Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - July 23, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Stands Alone in Auto-Tariff Push
Jul 23, 2018 | Politico - Morning Trade
By Megan Cassella
President Donald Trump is squaring off against not just close U.S. trading partners and lawmakers in Congress in his quest to impose sweeping duties on auto imports but also many of his top advisers, POLITICO’s Ben White reports. -
EPA Under Pruitt Slashed $350 Million in Regulations, 300,000 Hours of Red Tape
Jul 23, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Paul Bedard
The Environmental Protection Agency under former Administrator Scott Pruitt led the administration’s successful war on regulations, slashing enough to produce $350 million in savings and eliminate 300,000 hours of paperwork. -
(ACC Mentioned) Adidas, Neste Bolstering Markets for Recycled Plastics
Jul 23, 2018 | Sustainable Brands
Amidst the anti-plastic frenzy dominating corporate sustainability news lately, adidas and Neste have announced plans to increase their efforts to utilize more waste plastic. -
Democrats Call Hires 'Serious Risk' of Violating Constitution
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
A group of Democratic senators today raised concerns about two EPA nominees joining the agency prior to being confirmed by the Senate. -
US EPA Received 32 PMNs in April
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 32 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in April. Fourteen of these had the manufacturer’s identity withheld as confidential. -
American Academy of Pediatrics Calls for “Urgently Needed Reforms” to Fix Broken Food Additive Regulatory System
Jul 23, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a “Food Additives and Child Health” policy statement calling for “urgently needed reforms to the current regulatory process at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food additives.” -
EU Project Assesses 'Critical' PFAS Use in Textiles
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Most textiles do not require high water and oil repellency, and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be limited to applications for which technical performance is "unique and critical", according to the European Commission. -
EDCs and REACH Concerns Surface in UK/India Trade Review
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton and Sunny Lee
A UK-India joint trade review has revealed India's frustrations with EU chemicals regulations and suggests it would like flexibility on substances regulated under REACH and endocrine disruptors in a possible post-Brexit trade deal. -
American Pediatrics Group Presses for FCM Reforms
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for "substantial improvements" to the US Food and Drug Administration’s food additives regulatory process, and says some currently permitted chemicals "may best be avoided". -
CPSC Issues Corrections to Phthalates Ban
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Products Safety Commission has published some minor corrections to its final rule prohibiting certain phthalates from children’s products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pediatrician Group: Cut down on Plastic, Cans to Protect Kids
Jul 23, 2018 | New York Times (In E&E Greenwire)
Families should limit their use of plastic food containers and pregnant women should scale back consumption of processed meat to lower children's exposure to chemicals, according to a major pediatricians' group. -
Permian Operators Not ‘Backing Down,’ But Marcellus Activity ‘Softening,’ Says Halliburton CEO
Jul 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The CEO of North America’s leading pressure pumper Halliburton Co. said Permian Basin operators do not seem overly concerned about potential oil and natural gas takeaway constraints as activity continues to be strong. -
Opinion: Chemical Security Must Be National Priority
Jul 22, 2018 | The Detroit News
By Bob Kolasky
Illinois is home to more than 160 high-risk chemical facilities. Last year, one of these facilities took a direct hit from an F3 tornado that ravaged the building and left significant destruction. -
Former Trump Adviser Opens GOP Climate Shop
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
A former Trump White House official is launching a new venture to combat climate change. -
Republicans Go Green
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Embracing environmental issues appears to be a strategy for some Republicans in competitive congressional races. -
Baltimore Sues Oil Companies over Climate Impacts
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Baltimore last week sued multiple oil companies for climate change damages, joining a swath of governments across the country seeking money to deal with sea-level rise, extreme rain, drought and heat waves. -
Why Carbon Tax Bill Is Doa, and Why That Might Not Matter
Jul 23, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Florida Congressman Carlos Curbelo isn't naive. -
GOP Lawmaker Proposes Carbon Tax
Jul 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A moderate Republican lawmaker on Monday proposed instituting a carbon tax, breaking with the party’s long-standing opposition to policies that would punish people and companies that emit gases that cause climate change. -
Curbelo Rolls out Carbon Tax Plan to Deep Skepticism
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Carlos Curbelo rolled out the first Republican carbon pricing bill in nearly a decade this morning, a rare political risk that quickly earned rebuke from conservatives and tepid praise from environmental groups.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Stands Alone in Auto-Tariff Push
Jul 23, 2018 | Politico - Morning Trade
By Megan Cassella
TRUMP STANDS ALONE IN AUTO-TARIFF PUSH: President Donald Trump is squaring off against not just close U.S. trading partners and lawmakers in Congress in his quest to impose sweeping duties on auto imports but also many of his top advisers, POLITICO’s Ben White reports.
“There is not a lot of support for the auto tariffs internally,” one senior administration official said. “There are many people who don’t want to see it go through.” This person said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who generally supports the president’s aggressive trade policy, is among those skeptical of the auto tariffs.
Lighthizer, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow all generally oppose the idea of auto tariffs, worrying that duties could set off an automotive trade war and destabilize a thriving industry on the eve of midterm elections. They’re holding out hope instead that Trump’s position is simply a negotiating tactic that will eventually pay off, two senior administration officials said.
Europe tries to make a deal: The push to move forward with tariffs will face a crucial test this week when European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker visits the White House with what is expected to be some sort of concessions designed to make it easier on Trump to declare victory and then back off.
But it’s not clear what that offer might look like, and White House officials and European diplomats all have different ideas. Some inside the White House are hopeful that Juncker will agree to lift EU tariffs on American automobiles for two or three years in return for Trump dropping the investigation into whether auto imports into the U.S. present a national security threat.
Fighting for face time: Juncker, who is not technically a head of state, could be given only a limited amount of time with the president, though one senior official said it will depend on what sort of offer he brings with him. “He’ll get all the time he needs but only if he has something interesting to say,” this person said.
Read the full story here.
IT’S MONDAY, JULY 23! Welcome to Morning Trade, where your host wants to remind you all to pack your umbrellas today because it looks like we are headed for several days of rain. Any trade tips or news floating around out there to kick off the week? Let me know: mcassella@politico.com or @mmcassella.
HOW TRUMP’S TRADE WAR COULD BECOME A MIDTERMS PROBLEM: The tangible effects of Trump’s tariffs might still be somewhat abstract for most American consumers, but everything from groceries to home appliances and flat-screen televisions could start to get more expensive as the fall approaches — potentially reaching a peak right around election time in November.
Despite increasing pushback from companies, industry groups, farmers and Congress, Trump appears unbowed in his quest to continue ratcheting up trade tensions with U.S. allies and unfazed by any consequences that might ensue, economic or political. As tariffs pile up, Democrats could use potential adverse effects that trickle down to consumers — like price increases, job losses and a slowing economy — as a political cudgel against Republicans in swing districts.
“We’re already hearing complaints now from companies, so by the time we get to the midterms, you’re going to be hearing governors, mayors, Congress complaining about jobs, about cost increases, about problems,” Carlos Gutierrez, the former Commerce secretary under President George W. Bush, told POLITICO. “The question is: Will that be strong enough to offset the idea that we have to get tough on our trading partners, and that our jobs are being stolen overseas?”
Trump has suffered little political blowback from his tariffs to this point, and Republicans in Congress are only just beginning to discuss various ways of reining in the president’s authority over trade. But that could change as companies in the coming months start reporting lower earnings, reassessing their supply chains and holding back on investment. All of that would ripple throughout the economy and could lead to an economic slowdown or full-blown recession, experts and economists say. Yours truly has the full story here.
G-20 FINANCE MINISTERS: STEP UP TRADE DIALOGUE: Finance ministers and central bank governors from G-20 countries wrapped up a two-day meeting in Buenos Aires on Sunday with few fireworks on trade, but cautioned that increasing tensions could drag on economic growth.
“Global economic growth remains robust and unemployment is at a decade low. However, growth has been less synchronized recently, and downside risks over the short and medium term have increased. These include rising financial vulnerabilities, heightened trade and geopolitical tensions, global imbalances, inequality and structurally weak growth, particularly in some advanced economies,” the official communique stated at the close of the meeting.
On trade, the document reaffirmed the conclusions leaders made on the subject in their declaration at the last G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, reiterating that international trade and investment “are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development.” But the ministers also recognized the need to “step up dialogue and actions to mitigate risks and enhance confidence.”
Far from the same page: Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said he had no substantive talks with his Chinese counterparts, despite Trump threatening on Friday to escalate the mounting trade war by slapping tariffs on nearly all of China’s exports to the U.S.
“Any time they want to sit down and negotiate meaningful changes, I and our team are available,” Reuters reported Mnuchin saying at a press conference.
Tough talk ahead of Juncker visit: Meanwhile, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire warned that France and other countries “won’t negotiate with a gun to the head,” signaling that Paris won’t support the EU making unilateral concessions on autos while the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs remain in place.
“World trade cannot base itself on the law of the jungle, and the unilateral increase of tariffs is the law of the jungle,” Le Maire told AFP. “The law of the jungle will only turn out losers, it will weaken growth, threaten the most fragile countries and have disastrous political consequences.”
TRUMP UPS THE ANTE AGAINST CHINA: TARIFFS ON $500 BILLION: Trump showed on Friday that he is prepared to take his tariff fight with China to the max, threatening to impose duties on nearly all of the $505.5 billion in total goods and services that Beijing exported to the U.S. last year. And contrary to persistent warnings from many economists and his trade critics, Trump appears confident that further escalation will not lead to any sort of mass economic destruction.
Instead, he has shown that he believes the stock market’s rise since his election gives him the cushion to continue his aggressive trade campaign. “This is the time,” he told CNBC's Joe Kernen in an interview on “Squawk Box.” “You know the expression we’re playing with the bank’s money.”
Reviving an old complaint: Trump also accused China and the European Union of manipulating their currencies, artificially lowering them to give their companies an export advantage. A lower Chinese renminbi — China’s own currency — relative to a stronger dollar allows Chinese companies to sell their products more cheaply in the U.S. Read the full rundown here.
ELECTRIC BIKE SELLERS SAY ‘YIKES’ TO TRUMP TARIFFS: The price of an entry-level electric bike could soar to more than $3,300 if President Trump follows through on a plan to impose a 25 percent tariff on imports from China, a San Francisco-based bike company warned as part of the latest batch of comments on Trump’s efforts to pressure Beijing over its Made in China 2025 industrial program.
“We could not absorb a 25 percent tariff without a significant price increase that would be borne by American customers,” Faraday Bicycles Founder and CEO Adam Vollmer said in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer. “An entry-level Faraday electric bicycle costs $2,500. A 25 percent tariff could increase that cost by $875, which would make these bicycles less affordable” to many customers.
Trump has already imposed a 25 percent tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods, and today is the deadline for the public to comment on the list of the next $16 billion worth of goods that he could hit with a 25 percent tariff. USTR will hold a hearing tomorrow on the product list. It received more than 60 comments in opposition to including electric bikes and motors on the list. Many of those came from bike sellers.
While the “tariffs are intended to protect domestic manufacturing, very few electric bicycles are currently manufactured in the United States. We do not anticipate that to change in the foreseeable future,” Tim Kramer, owner of Encina Bicycle Center in Walnut Creek, Calif., said in an identical letter sent by a number of bike retailers.
As of Sunday night, USTR had received close to 400 comments on the $16 billion product list. Another consumer product targeted for the 25 percent duty are e-cigarettes, which motivated James Parson of Booneville, Miss., to weigh in.
“I would absolutely hate to see a 25 percent markup on vaping items because that could make some people as well as myself see going back to cigarettes as a cheaper option. I understand that I am but one little fish in our pond, but I hope and pray that you will take my concern seriously. I know that the president will do what is right for our country. Trump 2020!! Thank you,” Parson said.
BUSINESS COUNCIL TO TRUMP: NOT TOO LATE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND: Erin Ennis, vice president of the U.S.-China Business Council, appealed to the Trump administration to back off its tariff action, which she said was unlikely to persuade China to change its behavior but could do “significant damage to U.S. economic interests, both in preventing necessary imports as well as through retaliatory tariffs.”
“A holistic approach that considers the economic effects of U.S. actions is needed to effectively address China’s explicit and implicit trade and investment barriers,” Ennis said in the group’s comments. “We urge a comprehensive and strategic approach that clearly articulates the goals we are trying to achieve, setting short, medium, and long-term negotiating objectives to address industry concerns and build much-needed confidence that China will follow through on its commitments.”
ENERGY EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS SAY YES TO TARIFFS: Still, not all of those who commented were opposed to Trump slapping duties on Chinese goods. Those supporting the action include the Coalition of Energy Equipment Manufacturers.
“In recent years, heavily subsidized corporations from China have been dumping fabricated energy equipment at prices that are often below the cost of materials for the same equipment manufactured in the United States,” Bill New, president of New Industries, a company providing steel fabrication services for the offshore oil and gas and marine industries, said on behalf of the coalition. “This is an intentional effort to circumvent duties that are already in place and has made it nearly impossible for U.S. companies to compete in the open market for fabrication jobs.”
On the other hand: A coalition of groups representing the clean and sustainable energy sectors opposes the duties. "By imposing tariffs on a range of electronic components that are crucial to the U.S. manufacture of advanced energy technologies, U.S. global energy dominance is threatened and American jobs along with it. The proposed tariffs will increase the cost of energy and energy services for American households and businesses, decreasing domestic manufacturing of energy-efficient products and hurting American clean energy innovation,” the Alliance to Save Energy and associated groups said in its comment.
Sage Chandler, vice president for international trade at the Consumer Technology Association, said her group’s members have identified $6.6 billion worth of imports that will be hit. That threatens to put “their businesses at a disadvantage relative to their competitors in other nations who can continue importing critical components from China at a fraction of the cost,” Chandler said.
The American Chemistry Council also remains alarmed at the number of chemical products on both the U.S. product list and China’s retaliation list, while the Semiconductor Industry Association wants semiconductors exempted, arguing that few Chinese-owned companies actually ship semiconductors to the U.S.
“Most U.S. semiconductor imports from China are semiconductors designed and manufactured in the United States, and then shipped to China for the final stage of semiconductor fabrication known as assembly, test and packaging,” the group said in its comments. “This stage in the semiconductor manufacturing process is the least value-additive stage of production, comprising as little as 10-15 percent percent of the value of the final product.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/07/23/trump-stands-alone-in-auto-tariff-push-293585
-
EPA Under Pruitt Slashed $350 Million in Regulations, 300,000 Hours of Red Tape
Jul 23, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Paul Bedard
The Environmental Protection Agency under former Administrator Scott Pruitt led the administration’s successful war on regulations, slashing enough to produce $350 million in savings and eliminate 300,000 hours of paperwork.
A new report on the agency’s efforts found that the EPA “was a net deregulatory agency,” and a highlight of President Trump’s effort to eliminate many Obama-era regulations.
What’s more, the American Action Forum report found that Pruitt set in place an anti-regulatory mindset that should keep the EPA at the leading edge of deregulation under Trump.
The report is the first to look at the impact of Pruitt, who resigned July 5 after battling a string of controversies involving his leadership.
“While he received a lot of attention for his personal actions, Scott Pruitt’s tenure at EPA moved the agency in a very different direction substantively than under the previous administration,” said the report compiled by Dan Goldbeck,a senior research analyst for regulatory policy at the American Action Forum.
During his time at EPA, Pruitt was backed by Trump because of his deregulation efforts.
In the report, provided to Secrets, Goldbeck cited these highlights:Final rules from the agency produced nearly $350 million in cost savings and cut more than 300,000 hours of paperwork burdens.In addition to specific rulemaking actions, Pruitt established the framework for a substantial shift in EPA’s mission and practices. The most notable changes included: narrowing the agency’s regulatory scope, reforming the practice of “sue and settle,” and re-examining the data and analytical processes used to justify rulemakings.While EPA’s leadership will change, the Pruitt-era policy changes will almost certainly continue. The agency is on track to exceed its deregulatory target for this year, and it is only a matter of time before its most high-profile deregulatory measures (e.g. Clean Power Plan Repeal and adjusted fuel efficiency standards) wind their way through the rulemaking process.
“The fact that EPA was a net cost-cutter during his tenure is significant,” said the report.
Goldbeck lists specific changes that led to the savings, but also emphasized the impact of Pruitt’s war on how the agency’s pro-regulation culture has changed.
“Pruitt’s tenure at EPA marked a dramatic shift in the agency’s underlying mission and culture – perhaps more so than under any other member of President Trump’s cabinet,” he said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/epa-under-pruitt-slashed-350-million-in-regulations-300-000-hours-of-red-tape
-
(ACC Mentioned) Adidas, Neste Bolstering Markets for Recycled Plastics
Jul 23, 2018 | Sustainable Brands
Amidst the anti-plastic frenzy dominating corporate sustainability news lately, adidas and Neste have announced plans to increase their efforts to utilize more waste plastic.
Adidas pledged to eliminate the use of “virgin” plastic in its products and across its operations. The new commitment includes polyester, a popular material for sportswear since it is light and dries quickly. Adidas stated that its apparel line for the spring and summer of 2019 will contain around 41 percent recycled polyester.
The global apparel company estimates that ceasing the use of virgin plastic in its offices, retail outlets, warehouses and distribution centers will save roughly 40 tons of plastic per year, beginning in 2018.
Adidas is also expecting a sharp increase in sales of its Parley shoes, which are made with plastic waste collected by Parley for the Oceans. While still a small share of its global sales, Adidas expects purchases to jump from 1 million pairs in 2017 to 5 million pairs this year.
Meanwhile, renewable diesel producer Neste is exploring ways to introduce liquefied waste plastic as a future raw material for fossil refining. The company aims to launch an industrial scale trial in 2019 and annually process more than 1 million tons of waste plastic by 2030.
“Neste has been ranked the world’s second most sustainable company and we are already the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel from waste and residues. Our target is to also be a leader in low-carbon refining and support circular economy by developing innovative solutions based on waste plastic,” said Matti Lehmus, Executive Vice President of Neste’s Oil Products business area.
“With our strong legacy in raw material and pretreatment research, we are in a unique position to introduce waste plastics as a new raw material for fossil refining. At the same time, we aim to provide solutions to support global plastic waste reduction,” he added.
Reaching industrial-scale production of products from plastic waste still requires development of technologies and value chains. To accelerate development, Neste says it is looking for partners across the value chain, for example in waste management and upgrading technologies.
The company is also “producing durable and recyclable renewable plastics from bio-based raw materials, such as waste fats and oils” through partnerships with plastics industry firms and plastics-consuming companies. For example, Neste and IKEA will produce polypropylene (PP) plastic from fossil-free, bio-based raw materials at commercial scale during fall 2018 – the first time in the world that bio-based PP will be produced at a commercial scale.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/chemistry_materials_packaging/sustainable_brands/adidas_neste_bolstering_markets_recy
-
Democrats Call Hires 'Serious Risk' of Violating Constitution
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
A group of Democratic senators today raised concerns about two EPA nominees joining the agency prior to being confirmed by the Senate.
"Your appointment runs the serious risk of circumventing the Senate's constitutional advice and consent responsibility for the position to which you have been nominated," Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote in letters to Peter Wright and William "Chad" McIntosh, whom President Trump picked to lead EPA's solid waste and international relations offices, respectively.
The letters were also signed by Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Ed Markey of Massachusetts and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats.
E&E News first reported that Wright, a former lawyer for the chemical giant DowDuPont Inc., and McIntosh, a retired Ford Motor Co. executive, were hired by EPA earlier this month before a single Senate vote had been taken on their nominations (E&E News PM, July 6).
Now the Democratic senators, all of whom sit on the committee tasked with vetting Wright and McIntosh, want to know more about what the nominees are doing at EPA and whether it could raise legal issues. EPA has described both of them as "special counsel to the administrator."
Because of a 2017 court decision, nominees aren't allowed to do the jobs they've been chosen for prior to getting the Senate's blessing.
For Wright in particular, the lawmakers also want to know whether the ethics agreements he made as part of his confirmation process to steer clear of his former employer are currently in effect.
"We look forward to your prompt responses as it will help inform how we engage with your nomination," the senators wrote to both picks.
Last year, concerns about Michael Dourson's pre-confirmation work at EPA helped to sink his nomination to lead the agency's chemical safety office (Greenwire, Dec. 13, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/23/stories/1060090071
-
US EPA Received 32 PMNs in April
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 32 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in April. Fourteen of these had the manufacturer’s identity withheld as confidential.
The April submissions comprise 12 new PMNs, and 20 that are amended.
During this period, the agency also received 16 notices of commencement (NOCs). And it received test data in support of the PMNs of seven substances.
The EPA reported its April updates to the new substance programme in a 23 July Federal Register notice.
Under section 5 of TSCA, any person who intends to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose must provide the EPA with a PMN before initiating the activity. The agency will review the notice, make a risk determination and take appropriate action.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68889/us-epa-received-32-pmns-in-april
-
Jul 23, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a “Food Additives and Child Health” policy statement calling for “urgently needed reforms to the current regulatory process at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food additives.” The policy applies to chemicals deliberately added to food or to food packaging or food processing equipment that get into food. These substances are used to flavor, color, preserve, package, process and store our food, but many never appear among the list of ingredients. AAP’s statement calls specifically for the following:“Greatly strengthening or replacing the GRAS [Generally Recognized as Safe] determination process;Updating the scientific foundation of the FDA’s safety assessment program;Retesting all previously approved chemicals; andLabeling direct additives with limited or no toxicity data.”
EDF applauds AAP’s policy statement and its decision to add its influential voice to the rising call for reform of the process by which FDA and food manufacturers decide additives are safe. AAP, a professional society representing 67,000 pediatricians, develops policy statements regarding federal, state, and community policies that affect children through an extensive, deliberative process that draws on tremendous scientific expertise. As with past policies, such as those concerning lead toxicity and fruit juice consumption, this statement on chemicals in food presents a well-reasoned assessment of the problem and clear recommendations for reform.
Over 10,000 chemicals are allowed to be used to flavor, color, preserve, package, process, or store food in the US – and 1,000 of these bypass FDA review. Due to a flawed law – the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 – and weak enforcement, many chemicals are inadequately tested, or not tested at all, and others are never even independently reviewed for safety. FDA and industry interpret the law as exempting additives that companies secretly determine to be “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) from agency or public review. While originally intended for common ingredients such as oil and vinegar, the process has become a massive loophole that companies have used to bypass FDA review and oversight.
In its statement, the AAP also draws attention to certain chemicals of concern and describes how they exemplify the failures of the food safety system. The following additives are cited as of most concern due to growing evidence of harm:Bisphenol A (BPA),Phthalates,Perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs),Perchlorate,Artificial food colors, andNitrates/ nitrites.
Health risks of these chemicals range from worsened attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder symptoms associated with synthetic food colorings common in children’s food to impaired fetal and child brain development, a known effect of perchlorate exposure.
For years, consumers have increasingly demanded food that is healthier and safer including limiting chemical additives and carcinogens. Food manufacturers have taken steps to respond to consumer concerns, but meaningful change will require strengthening and modernizing the regulatory system. EDF is striving to make our food safer by encouraging corporate leaders to remove chemicals of concern from their food and by strengthening and modernizing the current regulatory system. To properly ensure the safety of our food, we are working to:End secrecy: The Generally Recognized as Safe loophole allows companies to secretly decide on the safety of chemicals in our food — without FDA's review or the public's knowledge. Congress needs to create a more streamlined, public process for FDA to make safety decisions and encourage innovation.Use modern science: When FDA reviews chemicals in our food before they are used, it makes our food supply safer. But the agency needs to use the most modern science to do the best job.Ensure existing chemicals are safe: Thousands of chemicals were approved by FDA decades ago, when we had far less understanding about their impacts on human health. FDA needs to reassess their safety. Congress needs to provide FDA with the tools so the agency can get the information it needs to set priorities and make decisions about the 10,000 chemicals in our food.
EDF is greatly encouraged to see the AAP take such a strong stance on the issue of chemicals in food, and we hope that FDA and policymakers will take immediate action to implement the critical changes needed to fix our nation’s broken food regulatory system and better protect children.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/07/23/aap-needed-reforms-broken-food-additive-regulatory-system/
-
EU Project Assesses 'Critical' PFAS Use in Textiles
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Most textiles do not require high water and oil repellency, and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be limited to applications for which technical performance is "unique and critical", according to the European Commission.
For other applications, safer alternatives should be used, said the Commission’s Valentina Bertato. She was speaking at an event in June marking the completion of an EU project – analysing chemicals used to provide water and oil repellency in textiles.
The project – MIDWOR-Life – launched in 2015 and is funded by the EU Life+ programme. It aims to reduce the environmental and health impacts of durable water and oil repellents (DWOR) by setting policy recommendations. These will aim to promote greater implementation of "less toxic and most effective" alternatives to fulfil obligations under REACH and for establishing future policies or voluntary schemes, at the European, regional and local level.Oil repellency
The project concluded that although fluorine-free products can achieve comparable water repellency to fluorocarbons, only fluorinated compounds provide oil repellency. But fluorine-free products had a significantly reduced environmental footprint compared with conventional fluorinated technology.
Stakeholders at the event, which included representatives from the authorities, industry and NGOs, discussed the need to define critical applications where oil repellency is essential, in order to include them as derogations within a possible restriction, to be proposed by Norway, on the short-chain fluorocarbon PFHxS.
Ms Bertata gave the example of certain personal protective clothing for industrial workers.
The event gathered 36 stakeholders in the field of substitution of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFCs) in the textile industry. They came from 10 European countries.
A risk assessment of occupational health, carried out for the project, showed that long-chain fluorocarbons present a moderate risk to workers, while short-chain fluorocarbons have a mitigated impact to workers’ safety and exposure is highly dependent on industrial settings.
MIDWOR-Life project manager, Josep Casamada, told Chemical Watch after the event that the goal of reducing the environmental impact of textiles is possible if products are not "over-designed by using water repellency."Textile industry view
At the event, Dunja Drmac, sustainability officer for the European textiles trade association Euratex, highlighted the need for the textiles industry to be informed about the alternatives to PFAS in order to avoid regrettable substitution and for regulatory bodies to be flexible in cases where no alternatives are available.
Mauro Scalia, director of sustainable businesses for Euratex, told Chemical Watch that the project "tested and demonstrated the principle that ‘one size does not fit all’ which we firmly advocate".
An alternative "may work in case A but is completely useless or counter productive in case B," he added.
The project also "shed light on the importance of not just developing new alternatives but also tailored testing of alternatives – that is where SMEs need support," said Mr Scalia.
The MIDWOR-Life project has published several technical papers on its website and also has an online tool to facilitate companies’ self-assessment of the environmental impact of different DWORs.
In addition, a road map will be produced setting out next steps to increase the development and use of safer alternatives after the project ends in August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68770/eu-project-assesses-critical-pfas-use-in-textiles
-
EDCs and REACH Concerns Surface in UK/India Trade Review
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton and Sunny Lee
A UK-India joint trade review has revealed India's frustrations with EU chemicals regulations and suggests it would like flexibility on substances regulated under REACH and endocrine disruptors in a possible post-Brexit trade deal.
With the UK expected to leave the EU on 29 March next year, it has been exploring trade deals with other global economies.
Work on a review of trade between the two countries began last year, after agreement between the UK's international trade secretary Liam Fox and Nirmala Sitharaman, India's then minister of commerce and industry, to set up a joint working group.
The group's report, published earlier in the year but kept under wraps until now, says opportunities exist to "build the closest possible" economic and commercial partnership with India.
Both countries, the report says, recognise the benefits of reducing trade barriers, and making "progress on areas that are within the competence of the UK. Meanwhile, acknowledging that while the UK is a member state of the EU, certain issues remain within EU competence.
"India also will be unable to mete out separate dispensation to UK in areas of EU competence."
The paper is dated January this year, but was published by the Indian government this month following a right-to-information request by Greenpeace UK's Unearthed project.
In it, India raises concerns about the EU's criteria for identifying EDCs and says that out of 69 chemicals identified in a draft measure from 2016, 34 have a "direct effect on India" because they are registered in the country. It is likely, India says, that the registrations of these substances will not be approved when they expire.
In the EU, criteria for identifying EDCs in biocides came into force just months after the report was first issued. The criteria for plant protection products were adopted in April.
Indian exports of products containing these identified EDCs may be affected, the paper says. It adds that other products like toys and cosmetics are "likely to be covered in the long run".
The paper also reflects stakeholder views that "adequate time and support may be provided in setting [an] import tolerance" for chemicals identified as endocrine disruptors.REACH and biocides
India also pointed to difficulties chemical exporters outside of the EU face when complying with the REACH Regulation. These, it says, include:high registration fees;concessions to SMEs;submission of chemical safety reports (CSR) and data by non-OECD countries; andthe lack of a right for retesting by exporters.
India highlights reduced maximum residue levels (MRLs) for biocides and other substances in food exports. And the UK brings up approvals for multiple-use biocides, and what it says are over-long testing requirements and inconsistent approvals by different regulatory bodies.
The UK government has said that all EU environmental legislation, including REACH, will be converted into British law. However, some MPs have said chemicals rules are too complicated to be simply copied and pasted. And in the UK's White Paper, released earlier this month, the government repeats calls for Britain to retain some form of membership of Echa.
But for some, a break from EU laws could mean opportunities to reduce 'burdens' and 'red tape'.
Responding to the paper, Michael Warhurst from NGO CHEM Trust said: "The UK should not modify its approach to regulating chemicals, even if it does not manage to stay in REACH. REACH already has sufficient 'risk-based' elements. Any more deregulation would reduce protection of human health and the environment."
Chemical Watch contacted Liam Fox's office for a response, but did not receive a reply in time for publication. At a UK House of Lords select committee meeting on REACH and Brexit on 18 July, junior environment minister Thérèse Coffey said she was "not aware" of any contact from the Indian government on the issue.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68896/edcs-and-reach-concerns-surface-in-ukindia-trade-review
-
American Pediatrics Group Presses for FCM Reforms
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for "substantial improvements" to the US Food and Drug Administration’s food additives regulatory process, and says some currently permitted chemicals "may best be avoided".
The call for reforms came in a policy statement and technical report issued by the AAP, which comprises nearly 70,000 paediatricians. It highlights "emerging child health concerns" tied to substances used in food contact materials – including adhesives, dyes, coatings, paper, paperboard, plastic and other polymers – as well as chemicals deliberately added to food during processing.
The organisation cites a growing number of studies suggesting these food additives can interfere with children's growth, development and hormones, and may contribute to childhood obesity. It also raises concern with "significant gaps in data" about the health effects of many substances on the market.'Critical weaknesses'
According to the AAP policy statement, the FDA's current requirements for issuing a "generally recognised as safe" (Gras) designation are "insufficient to ensure the safety of food additives and do not contain sufficient protections against conflict of interest". And, it says the FDA lacks authority to get data on either chemicals on the market or their safety.
"There are critical weaknesses in the current food additives regulatory process, which doesn't do enough to ensure all chemicals added to foods are safe," said Leonardo Trasande, an AAP Council on Environmental Health member and lead author of the policy statement.
The statement calls for "urgently needed reforms" to the FDA's process, including:strengthening or replacing the Gras determination process, including imposing new requirements for toxicity testing before a substance can enter the market;retesting all previously approved chemicals;updating the scientific foundation of the FDA's safety assessment programme; andrequiring labelling for intentionally-added ingredients that lack or have limited toxicity data.Substances of concern
The report notes several "additives of most concern", based on research evidence. These include:bisphenols, such as BPA, used to harden plastic containers and line metal cans. The AAP says these "can act like oestrogen in the body and potentially change the timing of puberty, decrease fertility, increase body fat, and affect the nervous and immune systems";phthalates, used in plastic and vinyl tubes used in food production. These, the AAP says, have been shown to affect male genital development, contribute to cardiovascular disease, and increased childhood obesity;perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs), used in greaseproof paper and cardboard packaging. The statement cites research on reduced immunity, birth weight and fertility, as well as affects to the thyroid system, digestion, muscle control, brain development and bone strength; andperchlorate, used to reduce static in dry food packaging. It has been linked to disrupted thyroid function, and effects on early life brain development and growth.
And although the policy statement seeks for the FDA to retest and review existing data on additives like these already on the market, the AAP says congressional action is needed to overhaul food safety laws for this to occur.
The organisation has therefore recommended steps that families can take to "limit exposures to the chemicals of the greatest concern". These include:using alternatives to plastic where possible;avoiding plastics with recycling codes 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene) and 7 (bisphenols) unless they are labelled as "biobased" or "greenware"; andminimising heating plastics in the microwave or putting them in the dishwasher.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68899/american-pediatrics-group-presses-for-fcm-reforms
-
CPSC Issues Corrections to Phthalates Ban
Jul 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Products Safety Commission has published some minor corrections to its final rule prohibiting certain phthalates from children’s products.
On 27 October 2017, the commission moved to prohibit concentrations above 0.1% of the substances in children’s toys and childcare articles. And in January, it issued a direct final rule to amend corresponding administrative regulations to reflect the new requirements.
In two Federal Register notices, the CPSC has issued corrections to these rules. The amendments are:fixing misspellings of two phthalates, di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP); andthe addition of an authority citation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68890/cpsc-issues-corrections-to-phthalates-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pediatrician Group: Cut down on Plastic, Cans to Protect Kids
Jul 23, 2018 | New York Times (In E&E Greenwire)
Families should limit their use of plastic food containers and pregnant women should scale back consumption of processed meat to lower children's exposure to chemicals, according to a major pediatricians' group.
The guidelines come from an American Academy of Pediatrics report out today.
The group suggests that pregnant women replace processed food with whole fruits and vegetables.
This report adds to the growing concern from other medical and advocacy groups over certain chemicals in food that have been linked to obesity and other problems.
The American Academy of Pediatrics asked for more testing and regulations of the chemicals used as food additives and others that can enter foods through manufacturing, packaging and plastics.
"The good news is there are safe and simple steps people can take right now to limit exposures, and they don't have to break the bank," said Leonardo Trasande, the lead author of the statement and chief of the division of environmental pediatrics at New York University's School of Medicine. Trasande suggested using less canned food and replacing plastic wrap with wax paper.
Among the chemicals of concern are nitrates and nitrites, used as preservatives; phthalates, used in plastic packaging; bisphenols, used in can linings; and PFCs, used in grease-proof products.
American Chemistry Council spokesman Jonathan Corley countered, "Chemicals are critical to protecting the quality and integrity of food, help in the safe transportation and storage of food" (Roni Caryn Rabin, New York Times, July 23). — CS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/23/stories/1060090055
-
Permian Operators Not ‘Backing Down,’ But Marcellus Activity ‘Softening,’ Says Halliburton CEO
Jul 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The CEO of North America’s leading pressure pumper Halliburton Co. said Permian Basin operators do not seem overly concerned about potential oil and natural gas takeaway constraints as activity continues to be strong.
Jeff Miller led a conference call early Monday with his management team to discuss second quarter performance. The completion and production division’s operating income climbed by 34%, primarily driven by the strength of U.S. land operations, he told analysts.
“Despite pricing levels that have yet to fully rebound from the recent downcycle, we are achieving outstanding margins. North America had a strong performance this quarter. This is the largest and fastest growing energy market in the world. On a year-to-date basis, we have grown revenues 47% year/year, while the U.S. land rig count has increased 16%. U.S. land achieved margins that are closing in on what we achieved during the previous peak in 2014.”
A lot of industry chatter of late has been around the coming lack of offtake capacity from the Permian Basin. However, a slowdown is not in sight, Miller said.
“During the last few weeks I visited with customers in the Permian, and they don't look like a group that's backing down,” he said. “I can see it in their eyes. They feel good about where they are and how they’re positioned for the long run. Don't underestimate this group. They are competitive. We'll figure out how to deal with constraints, and we'll adapt.”
Miller said he was not “naïve to the math around the offtake issue, but as we've seen so far, our customers will not all react in the same manner. There are customers that have moved their focus from one basin to another, and we're there pursuing that work. Other customers plan to reduce activity over the short term or are adding fewer rigs than expected, and we'll find new work to replace them.”
Compared to what Halliburton has seen in the past regarding offtake constraints, “tightness is an indicator of a great resource, and what is occurring in the Permian today is not new,” said the CEO. Similar challenges were managed in the Williston Basin during the last upcycle and are being handled in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) Basin today.
“The DJ has suffered constraints on gas takeaway all year, but our customers have managed their businesses and remain productive as have we,” Miller said. “This work may not be as efficient as it could have been, but we've taken action to maximize our revenue and control our costs.”
Constraints in the DJ should alleviate in early 2019 as additional offtake capacity comes online.
“The same will be true in the Permian, which is best suited to handle this type of challenge and will do so as quickly as possible,” Miller said. “In the interim, we're going to keep equipment working, control our costs and outperform our competitors.”
Meanwhile, in the Marcellus Shale, Miller disclosed “some softening in activity, as our customers hit the production targets earlier than planned. In some ways, we're a victim of our own success, as we develop longer laterals with better production. As a result, we expect this area to have temporary softness in the back half of 2018, but it's poised to regain activity as the calendar turns to 2019 and additional pipeline capacity is available. We will manage through the year-end and be ready for the increased activity next year.”
These “temporary efficiency drags will create headwinds for additional upward pricing in the third quarter,” Miller warned. “Our competitors' new and uncontracted equipment is also creating pricing pressure in some areas.”
While fast-growing markets “present tremendous opportunities,” they often result in “temporary challenges,” Miller said. “With the expected activity in the second half of this year, we're mindful of the impact of cost inflation from trucking and increased maintenance expense. The use of trucking for sand, water and crude oil is generating intense demand for trucks and truck drivers, thus creating cost inflation.”
To offset inflation, Halliburton is managing the trucking costs by using containerized sand and integrated logistics, and “our equipment has never worked harder than it's working today,” he said. “Increased pumping time and sand loading continues to cause more wear and tear.”
Regarding basin dynamics, Miller attempted to justify why the company is not reacting as swiftly as some analysts have said it should as the market dynamics change.
“Look, I could take some actions that would allow us to achieve our margin goals today, but I believe that will sacrifice our market position and impair long-term value,” he said. “We do not manage the business to achieve short-term expectations. We manage the business around long-term strategic goals.
"We will stay focused on our strategy, maintain our market share and not sacrifice either to achieve our margin goals in the near term. We built market share during the downturn on our strong belief in the long-term potential of the North American market. We are a returns-focused company. To deliver returns, market share and scale matter, we intend to maintain this expanded market position as our scale delivers outsized operating income, cash flow and returns.”
Halliburton’s third quarter earnings are expected to be similar to the second quarter because of the “temporary issues facing North America. That's a great outcome. I like where we are, and it will serve as an excellent bridge to a strong 2019...The temporary challenges will soon abate, and I believe global supply and demand dynamics will support continued industry growth, which I expect will accelerate in 2019.”
Net income climbed to $511 million (58 cents/share) in the quarter from year-ago profits of $28 million (3 cents). Revenue increased to $6.147 billion from $4.957 billion.
North America revenue came in 9% higher sequentially to $3.8 billion on improvements in the U.S. onshore across most of the product service lines, primarily pressure pumping, drilling and artificial lift activity. Partially offsetting the uptick were lower pressure pumping activity in Canada from the spring thaw and reduced drilling fluid activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
Drilling and evaluation revenue totaled $2.0 billion, 3% higher sequentially, while operating income rose 2% to $191 million.
Latin America revenue climbed 5% sequentially to $479 million, mostly because of stronger software sales and project management activity in Mexico, as well as stimulation activity in Argentina.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115151-permian-operators-not-backing-down-but-marcellus-activity-softening-says-halliburton-ceo
-
Opinion: Chemical Security Must Be National Priority
Jul 22, 2018 | The Detroit News
By Bob Kolasky
Illinois is home to more than 160 high-risk chemical facilities. Last year, one of these facilities took a direct hit from an F3 tornado that ravaged the building and left significant destruction. The facility’s security officer said that the security measures required under the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program helped ensure everyone survived without injury, and the chemicals weren’t affected.
This incident demonstrates that, in addition to enhancing chemical security, CFATS compliance is good business. While the program is designed to protect the nation against the ongoing threat of terrorists who are targeting chemical facilities, the protective measures that facilities implement under CFATS can have ancillary benefits, making it an even better investment.
Congress authorized the CFATS program to address gaps that existed in securing high-risk chemical facilities. While the threat of terrorism remains, the CFATS program provides risk reduction measures for high-risk chemical facilities in possession of certain levels of any of over 300 dangerous chemicals, and helps facilities implement a set of enhanced security standards. The program now covers over 3,400 high-risk chemical facilities — including the 160 in Illinois.
The Midwest is home to industries that rely heavily on chemicals — industries like agriculture, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and paint. Facilities considered to be high-risk under CFATS are required to meet security standards that reduce the risk of chemical holdings being stolen, diverted, sabotaged or released in a terrorist attack.
Since the program was established 11 years ago, CFATS-covered facilities have implemented thousands of security measures. As a result, America’s highest-risk chemical facilities have improved their overall security posture, and in the process made the nation safer and more secure.
Shared commitment and collaboration between the public and private sectors has contributed significantly to the CFATS program’s success. Through ongoing discussion with industry stakeholders around establishing a sustainable chemical security culture, the program has raised awareness of the threat and the methods to address it.
Furthermore, the CFATS program’s structure and non-prescriptive nature has provided the flexibility needed to streamline and improve compliance. Of note, the regulated industry considers CFATS an important contributor to national security and has advocated for Congress to reauthorize the program.
CFATS was initially authorized annually through appropriations legislation, subjecting the program to constant uncertainty. In 2014, Congress reauthorized the program for four years, directing the department to streamline the process while also granting industry stakeholders the confidence and stability to make long-term security investments.
The 2014 legislation marked a real turning point, and we thank Congress for their leadership in protecting our nation from the threat of chemical attacks.
Now, with just six months before the four-year authorization expires, CFATS needs legislative action to continue the vital work of securing America’s highest-risk chemical facilities. Failing to reauthorize CFATS for the long-term could be costly.
The persistent terrorist threat that gave rise to the program continues today, and the consequences of a successful attack could be devastating to our economy and our people. DHS is committed to continuing to work with Congress and stakeholders to reauthorize CFATS and build on the vital work that has been accomplished, to reduce our risk and elevate security. As the January reauthorization deadline is fast approaching, we cannot let our guard down in protecting America’s chemicals from terrorism.
Bob Kolasky is acting assistant secretary for the Office of Infrastructure Protection.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2018/07/23/chemical-security-national-priority-terrorism/802668002/
-
Former Trump Adviser Opens GOP Climate Shop
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
A former Trump White House official is launching a new venture to combat climate change.
George David Banks, who was President Trump's international energy adviser and an aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), is teaming up with a handful of other Republicans to advance climate policies aimed at securing conservative support. They think their party has faltered by ceding the climate policy space to the left, and they want to get back in the game.
"We want to position the GOP in a way that the Republican Party is negotiating from a position of strength, because right now the Republican Party doesn't have a real climate policy," Banks said Friday in an interview.
The move comes after leading Republican politicians have shied away from discussing climate policy in recent years or outright decried the idea. Moderate Republicans who long ago supported climate change legislation and other initiatives have backtracked, and the U.S. electorate voted for a president who famously called climate change a "hoax."
But Republicans — some of them, at least — are wading back into the debate. The initiative by Banks comes as Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) is preparing to introduce legislation this week that would pause federal regulations on climate change in exchange for an escalating tax on carbon emissions (Climatewire, July 17).
It remains a thorny issue for Republicans. Case in point: As Curbelo prepared to unveil his carbon tax legislation, House Republicans introduced an anti-carbon-tax resolution that called the policy harmful to the U.S. economy. Only six House Republicans sided with Democrats in opposition to that resolution.
Banks and his colleagues are trying a different approach.
Rather than tackling climate change through sweeping legislation like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program — which most Republicans are leery to support — they envision kicking off a national policy debate to find areas of common ground on climate.
The group, called the Center for Energy Security and Climate Economics, is a project of the think tank American Council for Capital Formation.
In addition to Banks, who's directing the center, its leadership includes Drew Bond, director of energy innovation policy; Timothy Doyle, director of corporate governance and federal regulatory programs; Todd Johnston, vice president of government relations; and Robert Dillon, vice president of communications and director of energy security. They're all former Capitol Hill staffers.
"You have some Republicans who back a carbon tax, but in our opinion, that's not a real climate policy when it comes to a climate policy that has its roots in a national consensus," Banks said.
Johnston, another former Inhofe aide, added that last week's House vote "makes clear that the political compromise isn't there to support something like that."
Past attempts to legislate cap-and-trade programs or to tax greenhouse gas emissions have fizzled on Capitol Hill, even when Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. The likelihood of passing a major climate bill with the GOP in control is basically zilch.
"What resonates is jobs and efficiencies and creating prosperity and opportunity," said Dillon, a former aide to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "The conversation around this has always been about limiting opportunity."'Incremental improvements'
The new group plans to advance smaller efforts that might be politically salable to both sides of the aisle.
"We're looking at policies that make incremental improvements, and that's the way Congress should look at it," Dillon said.
They're sure to face criticism from the left that their policies aren't aggressive enough to combat climate change. Some argue there's no hope for meaningful climate change policy with Trump in the White House.
"The main obstacle to climate action by Republicans today is not primarily economic, but instead Trump's nihilistic political strategy that risks the security and well-being of average Americans by inciting anti-science extremism among his base," said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute. "While this new effort might matter at the margins, it doesn't confront the big lies at the heart of the Republican Party under Trump. It seems only an election can do that."
Leaders of the new group say they're not eyeing specific legislation or policies yet. Rather, they're pursuing broad goals, like accounting for economic disparities among states; advancing innovation in renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel energy technologies; and opposing shareholder activism that seeks to curb domestic fossil fuel production.
"Richer U.S. states should be expected to do more than poorer U.S. states," Banks said. "The regional disparities, the income gap between states needs to be accounted for."
He said that aligns with international climate policies where "poorer states have the right to use fossil fuels, they have the right to grow their emissions because they have the right to catch up with the quality of life in the richer parts of the world."
Many of the poorest states in the country are conservative strongholds with energy-intensive industries, so accounting for that income gap might be a way to lure some Republicans to the table.
The group says it also advocates "a robust innovation agenda that enhances U.S. leadership in nuclear and renewable energy technologies and promotes the cleaner, more efficient global use of fossil fuels." It opposes "onerous regulation or strategies that obstruct innovation and damage our energy security."
Banks laid out some of his ideas in an op-ed in The Hill newspaper yesterday.
The Republicans aren't against shareholder activism on climate, per se, Banks said. "We just want to make sure that climate-, energy-related proposals are based on real scenarios and that they seek to improve the value of the stock in a way that benefits publicly traded companies in the U.S. interest."
He lamented a surge of activist initiatives aimed at prodding divestment from fossil fuels. "That's not in the interest of anyone, I would argue," he said. Forcing publicly traded companies to stop producing fossil fuels won't make state-owned enterprises around the world halt their fossil fuel production, Banks said. "You harm the innovation agenda that's required for deep emissions cuts."
He and his colleagues recognize that they'll get pushback from both sides, but they think they can muster enough support to get traction with moderates on both sides of the aisle, officials in the Trump White House and even among some who don't believe in climate change.
"Climate change policy is not going to go away," Banks said. "There's a recognition that if you have a Democrat in the White House, whoever that is is going to probably go back to the Obama playbook and push a hefty regulatory agenda, and this is something we want to try to pre-empt, and we want to make sure that we do what we can to put the GOP in a strong negotiating position on climate change policy."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/23/stories/1060090015
-
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Embracing environmental issues appears to be a strategy for some Republicans in competitive congressional races.
A growing number of GOP candidates are touting green credentials, and some are distancing themselves from the administration's attempts to weaken environmental safeguards. For some conservatives, environmental messaging has been consistent throughout their careers. For others, it seems to conflict with their voting records.
"I think it's a fallacy that Republicans are against the outdoors," said one Republican campaign media strategist. "It's not that. It's that they are against [over]regulations."
Already, Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) unveiled a TV ad showing him canoeing in the Boundary Waters. "So when President Trump tried to take away important environmental protections for the Boundary Waters, I said, 'No way,'" he says in the ad. "I'm for mining. Just not there. It's too special — too important a place."
Paulsen's campaign did not respond to questions about the ad. Last year, EPA announced plans to lessen environmental review for copper mining in the Boundary Waters, reversing the Obama administration's proposal to forbid mining operations in 230,000 acres of the Superior National Forest in Minnesota.
Meanwhile, in Nevada, a mailer for Sen. Dean Heller (R) paid for by Clear Path Action Fund includes a quote from the lawmaker: "I am one of the most outspoken Republicans in Congress advocating for policies that make our nation's energy cleaner and more affordable."
Heller's challenger, Rep. Jacky Rosen (D), has outraised him since she announced her candidacy last summer. Environmentalists have called her House voting record impressive. At the same time, she owns at least $130,000 in oil, gas and mining stocks, according to the Las Vegas Sun newspaper.
After the Clear Path Action Fund mailer went out a couple of weeks ago, Jon Ralston, editor of the Nevada Independent, sarcastically tweeted: "How you know the primary season is over and the general election has begun? Meet Dean heller [sic], 'Nevada's Clean Energy Champion.'"
Environmental activists were not impressed.
"GOP consultants clearly realize that environmental issues resonate with voters — that's why we're seeing vulnerable Republicans like Erik Paulsen and Dean Heller attempting to cover up their toxic voting records," Alyssa Roberts of the League of Conservation Voters said in an email. "But voters can tell the difference between candidates who are all talk and those who will actually fight for a healthy environment and climate action." (The LCV Victory Fund has not endorsed any Republicans this cycle. It has endorsed a handful in past years.)
Clear Path Action Fund, which works to elect Republicans who focus on clean energy, is supporting four other Republicans this cycle: Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Brian Mast of Florida, Scott Taylor of Virginia, and Fred Upton of Michigan.
Clear Path Action Fund spokesman Darren Goode said the fund endorsed 15 candidates in the 2016 cycle and spent about $5 million. It was the first time the group got involved in elections. Of those, 13 candidates won. It plans to endorse about half as many candidates this cycle. "The bench is smaller, but we are going deeper in each race," Goode said. "We don't want to endorse just to endorse. We want to make a difference."
In one digital ad paid for by Clear Path, a voice-over states: "Representative Brian Mast has worked across the aisle in Washington taking bipartisan action to boost clean energy and protect the Everglades and the Indian River Lagoon." Aerial images of Florida wetlands are shown on the screen.
Mast voted with the LCV 23 percent of the time during the 2016 election cycle.
Goode objected to Mast's low rating from the LCV and the scorecard system in general. "Unfortunately that can be used against him unfairly," he said. "If that's the case, we will do what we need to help him."
Clear Path Action Fund has also been a big supporter of Curbelo, co-founder of the Climate Solutions Caucus. Goode said Clear Path made a difference in his 2016 race by defending him against "baseless attacks on his environmental record." That Florida congressional race in 2016 pitted environmental groups against each other.
Goode, who noted that the Clear Path Action Fund does not focus on EPA or the Interior Department, said the strategy this cycle would not be affected by the Trump administration. He said the group's "agenda would be the same regardless of who was president," adding that the White House has been good and outspoken on protecting and expanding nuclear energy.
Other Republican candidates have also worked environmental issues into their campaign strategy, albeit more subtly.
Elizabeth Heng, a 33-year-old Republican running against Democrat Rep. Jim Costa of California, plans to make water an issue in the race. In her first 30-second ad, she says that Costa has done little for the Fresno district in the 14 years he has been in Congress. "We actually can fix water, immigration and education," Heng said in the ad.
Nathan Gonzales of Inside Elections predicted that additional Republicans could use green issues to attract swing voters. But will it work?
"I think we'll continue to see vulnerable Republicans in competitive districts use the environment to break out of this stereotypical Republican mold," said Gonzales. "Voters will decide whether it's effective or if they care."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/23/stories/1060090017
-
Baltimore Sues Oil Companies over Climate Impacts
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Baltimore last week sued multiple oil companies for climate change damages, joining a swath of governments across the country seeking money to deal with sea-level rise, extreme rain, drought and heat waves.
The country's fifth-largest city filed the case against conglomerates that include Chevron Corp., BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Citgo Petroleum Corp. and Consol Energy Inc., as well as trade groups American Petroleum Institute and Western States Petroleum Association. Baltimore filed the case in the state's Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
The case charges the companies with creating a public nuisance, failure to warn, negligence, trespass and violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The suit says that the companies through their "extraction, promotion, marketing and sale of fossil fuel products" caused 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions between 1965 and 2015. As in similar cases, it claims that oil companies hid information that climate change was happening while protecting their own assets.
"These oil and gas companies knew for decades that their products would harm communities like ours, and we're going to hold them accountable," Andre Davis, the Baltimore city solicitor, said in a statement. "Baltimore's residents, workers, and businesses shouldn't have to pay for the damage knowingly caused by these companies."
Oil companies in similar suits have argued that the courts are not the place to deal with the issue.
Baltimore joined a wave of suits against oil companies filed by cities and counties in California, Washington, Colorado and New York. In addition, Rhode Island has filed suit. The Manufacturers' Accountability Project (MAP), an ally of the oil industry, called for lawmaker action to stop the trend of climate-based lawsuits against oil companies.
"It's time for politicians and trial lawyers to put an end to this frivolous litigation," Lindsey de la Torre, MAP executive director, said in a statement. "Taxpayer resources should not be used for baseless lawsuits that are designed to enrich trial lawyers and grab headlines for politicians. This abuse of our legal system does nothing to advance meaningful solutions, which manufacturers are focused on every day."
The suit came a day after Reagan appointee Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York threw out a lawsuit New York City filed against Big Oil. It was the second such case tossed in federal court. Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a Clinton appointee, last month granted the request from the five largest oil companies to dismiss cases brought by San Francisco and Oakland, Calif.
Davis said this case is different, as it's in state court.
"The ruling in the New York case should not have any impact on our lawsuit because its dismissal was based on analyses of federal common law," Davis said. "Our lawsuit is based solely on state law for damages that are occurring solely in Baltimore."
Keenan in his ruling said that "climate change is a fact of life" but an issue that "must be addressed by the two other branches of government" and not the courts. Davis rebuffed that argument.
"The New York decision essentially concludes that no court anywhere can hold the oil companies accountable for the damage they're causing in communities like ours — no matter how severe those injuries — because, apparently, only elected officials are allowed to do anything about the consequences of global warming," Davis added. "Despite the federal court's unfounded fear that legal solutions will prevent political ones, the justice system is not powerless to give relief to local communities that are harmed by global warming and rising sea levels."
He noted that in California, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that a similar suit belonged in state court. That was in a case brought by Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Marin County, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County against more than two dozen fossil fuel companies and trade associations. The oil interests appealed that ruling. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide where the cases land.
Baltimore is represented by California-based law firm Sher Edling LLP, which represents Imperial Beach, Marin and San Mateo counties, Richmond, Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz County.2 severe storms in 2 years
Baltimore said that it's particularly vulnerable to the impacts of sea-level rise, as it has a densely developed coastline and substantial low-lying areas. It called its port and waterfront "extremely important assets to the City, providing an abundance of jobs as well as some of the City's strongest property tax base."
"Baltimore's Inner Harbor is a prominent tourist destination attracting more than 20 million visitors each year," the city statement said. "Sea-level rise will present short- and long-term challenges to the Inner Harbor, along with other waterfront communities."
A severe storm with rain and flash floods hit the area two months ago. The odds of that storm were 0.1 percent, making it a so-called 1,000-year storm. Yet it was the second such storm to hit the area in two years. The effects of extreme rain in 2016 killed two people in neighboring Ellicott City, the lawsuit said.
The American Meteorological Society and others have said those are influenced by "warming of the planet caused by increases in greenhouse gases from fossil fuels," the city said.
The Center for Climate Integrity lauded the lawsuit.
"We expect that communities across the country will continue to seek remedies in the courts to ensure that climate polluters, not taxpayers, pay the massive costs of climate adaptation," Richard Wiles, executive director of the group, said in a statement.
"The catastrophic impacts of climate change predicted by companies like Exxon decades ago have arrived. It's only fitting then that the wave of lawsuits the industry have long feared and planned for have as well. The people of Baltimore deserve their day in court."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/23/stories/1060090031
-
Why Carbon Tax Bill Is Doa, and Why That Might Not Matter
Jul 23, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Florida Congressman Carlos Curbelo isn't naive.
During an appearance in Washington Monday morning, he nodded his head when it was suggested the carbon tax legislation he plans to introduce later in the day had no chance of passing Congress.
Curbelo, a Republican representing coastal South Florida, then suggested the outcome was almost beside the point, describing his legislation as an "opportunity to begin that discussion" about climate change with those Republicans who might be "reconsidering their positions."
"You're going to see more movement away from that reflexive knee jerk reaction," he said at the National Press Club. "I'm encouraged by what I see. Obviously all of us would like to accelerate this process. But we're certainly moving in the right direction."
For the first time since the Congressional debates around creating a cap and trade system a decade ago, a Republican member of Congress will introduce legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Curbelo says he will introduce legislation later today creating a $24 per ton tax on carbon, which would increase 2 percent each year and replace the existing federal gasoline tax. Seventy percent of the revenue it generates would be delivered to the federal Highway Trust Fund, increasing revenue for rebuilding U.S. infrastructure.
At a time the Trump administration is promoting skepticism around climate change, Curbelo has chosen a charged moment to launch his bid for a carbon tax. Last week House Republicans passed a resolution denouncing a carbon tax as a drain on the U.S. economy - all but seven Republicans, including Curbelo, voted for it.
According to analysis by Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, Curbelo's legislation would raise per capita energy costs between 5 and 10 percent over the next decade.
That is already drawing fire from conservative groups, like Americans for Tax Reform, which has pasted its website with headlines like "Curbelo's Carbon Tax Threatens 300% IRS Fines for 'Any person who fails to comply.'"
What Curbelo is hoping is to turn around some moderate Republicans, those who worry about climate change but are not willing to back legislation they feel will undermine the U.S. economy.
His legislation is a hodgepodge of ideas with something for seemingly everyone. It would put a moratorium on new greenhouse gas regulations. It would cut greenhouse gas emission 30 to 40 percent by 2030. And it would increase funding for transportation infrastructure by up to $106 billion by 2030.
"There are political realities, and we wanted to introduce legislation that brought together some of the most important political movements of the moment," Curbelo said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Why-carbon-tax-bill-is-DOA-and-why-that-might-13097248.php
-
GOP Lawmaker Proposes Carbon Tax
Jul 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A moderate Republican lawmaker on Monday proposed instituting a carbon tax, breaking with the party’s long-standing opposition to policies that would punish people and companies that emit gases that cause climate change.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who is running in an extremely vulnerable Florida district that Democrat Hillary Clinton won handily in 2016, wants to repeal the federal taxes on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels, and replace them with a $24 per metric ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions that increases each year.
The tax would apply to coal mines, fuel refineries, certain manufacturing facilities, natural gas processors and fossil fuel importers. It would increase the costs of fossil fuels and products and services that use them, but the revenues would go to infrastructure, low-income households and climate mitigation projects, among other places.
Curbelo, one of the most vocal current Republican lawmakers on climate change, pitched the proposal as both an infrastructure investment program that would also fight global warming.
The legislation “recognizes the cost of carbon dioxide emissions, while at the same time repealing the regressive, discriminatory gas tax, which overburdens Americans who drive traditional vehicles, and fails to fully fund our nation’s infrastructure needs,” Curbelo said at a Washington, D.C., event hosted by Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
“The bill would set the United States on a path to reduce carbon emissions, and not only fulfill but exceed the commitments set out under the Paris agreement,” he said, citing Columbia research predicting that the bill would result in a 27 percent to 32 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2025 and up to 40 percent by 2040.
“Second, the bill raises must-needed revenue to modernize our national infrastructure, a bipartisan priority that remains elusive without a new influx of revenue,” he continued.
The proposal would also put a moratorium on new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) climate regulations, subject to regular review. Imports from countries without carbon pricing would get a new tariff.
Per capita costs for energy would increase by up to $278 by 2030, Columbia’s analysis concluded.
Curbelo’s legislation is the first Republican proposal to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions in about a decade, following Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) cap-and-trade bill, sponsored alongside then-Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).
The bill came days after the House passed a nonbinding resolution from Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) condemning a carbon tax as “detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.” That resolution passed with all but seven Republicans in support and all but eight Democrats in opposition.
Some right-wing economists have long supported a carbon tax as a simple way to fight climate change with minimal government intervention. But overwhelmingly, the party opposes policies to punish greenhouse gas emitters, which would likely hurt fossil fuel industries like coal, oil and natural gas.
Conservatives have already made it clear that Curbelo’s bill is a nonstarter.
“This is a direct attack on American manufacturing and competitiveness,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said in a statement. “It also sets up an earmark for left wing activists who would be paid as ‘consultants’ with taxpayer money.”
Curbelo acknowledged the GOP opposition to increasing taxes, and he voted for Scalise’s resolution when a similar vote came up in 2016.
But he said it’s not useful to ask about a new tax without the full context, like that the proposal would be revenue-neutral.
“In a vacuum, any tax is detrimental to economic growth. If we just ask about any tax we could levy — or increasing any tax — without any other consideration, sure. That would lead to lower economic growth and would burden Americans,” he said.
“But now ... more and more Americans understand how carbon pricing could fit in the context of, in this case, infrastructure investment, tax reform, and of course take into account the economic benefits of fighting climate change.”
Curbelo said he doesn’t think the proposal would pass soon, but he predicted that other Republicans will join in to co-sponsor his bill. Some colleagues are interested, Curbelo said, but he declined to name them.
He also said he’s spoken to the White House about it, and Trump officials “were interested to the extent that it was a means to fund their infrastructure proposal.”
Curbelo’s bill is dubbed the “Modernizing American with Rebuilding to Kick-start the Economy of the Twenty-first Century with a Historic Infrastructure-Centered Expansion Act,” or the MARKET CHOICE Act. He plans to formally introduce it in the House on Monday
While conservatives largely condemned the proposal, environmentalists cautiously welcomed it.
“It’s a breakthrough to see a serious Republican proposal take aim at the central environmental threat of our time. But this carbon tax plan is only a conversation starter. It falls far short of what’s needed to protect our climate,” David Doniger, senior strategic director for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.
“For the first time in a decade a Republican congressman has put forward a bill to seriously address climate change, bringing renewed hope for bi-partisan engagement on this issue,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute.
“This bill reflects the growing understanding that we can address dangerous emissions and at the same time generate revenue that can be used to strengthen the nation. Addressing climate change is urgent for the prosperity and well-being of our communities, economy, and national security.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398325-gop-lawmaker-proposes-carbon-tax
-
Curbelo Rolls out Carbon Tax Plan to Deep Skepticism
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Carlos Curbelo rolled out the first Republican carbon pricing bill in nearly a decade this morning, a rare political risk that quickly earned rebuke from conservatives and tepid praise from environmental groups.
The legislation has been floating around behind closed doors for weeks, but Curbelo has been mum on the details. The final proposal would put a $24-per-ton tax on carbon, with 70 percent of the revenue going to the Highway Trust Fund.
At an event at the National Press Club this morning, Curbelo pitched the proposal as an infrastructure bill that would address climate effects specific to his South Florida district, including sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion and coral bleaching.
The "MARKET CHOICE Act" "recognizes the cost of carbon emissions while at the same time repealing the regressive, discriminatory gas tax," Curbelo said at the event, sponsored by the Niskanen Center and Columbia University's Center for Global Energy Policy.
As expected, the bill is a middle-ground approach aimed at pleasing environmentalists and center-right groups pushing for climate solutions, and it earned a mixed bag of praise from both.
The bill would, for example, slap a rolling moratorium on EPA's Clean Air Act regulations on greenhouse gases but would not totally eliminate them, as some right-leaning groups have called for.
It would scrap the federal gasoline tax to help offset potential rises in fuel prices and provide a new source of funding for highways and other infrastructure.
Outside of the Highway Trust Fund, 10 percent of revenue would go to grants for low-income households, and another 5 percent would be doled out to coastal mitigation projects.
The bill "is the latest sign that momentum continues to build for a market-based solution to lower carbon emissions," said Greg Bertelsen, senior vice president at the Climate Leadership Council, whose founding members include energy companies and influencers.
"This legislation is an important milestone for conservative leadership on climate policy and an encouraging response to growing public demand for a breakthrough solution," Bertelsen said.
Curbelo said he would pitch the White House on the bill as a potential way to fund President Trump's infrastructure plan, which has stalled in Congress and become a recurring joke around Capitol Hill.'Earmark for left-wing activists'
But with the measure set for a formal introduction this afternoon, conservatives have already started campaigning to kill it.
Americans For Tax Reform held an anti-carbon-tax news conference down the hall at the National Press Club immediately after Curbelo's event.
ATR President Grover Norquist largely talked around the scientific consensus on climate change, instead arguing that Curbelo's bill would be devastating for the economy while doing little to reduce emissions.
"I'm old enough to remember global cooling," he said.
Paul Blair, the group's president of strategic initiatives, called the bill "an earmark for left-wing activists."
"Some people will lose their jobs," he said. "These are not our claims, but admissions by Congressman Curbelo and proponents of this bill."
Norquist added that conservatives are looking to get out ahead of Curbelo and gin up opposition to his bill before it gains momentum. The bill is not about carbon emissions, he said, but about putting more taxes on the American people.
"All of the stuff about why isn't important," he said. "It's just that they want more money again."
Columbia researchers, who worked with Curbelo on economic modeling for the bill, say the proposal would indeed have a small negative effect on U.S. annual gross domestic product in the 2020s.
It would also jack up per-capita energy expenditures by $275 in 2020 and cause gas prices to rise by "less than 10 cents per gallon," according to an analysis of the bill.
Norquist called those findings a "signed confession" of the potential negative effects of the bill.
At the same time, the proposal could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40 percent by 2030, and lower-income households would actually benefit from the new grant program, researchers found.
"The bill would set the United States on a path to reduce carbon emissions and not only fulfill but exceed the commitments set out under the Paris Agreement," said Curbelo.Green reaction
Even though reactions from environmental groups have been mixed, most of them praised Curbelo for his effort to join the conversation.
"Communities and wildlife across America are experiencing devastating impacts from climate change — from more frequent extreme storms to prolonged drought and record wildfires," National Wildlife Federation President Collin O'Mara said in a statement.
"The National Wildlife Federation applauds Rep. Curbelo's bold leadership of putting forth a climate plan that harnesses market forces to reduce carbon pollution and increase investments in clean energy," O'Mara said.
David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean energy program, called the bill "only a conversation starter."
"It won't cut heat-trapping pollution fast enough. It should invest far more in emission-reducing energy efficiency, renewable power, and electric vehicles," he said in a statement.
"And it seeks to preempt using the Clean Air Act to cut our carbon footprint," Doniger said. "We must deploy all available tools, not limit them as this bill does, to head off the worst damages from climate change."
Curbelo this morning pushed back against that kind of criticism. Ultimately, he said, the bill is an effort to reach across the aisle, even if it won't pass during this session of Congress.
"This bill is open for amendment," he said. "This is not a leave-it-or-take-it bill."Politics
As for the potential political risk, the Floridian said he isn't worried.
Curbelo is widely seen as vulnerable in November. Conservatives yesterday predicted political downfall for Curbelo and Democrats who support the proposal, pointing to Democratic losses in the 1994 midterms after President Clinton's proposed British thermal unit tax, as well as the downfall of the Waxman-Markey emissions trading bill in 2009.
But Curbelo said he hasn't seen any blowback yet in a purple district that's already feeling some effects of climate change. He added that he expects to have co-sponsors when the bill text is unveiled this afternoon.
"Anytime that you take a bold step or file a meaningful proposal, there are risks associated with that," he said. "But if I'm not taking risks, I don't want to be in Congress."
Even though Americans For Tax Reform is against Curbelo's move, Norquist is also keen on tying the climate and carbon tax issue to its more common constituency: Democrats.
Many candidates on the left have not been focusing their campaigns on environmental issues. This morning, for example, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland delivered campaign remarks about the economy and infrastructure.
Of pricing carbon, Norquist said, "I think it's an issue that's going to cost Democrats the House."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/23/stories/1060090067
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested