelo is shopping draft text to lawmakers, businesses and environmental groups that would end the federal gasoline tax and impose a carbon fee on refiners. The revenue would fund infrastructure projects like highways and rebate low-income consumers who would be hit by higher energy costs, according to Mike McKenna, a GOP energy lobbyist who has seen the draft bill.
Curbelo said in a statement yesterday that he's preparing to release climate-related legislation "in the near future." He declined to provide details. Regarding the Scalise resolution, he said it presents "a false choice."
"Protecting our environment and economic growth are not mutually exclusive," Curbelo said.
The activity around a carbon tax is happening as a small but durable number of Republican groups push the idea as a conservative way to address rising temperatures. Some of them see Scalise's move to offer a resolution against the tax as a warning to Republican lawmakers who might support Curbelo's measure.
"I think that the timing of bringing the [Scalise] resolution to the floor is interesting," said Joseph Majkut, climate policy director at the libertarian Niskanen Center, which supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Majkut did not confirm or deny that Curbelo was working on carbon tax legislation.
If Curbelo introduces the carbon bill, it could mark a major shift in climate politics. Republicans have been all but in lockstep in blocking policies to address rising greenhouse gas emissions since 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) promoted a carbon cap-and-trade policy during his presidential campaign.
Scalise's resolution comes as Republicans face a potential electoral backlash over President Trump's temperament and policies. There are signs of Democratic enthusiasm in battleground districts. Most of the 43 Republicans in the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus are in competitive races. Some are retiring.
"It doesn't strike me as a good indication of what kind of a [House] speaker [Scalise] would be uniting the Republican conference if he's going to put a majority-maker like Curbelo at risk," said former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), founder of carbon tax advocacy group republicEn, referring to Scalise's aspirations to be the next speaker of the House.
At the same time, a number of center-right groups off Capitol Hill are pushing for a carbon tax. The newest is Americans for Carbon Dividends, which is being funded by Exelon Corp., the American Wind Energy Association and First Solar Inc. The group hired former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) from Squire Patton Boggs to lobby on the issue and develop legislation.
Republican carbon tax groups expect the Scalise resolution to pass resoundingly. But they contend that any dissent from the GOP caucus would be a victory.
"The difference between zero and one is very large," Majkut said. "My opinion is you've got to start somewhere. Is it realistic to think you're going to move the whole Republican coalition in one go? No."
Curbelo might be that one vote.
"There are Republican members who have made the environment and climate change part of their political identity. This vote would undermine both their ambition and the profile they've worked hard to establish," said Tony Kreindler, national media director for the Environmental Defense Fund.
There are unanswered questions about Curbelo's bill — chiefly, what would happen with current regulations on greenhouse gas emissions? Most carbon tax proposals emerging from right-of-center organizations call for eliminating EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions. Democrats and environmental groups have been loath to concede those backstops, even for a national price on climate emissions.
For Republicans, it's a pure winner to vote against a carbon tax, said Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives with Americans for Tax Reform.
"We are certainly pushing pretty hard to have a vote on this," he said of Scalise's resolution. "It's important for Republicans to send a signal that this is nothing more than a consultant's dream that helps people like Trent Lott get a retainer."
The anti-tax vote could test the 43 Republican members of the Climate Solutions Caucus. They have faced skepticism from environmental groups and Democrats, who say the GOP members joined the caucus as an electoral strategy. Many of them are in swing districts.
Scalise's measure suggests that a carbon tax would expand the government by collecting more taxes from Americans. Republican climate advocates see it differently. The groups have discussed swapping carbon tax revenues for lower taxes elsewhere, or returning revenues to taxpayers in the form of dividends.
"The key thing that isn't really addressed by the resolution that could be appealing to a Republican is the idea of using revenue from a carbon tax to reduce other taxes," said Josiah Neeley, energy policy director with the free-market R Street Institute.
As far as politics go, the strategy of holding an anti-tax vote does the trick, McKenna said.
"The repetition does some damage," he said, referring to a similar resolution offered by Scalise two years ago. "You start voting on things three, four, five times, you start building up that record. It's harder and harder and harder to walk away from it."
Carbon tax advocates on the right "welcome the debate," said Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions. He said the idea has firmly entered the realm of public discourse and has earned legitimacy as a policy option.
Scalise's effort underscores the intellectual potency of a carbon tax, he said.
"We are actually delighted that this debate is going to occur," Flint said. "The discussion about a carbon tax is just beginning, and it will grow over time."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089191
-
Lawmakers Aim to Use Spending Bill to Block Offshore Drilling
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House lawmakers in both parties are hoping to use a spending bill to block offshore oil and natural gas drilling in the waterways off their states’ coasts.
A handful of lawmakers, mainly from coastal states, are sponsoring proposed amendments to the annual appropriations bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would block Interior funding to allow drilling in particular areas.
The full House is set to vote on the funding measure this week.
The amendments match with the bipartisan opposition in many coastal states to the Trump administration’s controversial January proposal to allow oil and gas drilling along nearly the entirety of the United States’ coasts, including the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of Mexico and all around Alaska.
While Interior Secretary Ryan Zinkehas promised to listen to state leaders and lawmakers — and implied that fierce opposition can make drilling less attractive — putting the prohibitions into legislation would ensure that drilling wouldn’t happen.
The proposed amendments would block Interior from issuing drilling rights leases along the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which touches Florida.
One such proposal from Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) would prevent Interior from allowing drilling from any of offshore areas bordering Florida, including the Atlantic side and the entire eastern third of the Gulf of Mexico.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) is leading 15 Democrats from along the entire Atlantic coast with a measure that would block all drilling leases anywhere in the Atlantic.
While no Republicans are on that amendment, some GOP lawmakers have their own more limited ones. Rep. Scott Taylor’s (R-Va.) proposal would shut down the possibility of drilling in the waters from Maine to North Carolina, while Rep. Mark Sanford’s (R-S.C.) amendment would be similar to the Democrats’, blocking drilling or leasing along the entire Atlantic coast, as well as the eastern Gulf.
On the West coast, a bipartisan group of nine lawmakers, led by Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) want to block drilling and leasing from the entire Pacific coast.
The House Rules Committee plans to meet starting late Monday to decide which amendments will be allowed to get a vote on the House floor.
The full bill, with any amendments attached, is due to get a vote later in the week.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397207-lawmakers-aim-to-use-spending-bill-to-block-offshore-drilling
-
Putin on High Gas Prices: There Is 'Space for Cooperation Here'
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Russian President Vladimir Putin said there's “a space for cooperation” between the U.S. and Russia when it comes to lowering gas prices.
Speaking at a joint press conference with President Trump on Monday in Helsinki, Putin tamped down accusations that Russia has been arbitrarily raising gas prices and said the U.S. and Russia “can work together” to determine the right pricing for Russia's Liquid and Natural Gas (LNG) exports, adding that Trump is aware of Russia's need to keep prices from dropping.
“We can work together on the regulation of oil and gas international markets because neither of us is actually interested in the plummeting of the prices — and the consumers will suffer as well — the shale gas will suffer," Putin said.
“Beyond a price bracket, it is no longer profitable to produce oil and gas, but also we are not interested in driving prices up.”
Gas prices have soared in the U.S. in recent months, getting close to an all-time high that topped $100 a barrel in 2014. This past Memorial Day weekend saw the most expensive gas prices nationally since 2014, according to the American Automobiles Association.
A number of factors including orchestrated oil production cuts by Russia and OPEC as well as the U.S.'s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal could contribute to the costs of gas climbing higher.
The price surge has led to a number of lawmakers to criticize Trump for failing to put pressure on world leaders to increase more production of oil abroad.
“If the president wants to take action, he can,” Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) said. “One: OPEC. He’s very, very tight with the crown prince [of Saudi Arabia]. He’s very, very tight with the head of [United Arab Emirates].
“Why doesn’t he use that for the American people?," he asked in May at an event on Capitol Hill.
Trump in July tweeted about OPEC but not Russia specifically, warning the group to reduce their pricing.
"The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $’s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!" he tweeted.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397208-putin-on-high-gas-prices-theres-a-space-for-cooperation-here
-
FRA Hosts PTC Symposium on Interoperability Issues
Jul 16, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today is holding the second of three symposiums for the 41 railroads required to implement positive train control (PTC) systems.
Attending the symposium are railroad safety officials and the FRA's PTC experts. Today's event will focus on best practices for PTC system field and interoperability testing, FRA officials said in a press release.
"Interoperability is an important milestone for all railroads working to complete PTC implementation," said FRA Administrator Ronald Batory. "This symposium is to institute clarity on any and all questions associated with implementing PTC interoperability as set forth in the governing regulations."
The FRA's PTC regulations require a PTC system to be interoperable, which means that the locomotives of any host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main line will communicate with and respond to that PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over property boundaries.
Last month, the FRA held its first ever PTC symposium, which addressed industry questions and focused on the requirements for the Dec. 31 statutory deadline.
The final symposium, scheduled for Aug. 20, will cover lessons learned and best practices for PTC safety plans, which host railroads must have to obtain PTC system certification from the FRA and to achieve full PTC system implementation under the mandate.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/FRA-hosts-PTC-symposium-on-interoperability-issues--55115
-
Kavanaugh vs. Garland on the Environment
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
For Democrats and environmentalists, President Trump's Supreme Court announcement this week set off another round of what-could-have-been if the Senate had allowed Merrick Garland's nomination to move forward.
To recap: President Obama nominated Garland to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a mighty force on the court in environmental law. But Republican leadership refused to hold any hearings or votes, and Garland went back to his job as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after Trump was elected.
Now, Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has been Garland's conservative colleague on the influential D.C. Circuit since his appointment by President George W. Bush in 2006, to fill the seat of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
On the D.C. Circuit, Garland — who has been on the court since 1997 — and Kavanaugh have dealt extensively with environmental and administrative law, deciding both sweeping cases on EPA rules and smaller issues.
The two haven't sat together on many judicial panels in environmental cases, but the judges have taken some contrary positions. In some cases, the Supreme Court has taken Kavanaugh's side.
The splits highlight their different judicial philosophies — Kavanaugh is skeptical of broad agency rules and cares deeply about separation of powers, while Garland is more likely to defer to the executive branch — and signal how they would perhaps approach cases differently on the Supreme Court.
Here's a look at environmental cases in the D.C. Circuit in which both Kavanaugh and Garland had a say.Garland and Kavanaugh on opposite sides
Kavanaugh and Garland have disagreed on cases involving EPA’s methane rule for existing oil and gas operations, captive orca Tilikum and the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada. NOAA (flares); Andy Blackledge/Flickr (orca);Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Flickr (Yucca Mountain);
EPA mercury standards
In the 2014 case White Stallion Energy Center LLC et al. v. EPA, Garland and Kavanaugh sat on a panel of three judges deciding the legality of EPA's decision to regulate mercury and other toxic air emissions from power plants. Garland joined the majority opinion upholding the rule, while Kavanaugh penned a dissent arguing that EPA should have considered costs when deciding whether to regulate the industry.
"To be sure, EPA could conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs," Kavanaugh wrote. "But the problem here is that EPA did not even consider the costs. And the costs are huge, about $9.6 billion a year — that's billion with a b — by EPA's own calculation."
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with Kavanaugh and sent the rule back to EPA.
Greenhouse gas rules
In 2012, the D.C. Circuit received petitions to rehear its decision upholding a suite of Obama EPA greenhouse gas regulations in the massive case Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc. v. EPA. The full court — Garland included — denied rehearing, but Kavanaugh was one of two judges who dissented, raising doubts about EPA's authority to require stationary pollution sources to obtain permits for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. He wrote that the agency's reading of the law led to "absurd results" and had "major" practical consequences.
The Supreme Court later unanimously ruled that EPA can't require permits under the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program solely for greenhouse gases.
EPA methane rule
Last year, the full D.C. Circuit denied states' and industry groups' request to reconsider an earlier decision striking down then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's delay of methane standards for new oil and gas operations. Kavanaugh was one of three appointees of Republican presidents who would have reconsidered the case. The D.C. Circuit's July 2017 decision in Clean Air Council v. Pruitt was among the first of a number of legal defeats for the Trump administration as it attempts to roll back Obama-era environmental rules.
Yucca Mountain
In 2013, a split three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue its review of the Energy Department's application to build a nuclear waste repository under Nevada's Yucca Mountain, despite the Obama administration's desire to abandon the proposal. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that NRC was "simply flouting the law" by halting the consideration of the project.
The case featured a rare Garland dissent. He argued that Congress had not appropriated enough money for the NRC to make any progress and that courts should not issue a writ of mandamus "to do a useless thing."
Death of SeaWorld trainer
In 2014, Garland joined a panel opinion rejecting SeaWorld's challenge to the Labor Department's finding that it violated workplace safety laws by exposing trainers at its park to killer whales with a history of violence. The case stemmed from the 2010 death of Dawn Brancheau, a 40-year-old trainer at SeaWorld's Orlando park who was dragged into the pool by Tilikum, a 12,000-pound bull orca, during a performance. Kavanaugh dissented, largely adopting SeaWorld's argument that the Labor Department had impermissibly regulated sport.
"Many sports events and entertainment shows can be extremely dangerous for the participants. Football. Ice hockey. Downhill skiing. Air shows. The circus," Kavanaugh wrote. "But the participants in those activities want to take part, sometimes even to make a career of it, despite and occasionally because of the known risk of serious injury."Garland and Kavanaugh agree
Kavanaugh and Garland have agreed on cases involving the straight-horned markhor, cronyism in the Energy Department’s loan office and power plants. Vassil/Wikimedia Commons (straight-horned markhor); Claudine Hellmuth/E&E News(DOE); Bill Morrow/Flickr (power plant)
Particulate matter
In the 2014 case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, Garland wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel rejecting a challenge by Texas and industry groups to EPA particulate matter standards for power plants. The panel overruled industry objections that the standards were more stringent than needed and would unnecessarily require tough pollution controls. Kavanaugh joined Garland's opinion but authored a short concurrence raising questions about the court's jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premature carbon rule challenge
As the Obama administration was considering a rule regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a host of state and industry opponents, led by West Virginia and coal company Murray Energy Corp., rushed to the D.C. Circuit to challenge its plans. A three-judge panel dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Writing for the majority, Kavanaugh wrote that the lawsuit demanded an unprecedented action from the D.C. Circuit: review of a proposed rule.
"We may review final agency rules," Kavanaugh wrote, citing court precedents. "But we do not have authority to review proposed rules." The full court, including Garland, later denied petitions for rehearing en banc.
The proposed rule at issue would later become the Clean Power Plan. At September 2016 arguments in front of the full D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh raised questions about the scope of the rule and EPA's authority. The court, though, has not issued any opinion. Garland sat out the arguments because he had been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.
Imperiled goat
In the 2013 case Conservation Force Inc. v. Jewell, the D.C. Circuit shot down two challenges from hunters regarding a highly sought-after goat. The hunters had argued that the Fish and Wildlife Service unlawfully delayed a review of the straight-horned markhor, a subspecies of wild goat found in an arid, mountainous region of Pakistan. In an opinion joined by Kavanaugh, Garland wrote that the case had become moot because FWS had proposed downlisting the goat from endangered to threatened while the litigation was ongoing.
DOE loan office cronyism
The D.C. Circuit last year revived a lawsuit brought by battery maker Limnia Inc. alleging cronyism in the Energy Department's loan office. Limnia filed suit after its loan application was rejected, arguing that it didn't get a fair shot with DOE because of "cronyism" and favoritism for applicants with Obama administration ties. Kavanaugh's opinion reversed a lower-court decision to send the case back to DOE. Remand was inappropriate, Kavanaugh found, because DOE never intended to revisit its denial of the battery maker's loan application. Garland joined.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089225
-
3 Dems Seek Safeguards Against Censoring Climate Data
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
The EPA and Interior Department would be barred from muzzling employees who want to talk about climate change under a new measure filed by three House Democrats.
The legislation, submitted as an amendment to the latest Interior-Environment appropriations bill, is one of several dozen proposals the Rules Committee is expected to consider today as possible additions to the underlying spending bill.
The climate amendment faces an uphill climb, at best, in the Republican-controlled House, but Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) — one of the measure's three authors — said it's important to raise the issue in light of efforts by the Trump administration to scrub references to climate change from federal documents and websites.
"It's a fundamental public health [and] environmental issue," Peters said. "We've got our foot down and ... deal with the facts as they are."
As written, the amendment would prohibit agencies covered by the Interior-Environment appropriations bill from spending money on efforts to "hinder, suppress or block any report required by statute related to climate change."
The one-paragraph proposal would bar the suppression of "communication by any federal employee to the public or any congressional entity regarding any underlying science related to climate change."
Peters said part of his motivation in filing the amendment was to safeguard the release of two specific EPA reports: the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, and another tied to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
The California lawmaker said he hadn't heard that either report faced possible censorship, though he described them as "vulnerable" during an interview in his Capitol Hill office.
"The idea is to make sure that [the] kind of work that Congress expects to be done goes forward," Peters said.
The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks was last published in April. The latest version found that total "U.S. emissions have increased by 2.4 percent from 1990 to 2016," but that "emissions decreased from 2015 to 2016 by 1.9 percent," according to an executive summary.
Its authors attributed the decline to factors such as the substitution of natural gas for coal in the power grid and "warmer winter conditions in 2016" that resulted in "decreased demand for heating fuel."
The other data flagged by Peters was the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which includes information about "emissions trends by industry, state and gas," according to EPA.
It derives from a 2009 rule that requires reporting from sources that produce 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide in the United States annually.
EPA officials, as is customary, declined to comment on the pending legislation. But the agency's press office noted that information from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is published annually in the fall and that it released 2016 figures in October 2017.
Joining Peters in support of the measure are Democratic Reps. John Delaney of Maryland and Adam Smith of Washington.
Smith said in an interview that one aim of the proposal is to ensure the U.S. public gets "accurate information of what's happening" on climate change — with the ultimate goal of transitioning the country to a track that "doesn't rely on fossil fuels."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089195
-
Adidas To Only Use Recycled Plastics in Its Products by 2024
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Adidas plans to use only recycled plastic in its products by 2024.
The company has vowed to eliminate its use of “virgin” plastic in its sportswear, offices, stores, distribution centers and warehouses beginning this year, according to CNN Money.
The company reportedly estimates its new push towards sustainability will save roughly 40 tons of plastic annually.
The company also reportedly said its spring and summer apparel lines for next year will contain nearly 41 percent recycled polyester.
The move is just one in a long line of moves by business and nations worldwide to get away from plastic products.
The news comes just a week after Starbucks said it will stop using plastic straws at all of its stores worldwide.
Earlier this year, McDonald’s said that it would stop using plastic straws at all of its stores in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has announced a nationwide ban on the products in an effort to eliminate plastic waste by 2042.
And in the United States, Seattle became the first major city to ban plastic straws and utensils in July, following several other smaller cities and businesses nationwide.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397171-adidas-to-eliminate-use-of-virgin-plastic-in-its-products-by-2024
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested