Preview Newsletter
PM ACC - August 31, 2018
-
Tariffs Stirring Fear at Many US Points of Entry for Imports
Aug 31, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By David Koenig
To understand why the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs could be felt throughout the United States, consider this: From the West Coast to the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, at least 10 percent of imports at many ports could be hit by new tariffs... -
(ACC Mentioned) The Differing Views on EPA’s Approach to Chemical Conditions of Use
Aug 31, 2018 | IHS Daily Advisor
By William C. Schillaci
After the EPA extended the public comment period on its problem formulation documents for the first 10 chemicals that will receive risk evaluations under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), major stakeholders provided radically divergent views -
FDA Could Intervene over Coffee Cancer Labels in Calif.
Aug 31, 2018 | NPR (In E&E Greenwire)
By Sasha Ingber
The Food and Drug Administration this week said it may intervene if California continues its efforts to put cancer warning labels on coffee. -
PFAS Exposure Tied to Weight Gain
Aug 31, 2018 | MedPage Today
By Kristen Monaco
Exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) may be tied with weight gain in some people, according to a new study. -
(ACC Mentioned) Engineering Firm Selected for Appalachia Regional Gas Hub
Aug 31, 2018 | North American Shale
By Patrick C. Miller
The Appalachia Development Group in Charleston, West Virginia, has selected Parsons Corp. as its engineering, procurement and construction partner for buildout of the proposed $3.4 billion Appalachia Storage and Trading Hub (ASTH). -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachia Group Awards Contract for $3.4B Ethane Storage Hub
Aug 31, 2018 | RigZone
By Matthew V. Veazey
A proposed multibillion-dollar regional storage complex for natural gas liquids sourced from the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale plays this week moved one step closer to reality this week. -
Industrial Group Warns Congress of Gas Pipeline Threat
Aug 31, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Lobbyists representing U.S. manufacturing and chemical companies are urging Congress to secure natural gas pipelines against physical and cyber attack. -
Trump Eases US Methane Rules as Colorado Says State's Work
Aug 31, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Dan Elliott
The Trump administration is rolling back some U.S. regulations on climate-changing methane pollution, calling them expensive and burdensome, but Colorado says its rules are working — and they have industry support. -
If Foes Could Beat Trans Mountain, Why Not Dakota Access?
Aug 31, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A Canadian court's rebuke of federal approvals for the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion drew cheers from American environmentalists — and a degree of wistfulness over their less successful campaigns against Dakota Access and other U.S. oil projects. -
Orca Concerns Derail Trans Mountain Pipeline
Aug 31, 2018 | Seattle Times (In E&E Greenwire)
By Lynda Mapes
Concern for a highly endangered population of orcas played a central role yesterday when a federal court in Canada revoked approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. -
Lego Wants to Completely Remake Its Toy Bricks (Without Anyone Noticing)
Aug 31, 2018 | New York Times
By Stanley Reed
At the heart of this town lies a building that is a veritable temple to the area’s most famous creation, the humble Lego brick. It is filled with complex creations, from a 50-foot tree to a collection of multicolored dinosaurs, all of them built with a product that has barely changed in more than 50 years. -
Study on Emissions' Cognitive Harm May Help Bid for Strict EPA Air Rules
Aug 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
A new peer-reviewed study published by a U.S.-Chinese research team reveals serious damage to intelligence resulting from exposure to air pollution, a finding which adds to the already voluminous literature on air emissions' effects on physical health... -
EPA Watchdog to Review Implementation of Scientific Integrity Policy
Aug 31, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA's inspector general will examine EPA's implementation of its scientific integrity policy more than a year after former Administrator Scott Pruitt was cleared of violating that policy following his controversial statments about climate change science. -
Where Trump’s — and Obama’s — Energy Plans Fall Short
Aug 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Daniel Cohan
President Trump and President Obama’s energy strategies share one thing in common — neither does much to change ongoing trends in coal and emissions. But the two plans differ starkly in their approaches. -
The Climate-Wrecking Industry… and How to Beat It
Aug 31, 2018 | The Nation (In Real Clear Energy)
By Jason Mark
Among climate activists, the scene is remembered with a mix of embarrassment and scorn: at the end of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, having just detailed the existential threat posed by global climate change, offered the audience a way to take action...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Tariffs Stirring Fear at Many US Points of Entry for Imports
Aug 31, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By David Koenig
To understand why the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs could be felt throughout the United States, consider this: From the West Coast to the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, at least 10 percent of imports at many ports could be hit by new tariffs if Trump’s proposals take full effect, according to an exclusive analysis of government data by The Associated Press.
Ports and ground terminals in nearly every state handle goods that are now or will likely soon be covered by import tariffs. And port officials fear this could mean a slowdown in shipping that would have ripple effects on truckers and others whose jobs depend on trade.
Since March, the U.S. has applied new tariffs of up to 25 percent on nearly $85 billion worth of steel and aluminum and various Chinese products, mostly goods used in manufacturing.
“Tariffs are working big time,” Trump tweeted recently.
The president has argued that the tariffs will help protect American workers and force U.S. trading partners to change rules that the president insists are unfair to the United States.
At the same time, his administration is preparing to slap tariffs of up to 25 percent on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports — many of them parts and materials U.S. companies depend on, along with consumer goods — after a public comment period ends Thursday.
These tariffs are the administration’s response to its charges that Beijing uses predatory tactics to try to supplant U.S. technological supremacy. Those tactics include cyber-theft and a requirement that American companies hand over trade secrets in exchange for access to China’s market.
In New Orleans, port officials say a tariff-related drop in shipments is real, not merely a forecast. Steel imports there have declined more than 25 percent from a year ago, according to the port’s chief commercial officer, Robert Landry.
The port is scouting for other commodities it can import. But expectations appear to be low.
“In our business, steel is the ideal commodity,” Landry said. “It’s big, it’s heavy, we charge by the ton so it pays well. You never find anything that pays as well as steel does.”
The port of Milwaukee imports steel from Europe and ships out agricultural products from the Midwest. Steel imports haven’t dropped yet because they are under long-term contracts, said the port director, Adam Schlicht. But there has been “an almost immediate halt” in outbound shipments of corn because of retaliatory duties imposed by the European Union on American products.
Much of the corn, he said, “is just staying in silos. They are filled to the brim.”
Many other ports have been humming along and even enjoyed an unexpected bump in imports during June and July as U.S. businesses moved up orders to ship before the new tariffs took effect. That started with manufacturing goods and is now spreading to retail items for back-to-school and Christmas.
“Some of my retail customers are forward-shipping the best they can to offset proposed tariffs,” says Peter Schneider, executive vice president of T.G.S. Transportation, a trucking company in Fresno, California.
Port officials were encouraged by this week’s announcement that the United States and Mexico had reached a preliminary agreement to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, hoping it might lead to reduced trade barriers. Canada’s participation in any new deal to replace NAFTA, though, remains a major question mark.
The port officials continue to worry, though, that Trump will make good on a plan to expand tariffs to an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports — a list that includes fish and other foods, furniture, carpets, tires, rain jackets and hundreds of additional items. Tariffs would make those items costlier in the United States. And if Americans buy fewer of those goods, it would likely lead to fewer container ships steaming into U.S. ports.
The impact will be felt keenly at West Coast ports like Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, relying on information from his port officials, said his port — the biggest in the United States — could suffer a 20 percent drop in volume if the additional $200 billion in tariffs are imposed against Chinese goods.
Jock O’Connell, an economist in California who studies trade, said he doubts a downturn would be so severe — that would match the slump that accompanied the global recession of 2008 — “but we will see a definite impact.”
Here are some of the key findings from the AP analysis:
— U.S. tariffs will cover goods that are imported at more than 250 seaports, airports and ground terminals in 48 states.
— At 18 of 43 customs districts — including those representing ports around Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans and Houston — at least 10 percent of their total import value could be covered by new tariffs if all Trump’s proposals take effect.
— Retaliatory duties by China and other countries cover $27 billion in U.S. exports.
Eugene Seroka, executive director of the Los Angeles port, worries that “if tariffs make it too expensive to import, there will be an impact on jobs.”
Seroka and others don’t expect layoffs on the docks. Union longshoremen — whose average pay last year on the West Coast was $163,000, according to the Pacific Maritime Association, which negotiates for the ports — often have contract provisions ensuring that they are paid even if there’s no work. And there are fewer of them than there were a few decades ago because the advent of shipping containers has reduced the need for people on the docks.
Dwayne Boudreaux, an International Longshoremen’s Association official in Louisiana, said, though, that his stevedores are handling about 10 percent less steel from Japan because of the new tariffs.
“We don’t think it’s going to (get) worse,” he said. But, he added, “who knows — that could change from the next press conference.”
The impact might be greater on truck drivers and warehouse workers. Fewer will be needed, according to O’Connell.
Many drivers who deliver shipping containers from the dock to warehouses are independents contracted by trucking companies, and they don’t get paid if there is nothing to haul. Some might leave the profession, said Weston LaBar, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association in Long Beach, California.
“It’s hard to retain drivers,” he said. “If we don’t have work for those drivers, we’re worried they will leave for some other segment of the trucking business or go into another business, like construction.”
Less shipping means less revenue for the ports — something that could limit their ability to pay for expansion and improvement projects, according to Kurt Nagle, president of the American Association of Port Authorities. He said U.S. ports are in the midst of a planned $155 billion in infrastructure spending from 2016 through 2020.
The current trade war was foreshadowed in January by steep U.S. tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines. It exploded with the U.S. tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum. Then came two rounds of duties targeting about $50 billion in imports from China.
Along the way, China, the European Union, Turkey, Canada and Mexico imposed retaliatory duties on U.S. goods including farm products and Harley-Davidson motorcycles.
On top of the $200 billion in additional Chinese imports that could face U.S. tariffs starting next week, Trump has said that if Beijing continues to retaliate, he may eventually slap tariffs on, all told, $450 billion in Chinese goods. That would be equal to nearly 90 percent of China’s 2017 exports to the U.S.
Trade wars are usually temporary. President George W. Bush abandoned his steel tariffs after less than two years.
Milwaukee’s port director worries, however, that damage from the current trade dispute could linger. Canada is increasing corn exports to Europe, and Brazil is trying to pick up the slack in soybean exports to China.
“Others are already picking up that business,” Schlicht said.
AP data journalist Larry Fenn contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-ports-fear-tariffs-could-reduce-ship-traffic-and-jobs/2018/08/29/e587e280-abcb-11e8-9a7d-cd30504ff902_story.html?utm_term=.b282844136d9
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Differing Views on EPA’s Approach to Chemical Conditions of Use
Aug 31, 2018 | IHS Daily Advisor
By William C. Schillaci
After the EPA extended the public comment period on its problem formulation documents for the first 10 chemicals that will receive risk evaluations under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), major stakeholders provided radically divergent views of both the documents and the EPA’s approach to developing them.
The problem formulation documents refine the scope of risk evaluations for the first 10 chemicals. One of the more controversial decisions the EPA has taken concerns the conditions of use of the chemicals—that is, those uses that will be included in the risk evaluations because the Agency believes they present an unreasonable risk to people. Under the Trump administration, the Agency has made it clear that it will, “on a case-by-case basis, exclude certain activities that EPA has determined to be conditions of use in order to focus its analytical efforts on those exposures that are likely to present the greatest concern, and consequently merit an unreasonable risk determination.”
The risk evaluations for the first 10 chemicals must be completed by December 2019.Approach Promotes Efficiency
This approach to conditions of use found favor with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in its comments on the problem formulation documents. The ACC states that it is appropriate for the Agency to focus “on those conditions of use that raise the greatest potential for risk,” an approach that promotes efficiency.
“The problem formulation documents present a thoughtful approach to identifying current uses that are appropriate for inclusion within the scope of the risk evaluation,” said the ACC. The organization added that it would also like the Agency to develop a systematic approach to decisions regarding conditions of use decisions.
“As EPA gains more experience conducting TSCA risk evaluations for high priority chemicals, it would be useful if the Agency would develop a framework that articulates its process for deciding when conditions of use are in or out of scope,” wrote the ACC. “This would help EPA streamline future efforts, provide greater public understanding of EPA’s decisions, increase transparency and reproducibility, and enable industry to identify the types of information that may be most helpful for manufacturers, processors, and downstream users to develop and/or share with EPA. Developing a framework would also help industry anticipate which conditions of use will be the likely focus in future assessments so that they can direct resources efficiently to develop and/or gather information relevant to EPA’s potential risk evaluations and facilitate proactive data collection efforts.”Approach Is Illegal
A radically different view was presented by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as part of its 200 pages of comments on the problem.
The EDF argues that the TSCA amendments do not give the EPA the authority to leave certain conditions of use for certain chemicals out of the risk evaluations because exposures to those chemicals are or could be assessed under other statutes, such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. The EDF adds that the EPA cannot accurately evaluate risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, such as fenceline communities, if it excludes the vast majority of exposure pathways leading to their greater exposure. Also, the Agency’s approach ignores the numerous problems with compliance, implementation, and enforcement under the other authorities the EPA seeks to rely on instead of TSCA, says the EDF.
“Instead, EPA should be guided by the statutory language and consider all of the conditions of use, exposures, and hazards related to a chemical substance,” asserts the EDF, which adds that the Agency “should not ignore evidence because of self-imposed blinders.”
https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2018/08/differing-views-epas-approach-chemical-condition-use/
-
FDA Could Intervene over Coffee Cancer Labels in Calif.
Aug 31, 2018 | NPR (In E&E Greenwire)
By Sasha Ingber
The Food and Drug Administration this week said it may intervene if California continues its efforts to put cancer warning labels on coffee.
A judge sided with a health nonprofit in March and ordered California coffee products to carry a label warning of high levels of acrylamide, a carcinogenic chemical produced in the roasting process.
Coffee companies say the levels of the chemical are low and pose no health risks.
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement Wednesday that studies have found little to indicate coffee causes cancer and that the labels could "mislead consumers to believe that drinking coffee could be dangerous to their health when it actually could provide health benefits."
"If a state law purports to require food labeling to include a false or misleading statement, the FDA may decide to step in," he said.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has proposed exempting coffee companies from the court ruling (Sasha Ingber, NPR, Aug. 30)
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/31/stories/1060095519
-
PFAS Exposure Tied to Weight Gain
Aug 31, 2018 | MedPage Today
By Kristen Monaco
Exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) may be tied with weight gain in some people, according to a new study.
PFASs, which are synthetic chemicals found in items like nonstick cookware, beauty products, and fireproof materials, have known ties to endocrine-disrupting properties, and in a prospective cohort study, overweight and obese individuals with higher PFAS levels experienced significant weight gain over a 9-year period.
Specifically, every doubling of total PFAS concentration was tied to a 4 lb (95% CI 0.95-7.0 lb, P=0.01) [1.8 kg, 0.43-3.17 kg] weight gain over this time period, reported Emily Oken, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
However, their study, published in JAMA Network Open, also found that lifestyle intervention was largely effective at offsetting this weight gain in this population already at high risk for diabetes. Participants who were involved in a lifestyle intervention program -- comprised of physical activity, behavioral modification, and diet -- did not have any weight gain associated with more PFAS exposure (-1.3 lb, 95% CI -4.0 to 1.4 lb, P=0.34) [-0.59 kg, -1.80 to 0.62 kg].
The researchers also found similar patterns with hip girth: These high-risk individuals saw a 0.41 inch (95% CI 0.07-0.74 in, P=0.02) [1.03 cm, 0.18-1.88 cm] gain in hip girth tied to each doubling in PFAS levels, although this wasn't seen in those who were actively engaged in lifestyle interventions (-0.04 in, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.25 in, P=0.80)[-0.09 cm, -0.82 to 0.63 cm].
Plasma PFAS concentration was not associated with any gains in waist circumference, regardless of lifestyle.
"This finding may suggest that PFASs act as obesogens only in the presence of other risk factors for obesity, but not when these risk factors are reduced," Oken's group wrote. They also pointed to the "observed paradoxical association" marked by a reduction in the lifestyle group, calling this "very small but nonsignificant decreases in weight and waist circumference associated with PFASs" and suggested they "could result from confounding."
"For example, such confounding might have occurred if more physically active participants in the lifestyle intervention group were most exposed to PFASs through sports and outdoor garments, previously reported to be a source of exposure."
The study included 957 individuals from the Diabetes Prevention Program trial, half of whom were randomized to undergo lifestyle intervention with a goal of a 7% total weight loss and engagement in 150 minutes of exercise each week. Baseline PFAS levels were similar between both groups of participants.
Plasma PFAS levels included a summation of all six PFASs -- perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, N-ethyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetic acid, N-methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetic acid (Me-PFOSA-AcOH), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) -- which were all measured at baseline and 2 years thereafter.
Certain levels of individual PFASs were also tied to some anthropometric gains. For example, the researchers found a doubling in PFNA levels associated with a 3.65 mm (95% CI 1.27-6.02 mm, P=0.003) higher skinfold thickness, as well as a 6.47 cm2 (95% CI 0.95-11.99 cm2, P=0.02) gain in visceral fat areas between the L4-L5 vertebrae associated with a doubling in Me-PFOSA-AcOH levels.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/environmentalhealth/74876
-
(ACC Mentioned) Engineering Firm Selected for Appalachia Regional Gas Hub
Aug 31, 2018 | North American Shale
By Patrick C. Miller
The Appalachia Development Group in Charleston, West Virginia, has selected Parsons Corp. as its engineering, procurement and construction partner for buildout of the proposed $3.4 billion Appalachia Storage and Trading Hub (ASTH).
Heaquartered in Pasadena, California, Parsons will initially focus on front-end engineering and design, including project management and execution planning. ASTH is being planned as a regional underground storage facility for natural gas liquids and intermediates produced from the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale methane deposits.
In January, ADG announced that based on the merits of its Part I Application, it had advanced to the next phase to submit a Part II application for a loan guarantee under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. The application is for a $1.9 billion loan guarantee from the DOE to support the development of infrastructure for the ASTH. ADG is working with DOE on Part II of the application process while simultaneously working to secure $1.4 billion in equity investment.
“After a rigorous review process of some of the most widely known and respected EPC companies in the country, we are pleased to announce the selection of Parsons as our EPC partner,” said Steven Hedrick, ADG president and CEO. “Parsons has proven and successful experience with complex infrastructure projects. I have confidence in Parsons’s ability to support the development and completion of the hub safely, effectively and efficiently.”
Carey Smith, president of Parsons federal business unit, said, “Parsons is honored to have been selected by ADG as a partner on this critically important project that will ultimately support the economic and energy security needs of so many communities and citizens, including economic revitalization of the Ohio River Valley states.”
As a built-for-purpose facility, the ASTH is expected to provide significant benefits in commercial activity and job creation in the region. According to the American Chemistry Council, the development of the ASTH would serve as a catalyst for the creation of an estimated $36 billion in follow-on petrochemical investments and more than 100,000 new long-term jobs.
http://northamericanshalemagazine.com/articles/2487/engineering-firm-selected-for-appalachia-regional-gas-hub
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachia Group Awards Contract for $3.4B Ethane Storage Hub
Aug 31, 2018 | RigZone
By Matthew V. Veazey
A proposed multibillion-dollar regional storage complex for natural gas liquids sourced from the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale plays this week moved one step closer to reality this week.
“ADG and Parsons form a unique and strong team,” Steve Hedrick, CEO of Appalachia Development Group, LLC (ADG) told Rigzone after his organization announced Wednesday that it had named Parsons Corp. as its engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) partner for the buildout of the Appalachia Storage and Trading Hub (ASTH).
“We are driven by the greater vision of $36 billion in follow-on investment associated with this catalyst for development of the petrochemical industry in Appalachia,” Hedrick added.
According to ADG, Parsons will initially focus on the pre-front end engineering design (FEED) and FEED stages including project management and execution planning. Subsequent phases would include constructing the $3.4 billion project and its long-term operation, the Charleston, W.Va.-based project sponsor stated.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has estimated that the ethane storage hub would act as a catalyst for more than $36 billion in follow-on petrochemicals investments and the creation of more than 100,000 long-term jobs, ADG reported. On January 3 of this year, ADG stated that its application for a $1.9 billion loan guarantee for ASTH from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) had advanced from the first to the second phase of DOE’s review process.
“The Pre-FEED and FEED phases will support our Part II application to the DOE Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program,” Hedrick explained. “From filing, approval of the Part II application can take from approximately six months to two years. Therefore, speculating on a timeline for future phases is premature.”
As it pursues a DOE loan guarantee, ADG is also trying to secure $1.4 billion in private funding for the project.
“A complex array of investors are engaged, from private equity to investment banks to strategic investors whose own success in their sector is advantaged by the success of this catalyst for the development of the petrochemical industry,” Hedrick said.
“Parsons is honored to have been selected by ADG as a partner on this critically important project that will ultimately support the economic and energy security needs of so many communities and citizens, including economic revitalization of the Ohio River Valley states,” Carey Smith, president of Parsons’ federal business unit, said in Wednesday’s announcement.
A 2017 Appalachian Oil and Natural Gas Research Consortium study provides more details about the ASTH proposal.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/appalachia_group_awards_contract_for_34b_ethane_storage_hub-31-aug-2018-156810-article/
-
Industrial Group Warns Congress of Gas Pipeline Threat
Aug 31, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Lobbyists representing U.S. manufacturing and chemical companies are urging Congress to secure natural gas pipelines against physical and cyber attack.
In letter sent to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week, Industrial Energy Consumers of America President Paul Cicio said Congress should create mandatory security standards similar to those required of electric utilities.
"When so much is resting on the reliability of natural gas pipelines, we cannot help but be concerned that the security requirements under the Transportation Security Administration are voluntary, not mandatory," Cicio wrote. "Natural gas pipelines are the weak link in U.S. national energy infrastructure."
RELATED STORY: Is focus on pipeline cyber security ruse to prop up coal?
The letter comes as the Trump administration is weighing the creation of a federal subsidy for coal and nuclear power plants on the grounds their on-site supply of fuel provides a more secure power supply. Natural gas plants, on the other hand, are reliant on a near constant supply of gas delivered via pipelines.
In building support for such an action, which has been opposed by groups as diverse as the Sierra Club and the American Petroleum Institute, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has cited the potential for pipeline disruption through terrorist attack.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which represents pipeline companies and has argued against creating a national security standard, declined to comment on the letter from IECA.
IECA describes itself as an "association of leading manufacturing companies with $1.0 trillion in annual sales, over 3,700 facilities nationwide, and with more than 1.7 million employees worldwide." A membership list posted by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2015 listed the group's membership as including Dow Chemical, Marathon Refining, LyondellBasell and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
In recent years the group has argued for the Department to stop issuing permits for Liquefied Natural Gas export terminals and for the United States' withdrawl from the Paris agreement on climate change - something President Donald Trump eventually did last year.
ICEA's position on the Paris agreement was cited by the glass manufacturing giant Corning when it left the group.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Industrial-group-warns-Congress-of-gas-pipeline-13196473.php
-
Trump Eases US Methane Rules as Colorado Says State's Work
Aug 31, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Dan Elliott
The Trump administration is rolling back some U.S. regulations on climate-changing methane pollution, calling them expensive and burdensome, but Colorado says its rules are working — and they have industry support.
Energy companies have found and repaired about 73,000 methane leaks since 2015 under a state-required oil field inspection program, according to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. The number of leaks fell by 52 percent, from more than 36,000 in 2015 to about 17,250 in 2017, according a state report released last week.
Neither the government nor industry groups could say how much methane has been kept out of the atmosphere when the leaks were fixed, citing the complexity of factors involved.
But state officials said the sharp decline in the number of leaks shows Colorado is succeeding.
"We're just really encouraged by what we're seeing with this program and with the industry as a whole," said Mark McMillan, a manager in the state air pollution agency.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas. It is also a greenhouse gas, contributing to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
Colorado, the fifth-largest natural gas producer in the nation, started requiring energy companies to regularly inspect oil field equipment for leaks in 2014. The program is designed to reduce releases of methane and volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which are also components of natural gas.
Under the right conditions — which are often present in Denver and Colorado's Front Range urban corridor — VOCs turn into ground-level ozone. Ozone, the main component of smog, can aggravate asthma and contribute to early deaths from respiratory disease.
Environmental and industry groups agreed Colorado's program is working, with some reservations.
"It's good to see that the number of leaks is lower than it was back when the program started. But it's not time to celebrate yet," said David McCabe, a senior scientist with the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.
Colorado's oil and gas industry is still releasing a lot of methane and VOCs, he said.
The American Petroleum Institute supports Colorado's rules, spokesman Reid Porter said. The state's success reflects a broad industry effort to reduce methane releases, he said.EDITORS’ PICKSPlanning His Funeral, McCain Got the Last Word Against TrumpThis Is the Way Paul Ryan’s Speakership EndsEvery Generation Gets the Beach Villain It Deserves
The Obama administration imposed two sets of nationwide rules designed to reduce methane leaks and waste in the oil and gas industry, one by the Environmental Protection Agency and one by the Interior Department.
The EPA rules applied to new oil field facilities. The Interior Department rules applied to new and existing facilities on federal and Native American land.
The Trump administration is in the process of rolling back both sets of rules. The administration called the Interior Department regulations burdensome and said they cost more than they were worth. Officials said removing the EPA rule would save energy companies up to $16 million over 14 years.
Energy companies also have argued they are already working to reduce leaks of methane, a product they can sell.
Tracee Bentley, head of the Colorado Petroleum Council, which is affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute, said the Interior Department and EPA rules are redundant.
"Two sets of regulations, two agencies, guarantees duplicative and costly overlap," she said.
The regulation would be better left to the states, Bentley said.
"I think that the states know best, and honestly, every state is different," she said.
Joel Minor, an attorney for Earthjustice in Denver, said the success of Colorado's rules shows that uniform nationwide regulations laid down by the federal government are workable and necessary.
"The oil and gas industry is still doing very well in our state," Minor said. "I think that just shows how cost-effective the regulations are."
But no state can single-handedly protect its air because wind currents carry pollution across borders, he said.
"For any one state to have clean air, it requires all states to have clean air," Minor said.
The Colorado program relies on oil and gas companies to report their inspections and results, although the state makes its own unannounced inspections using infrared cameras that can detect methane leaks.
The state does not expect to report its results late this year or next, but the inspections have shown a decline in leaks that reflects what companies reported, said Jeremy Neustifter, an air quality planner with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/31/us/ap-us-methane-colorado.html
-
If Foes Could Beat Trans Mountain, Why Not Dakota Access?
Aug 31, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A Canadian court's rebuke of federal approvals for the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion drew cheers from American environmentalists — and a degree of wistfulness over their less successful campaigns against Dakota Access and other U.S. oil projects.
Canada's Federal Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the government failed to adequately consult with indigenous tribes about the 700-mile project, which would largely parallel an existing pipeline to move oil from Alberta to British Columbia for refining and export.
The court also found that the National Energy Board ignored potential impacts to the marine environment around the British Columbia shipping terminal at the end of Trans Mountain's route (see related story).
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who announced in May that Canada's government would buy the embattled pipeline, has pledged his continued support. But for now, construction is suspended and the project's future is uncertain.
Environmental groups and tribal advocates celebrated the court's ruling as a monumental victory. Some lamented that legal challenges to U.S. oil pipelines haven't played out as favorably.
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who represents the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access, pointed to Canada's regulatory system as a key point of distinction between the projects' fates.
American oil pipelines are subject to a jumble of state permits and individual federal approvals for water crossings, Endangered Species Act considerations and the like.
Canadian projects, by contrast, must receive a central permit from the National Energy Board. That overarching permit helped ensure that Trans Mountain was subject to broad and comprehensive review in the courts, Hasselman said.
"It would have provided a focal point for the national discussion that we needed to have about a project of this scale," Hasselman said. "That's the kind of national discussion they're having in Canada, and I think it's a good discussion to have. That never happened for DAPL, and the project was half-built before anybody even knew anything about it."
Litigation over Dakota Access centers on the Army Corps of Engineers' approval for the pipeline's route across a body of water near tribal land in North Dakota. A federal court agreed with Standing Rock and other challengers that the Army Corps had fumbled part of its analysis, but the project was able to move forward and is now in service.
"This piecemeal review of tiny sections of pipeline doesn't make sense factually," Hasselman said.
The Keystone XL pipeline has received broader federal review than Dakota Access because the former crosses the U.S.-Canada border, triggering oversight by the State Department.
Consultation
Andrew Leach, a business professor at the University of Alberta, said clearer tribal consultation requirements also played a role in the Trans Mountain outcome, as the Canadian Constitution spells out the government's duty to closely consult with tribes.
The U.S. government is also required to consult with tribes, but the standard is less defined, governed by a variety of treaties, statutes, executive orders and case law.
"The biggest difference between the two is the power of the government's duty to First Nations," Leach said, comparing Trans Mountain and Dakota Access. "[The government's obligations] are much more powerful in Canada than they are in the U.S."
The Federal Court of Appeal's 3-0 decision on Trans Mountain found that consultation wanting. The same court in 2016 overturned federal approval for the Northern Gateway oil pipeline for inadequate consultation.
James Coleman, an energy law professor at Southern Methodist University, said the case serves as a wake-up call to regulators and developers.
"It's not enough to have support of the government — you can't have any more support of the government than if they own the pipeline," he said. "You need to pay attention to what the judicial review standards are."
Hasselman agreed.
"We are seeing a broad trend line of more and more opposition and bigger challenges to pipelines around the continent," he said. "The long-term trajectory for new pipelines looks more and more difficult."
Coleman noted that Canada's government has a tricky path forward on Trans Mountain, given its ownership of the project.
"The government really is just going to be doing everything possible to make sure it's built as quickly as possible," he said. "It's difficult, of course, because part of it being good-faith consultation is th
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/31/stories/1060095571
-
Orca Concerns Derail Trans Mountain Pipeline
Aug 31, 2018 | Seattle Times (In E&E Greenwire)
By Lynda Mapes
Concern for a highly endangered population of orcas played a central role yesterday when a federal court in Canada revoked approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
The Federal Court of Appeal said the government must look closer at the project's impact on killer whales and redo its consultation with First Nations.
Justice Eleanor Dawson wrote that the federal Cabinet should not have relied on the National Energy Board's assessment of the project because it was flawed (Greenwire, Aug. 30).
The southern resident orcas would face seven times the oil tanker traffic in their critical habitat if the project is built. It would be especially disastrous if there were a spill.
There are just 75 orcas left in the population.
"Our wild salmon and the orcas that they support are critically under threat. The increased tanker traffic that the ... project proposes is entirely unacceptable," said Chief Bob Chamberlin, vice president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) repeated his opposition to the project yesterday.
"I have made my opposition to this plan clear," Inslee said in a statement. "This proposed project runs counter to everything our state is doing to fight climate change, protect our endangered southern-resident killer whales and protect communities from the risks associated with increased fossil-fuel transportation. ... I hope this decision helps to bring this potentially devastating project proposal to a close" (Lynda Mapes, Seattle Times, Aug. 30).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/31/stories/1060095523
-
Lego Wants to Completely Remake Its Toy Bricks (Without Anyone Noticing)
Aug 31, 2018 | New York Times
By Stanley Reed
At the heart of this town lies a building that is a veritable temple to the area’s most famous creation, the humble Lego brick. It is filled with complex creations, from a 50-foot tree to a collection of multicolored dinosaurs, all of them built with a product that has barely changed in more than 50 years.
A short walk away in its research lab, though, Lego is trying to refashion the product it is best known for: It wants to eliminate its dependence on petroleum-based plastics, and build its toys entirely from plant-based or recycled materials by 2030.
The challenge is designing blocks that click together yet separate easily, retain bright colors, and survive the rigors of being put through a laundry load, or the weight of an unknowing parent’s foot. In essence, the company wants to switch the ingredients, but keep the product exactly the same.
“We need to learn again how to do this,” said Henrik Ostergaard Nielsen, a production supervisor at Lego’s factory here in Billund.
Consumers worldwide have voiced growing alarm about the impact of plastic waste on the environment, and increasing numbers of companies are trying to use packaging materials that are recyclable or otherwise less polluting. Coca-Cola, for instance, plans to collect and recycle the equivalent of all the bottles and cans it uses by 2030. Unilever, the consumer goods giant, says all its plastic packaging will be recyclable or compostable by 2025. Others, like McDonald’s and Starbucks, are doing away with plastic straws in their outlets.
With so many large businesses changing their practices, recycling will “become the norm,” said David Blanchard, Unilever’s head of research and development.
Lego faces a more complex problem than other consumer businesses, though — for this Danish company, plastics are not the packaging, they are the product.
The toymaker’s highly automated manufacturing facility here in Billund is a picture of clock work. At a mammoth factory more than 500 yards long, machines arranged in rows melt plastic pellets into a molten paste and press them into molds. A few seconds later, a batch of colored bricks pops out, and is deposited into driverless carts, taken to be stored for shipment. Each day, the facility churns out about 100 million “elements,” the term Lego uses for the bricks, trees and doll parts it sells.
Lego — the company’s name is a contraction of the Danish words for “play well” — traces its roots back to the early 1930s, when a carpenter named Ole Kirk Kristiansen began making and selling handsome fire engines and other wooden toys.
By the 1950s, he was experimenting with plastic bricks. His son Godtfred began marketing the distinctive little blocks not just as toys, but as a building system that could be expanded and passed on to later generations. Bricks that date back to 1958 are still compatible with current products, according to Lego.
Today, the company sells its wares worldwide and has secured partnerships with film franchises like Batman and Star Wars to market not just themed brick sets, but movies and video games featuring Lego toys. It brought in 7.8 billion kroner, or about $1.2 billion, in profit last year, making it larger than its American rivals Mattel and Hasbro. The Kirk Kristiansen family, which still controls Lego, was paid a $1.1 billion dividend.
But more and more children are using mobile devices for entertainment, pitting Lego not just against toy makers but against technology and gaming companies like Activision Blizzard, Microsoft and Sony. That has put the company under pressure. Lego said last year that it would cut 1,400 jobs after its revenue and profit both fell for the first time in a decade.
Its heft, however, brings with it a substantial carbon footprint. Lego emits about a million tons of carbon dioxide each year, about three-quarters of which comes from the raw materials that go into its factories, according to Tim Brooks, the company’s vice president for environmental responsibility.
Lego is taking a two-pronged approach to reducing the amount of pollution it causes. For one, it wants to keep all of its packaging out of landfills by 2025 by eliminating things like plastic bags inside its cardboard packaging.
It is also pushing for the plastic in its toys to come from sources like plant fibers or recycled bottles by 2030.
The problem with that target, though, is that virtually all of the plastic used worldwide — including that molded by Lego into toy bricks — is created from petroleum.
Currently, Lego mostly uses a substance known as ABS, short for acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a common plastic also used for computer keys and mobile phone cases. It’s tough, yet slightly elastic, and also has a polished surface.
To wean itself off products like ABS, Lego has begun an exhaustive search for new, sustainable materials.
It is investing about 1 billion kroner and hiring about 100 people to work on these changes. Technicians methodically test promising materials to see whether they can take a whack without breaking, or survive a hard pull. They are checked to see if they withstand the heat of a Saudi Arabian summer, and take on the bright color palette that Lego bricks are famous for. The company’s bricks may look simple, but they are made with incredible precision.
“We look at how does it look, and how does it feel,” said Nelleke van der Puil, Lego’s vice president for materials.
Company researchers have already experimented with around 200 alternatives. Among them, Ms. van der Puil said, was a substance called PLA, one of the few bio-based plastics that are readily available. Lego is also already using polyethylene made from sugar-cane husks in flexible pieces like dragon wings, palm trees and fishing rods, but these constitute only 1 percent to 2 percent of its output, and the material is too soft for the company’s toy blocks.
Most test materials, both bio-based and recycled, have so far fallen short. Some bricks made with the new materials have broken, leaving sharp edges that could injure a child, or have popped out with ugly, muddied colors. Others have on occasion produced misshapen or pockmarked bricks.
The search for a substitute for petroleum-based plastic could yet take years of work, Mr. Brooks acknowledged. Still, executives argue that, as a company that models itself as a de facto educator as much as a profitable enterprise, it has little option but to keep trying.
“It is important,” said Mr. Brooks, “that we can make a toy that doesn’t jeopardize” children’s future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/business/energy-environment/lego-plastic-denmark-environment-toys.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
-
Study on Emissions' Cognitive Harm May Help Bid for Strict EPA Air Rules
Aug 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
A new peer-reviewed study published by a U.S.-Chinese research team reveals serious damage to intelligence resulting from exposure to air pollution, a finding which adds to the already voluminous literature on air emissions' effects on physical health and which could bolster environmentalists' calls for EPA to tighten its air quality rules.
The new study, “The impact of exposure to air pollution on cognitive performance,” was published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Aug. 27.
In an abstract posted on the PNAS website researchers Xin Zhang, Xi Chen, and Xiaobo Zhang say, “We find that long-term exposure to air pollution impedes cognitive performance in verbal and math tests. We provide evidence that the effect of air pollution on verbal tests becomes more pronounced as people age, especially for men and the less educated.”
Further, “The damage on the aging brain by air pollution likely imposes substantial health and economic costs, considering that cognitive functioning is critical for the elderly for both running daily errands and making high-stake decisions,” according to the abstract.
The findings add to research showing a link between air pollution and dementia. The Guardian in an Aug. 27 articlecites one study author, Xi Chen of the Yale School of Public Health, as saying the loss of intelligence caused by air pollution is “huge,” equating to a losing a year of education.
Although the study was conducted in China, home to some of the world's most polluted cities, the findings may have relevance for debate on air quality in the United States.
It may add to the body of evidence that air advocates say must push EPA toward adopting tougher federal air quality standards, as EPA reviews its standards for ozone and particulate matter by 2020.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/study-emissions-cognitive-harm-may-help-bid-strict-epa-air-rules
-
EPA Watchdog to Review Implementation of Scientific Integrity Policy
Aug 31, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA's inspector general will examine EPA's implementation of its scientific integrity policy more than a year after former Administrator Scott Pruitt was cleared of violating that policy following his controversial statments about climate change science.
The policy is meant to "ensure scientific integrity ... and promote scientific and ethical standards," according to EPA.
The issue drew headlines last year after the Sierra Club complained that Pruitt had violated the policy when he said in a televised interview that carbon dioxide is not the primary contributor to climate change, a statement at odds with his own agency’s scientific conclusions.
A review panel ultimately cleared Pruitt over the comment, saying that "expressing an opinion about science is not a violation of the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy." As part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPA recently told a court that Pruitt had no documents or data to back up his statement.
The Office of the Inspector General's project memo issued today says its review of the policy was "self-initiated as part of OIG’s planning process." It will look specifically at the "extent and type of employee concerns," awareness of the policy among EPA workers, reasons why potential violations might not be reported and the policy’s adjudication process.
WHAT’S NEXT: The memo does not identify a timeline for the probe to conclude, but an OIG review of this type likely would take until late this year or 2019.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Where Trump’s — and Obama’s — Energy Plans Fall Short
Aug 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Daniel Cohan
President Trump and President Obama’s energy strategies share one thing in common — neither does much to change ongoing trends in coal and emissions. But the two plans differ starkly in their approaches.
A future administration inheriting those precedents would have very different options for jumpstarting our country’s stalled progress on climate. Ironically, the coal executives celebrating Trump’s plan for now may come to regret the precedents it sets.
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan was portrayed as ambitious when it was released in 2015. But the never-implemented plan sought only 32 percent emission reductions from 2005 levels by 2030. In fact, emissions have already fallen 28 percent as market forces have allowed more affordable natural gas and renewables to replace coal.
With or without the Clean Power Plan, Climate Action Tracker rates U.S. progress to be highly insufficient. Doing our share for the Paris Climate Agreement would mean reducing emissions at least 80 percent from 2005 to 2050 overall. Even steeper cuts are needed in the power sector, since it’s easier to control than sources like airplanes, and we’ll need clean electricity to power electric cars and equipment. But without stronger policies than either president has proposed, progress toward clean power is projected to slow as wind and solar tax credits phase down and if natural gas prices rebound.
Revitalizing our Paris pledge will require new policy. In theory, putting a price on carbon would work best. But Congress is unlikely to pass a carbon tax anytime soon. And Congress has for decades failed to update the Clean Air Act to clarify how EPA should address climate change.
So let’s suppose the next president seeks to jumpstart climate action without waiting for Congress. She would need to pursue policies far more ambitious than her predecessors have proposed. Will it matter whether the Obama plan, the Trump plan, or nothing at all gets enacted before then?
In terms of emissions, not much. By 2025, Obama’s plan would cut emissions just 3 percent faster, and Trump’s plan just 1 to 2 percent faster, than the market-driven plunge already underway. But either plan could set a precedent for EPA’s approach under the Clean Air Act.
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan set its targets on a state-by-state basis. That would have enabled a range of strategies to boost energy efficiency and clean energy, not just mandates for existing plants. In that sense, Obama’s plan was actually quite conservative, enabling states to serve as laboratories of innovation and markets to drive the most cost-effective solutions.
Unfortunately, a new president inheriting Obama’s plan would have to wait for courts to resolve the legality of state-by-state caps. Even then, meaningful progress would require tightening the Obama-era caps to reflect opportunities unleashed by new technology and falling prices. That would take years of analysis and rule-making, followed by appeals from states opposed to tighter caps.
A new president would face a very different policy landscape under Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy plan. The plan proposed by EPA last week would require each state to set emissions limits on a plant-by-plant basis. Ironically, plant-by-plant mandates have traditionally been deplored by free-market conservatives, who prefer market-based solutions as Obama envisioned.
Trump’s plan encourages states to set very weak emissions requirements, designed to be achieved by minor efficiency upgrades. EPA argues that more effective technologies like carbon capture are too expensive and unproven to be viable for now.
A new administration or even ambitious state agencies could reverse that decision as technologies improve. Earlier this year, Congress enacted far more generous tax credits known as 45Q to subsidize carbon capture.Two power plants in Texas are already piloting alternate technologies to do so.
Under Trump’s plant-by-plant framework, advances in technology could enable future regulators to demand better performance at each plant. By contrast, under Obama’s approach, new technologies would simply make it easier to achieve existing statewide caps.
Even the modest efficiency improvements intended by the Trump plan could expose coal plants to stringent regulation. Roughly 80 percent of existing coal plants don’t meet the minimum air pollution standards required of any new source. In many cases, they emit their sulfur completely unscrubbed, something that hasn’t been allowed at new power plants since the early 1980’s.
Upgrading efficiency would normally trigger what’s known as “new source review,” forcing the plant to meet modern emissions limits. That prevents an upgraded plant from emitting more pollution as it operates more often. But those pollution controls could be far more costly than the efficiency upgrades themselves. Unscrubbed coal plants could be caught in a Catch-22, unable to achieve modest efficiency limits because of the costly controls they would trigger.
To rescue the dirtiest coal plants from that dilemma, Trump’s plan would suspend new source review for efficiency improvements. But many experts question the legality of Trump’s loophole. Without it, modest mandates could become a death sentence for unscrubbed coal plants, and a reprieve for the thousands of Americans who die each year from their pollution.
That could put a future climate-friendly president in an unexpectedly powerful position. By reversing Trump’s new source loophole and redefining what technologies are viable, a new administration could repurpose the Trump framework to quickly shutter unscrubbed coal plants.
In theory, a carbon tax would be more cost-effective. Obama’s plan would be more flexible. But with Congress deadlocked, Obama’s plan mired in court, and so many unscrubbed coal plants clinging to survival, tweaking the Trump plan could offer a future president the quickest route to protecting our health and our climate.
Daniel Cohan is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/404512-where-trumps-and-obamas-energy-plans-fall-short
-
The Climate-Wrecking Industry… and How to Beat It
Aug 31, 2018 | The Nation (In Real Clear Energy)
By Jason Mark
Among climate activists, the scene is remembered with a mix of embarrassment and scorn: at the end of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, having just detailed the existential threat posed by global climate change, offered the audience a way to take action: Change your light bulbs. Gore’s prescription seemed completely incommensurate with the scale of the problem. The future of the human race, as well as millions of other species, is hanging in the balance—better get to the hardware store for some compact fluorescents.
Yet even today, at this late hour, the fight against global warming is bedeviled by public bewilderment. Climate change is such a huge, multidimensional threat that it’s hard for many people to grasp the root causes of the crisis. Perhaps most pernicious, some Americans still believe that we are all equally responsible for climate change. This shibboleth was the basis for the novelist Nathaniel Rich’s much-discussed 30,000-word magnum opus in The New York Times Magazine, published this August, which argued that “human nature” is to blame for our inability to address global warming. “[W]e had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis” in the 1980s, Rich writes. “Almost nothing stood in our way—nothing except ourselves.”
Such gauzy thinking is exactly what the carbon polluters want—and it demands a forceful counterargument that calls out those polluters for their greed and duplicity. Climate change isn’t so much a failure of human nature as it is the predictable result of a small number of corporations putting their profits ahead of humanity’s future and the planet’s well-being. A growing number of activists have grasped this fact and are saying, with new clarity and force, that global warming is a crime perpetrated by a group of (what else to call them?) corporate villains.
The activists’ new target is what you might call the climate-wrecking industry: the coal, gas, and oil companies that have amassed colossal fortunes through the extraction, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels and, along the way, deceived the public about the inherent dangers of their business model. The activists’ refashioned narrative follows a proven axiom of social change: To solve a problem, you first have to name a perpetrator.
This new corporate-focused activism is partly a response to research that has clarified the carbon polluters’ role in altering the atmosphere. According to peer-reviewed studies by Richard Heede and the Climate Accountability Institute, the business practices of just 90 fossil-fuel companies are responsible for two-thirds of the observed increases in global surface temperatures between 1751 and 2010. Similarly, a report by the British research group InfluenceMap has established precisely how companies exacerbate climate change through deceptive PR and advertising, as well as by funding research of dubious quality and submitting regulatory filings that skew the public discourse by, in effect, “working the refs” in government agencies. The InfluenceMap researchers concluded that the political and media activities of a mere 35 corporations have played an outsize role in stalling action on climate change. The list includes the usual suspects, such as ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, but also some surprising names, like Bayer, Caterpillar, and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.
Drawing on this and other research, The Nation has assembled a list of the “Worst of the Worst” in the climate-wrecking industry. (See our list on the opposite page.) Earning a dishonorable mention is the Republican Party, which continues to drink the Kool-Aid of climate denial and to obstruct even the most modest measures to protect the climate. Also on the list is the US Chamber of Commerce, which has spearheaded much of the opposition from business groups as a whole.
While it can feel as though the invisible hand of the market is driving global warming, the fingerprints of the climate-wrecking industry are clear. Deep-green groups like Greenpeace have always viewed unchecked corporate power as the greatest threat to a stable climate. These days, that view is far more widely shared—not only by movement upstarts like 350.org, but also by legacy organizations like Earthjustice and even some elected officials.
Local governments around the country have filed more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to hold the fossil-fuel industry liable for climate-related damages. In an echo of the historic campaign against Big Tobacco, these local governments argue that the industry’s products are inherently harmful, and that its well-documented decades of deception concerning those harms require some sort of restitution. The lawsuits stretch from Baltimore (wracked by two so-called “1,000-year” storm events in just two years), to Boulder, Colorado (slammed by wildfires and freakish floods), to King County, Washington (where ocean acidification is taking its toll on the shellfish industry).
“The public mood is shifting enormously,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a leading climate champion on Capitol Hill. He spoke with me this past summer, not long after the Rhode Island attorney general filed the first state lawsuit against the major oil corporations. “You now have a situation in which the CEOs of Shell and Exxon and the other big oil companies have to publicly admit that their products are causing climate change.” Of course, Whitehouse added, these same companies continue to push for increased fossil-fuel production (ExxonMobil recently released oil-and-gas extraction forecasts stretching out to 2040). But he argues that a reckoning is at hand: “I think what petrifies the fossil-fuel industry is not so much the possibility of ultimate judgments and liability, but the day of discovery, when plaintiffs start to get access to their internal files. Once the documents become public, and a hard look can be taken at those documents, then the reputational damage for their knowing behavior will begin to pile up.”
The climate-liability suits are one tactic in a multipronged strategy against the climate wreckers. A reinvigorated Native American sovereignty movement is fighting fossil-fuel projects from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, and in the process bringing a sharper moral clarity to the climate fight. At the same time, environmentalists are attempting a pincer maneuver aimed at cutting off the flow of capital to the fossil-fuel companies—staging demonstrations at banks and other financial institutions that underwrite carbon-intensive energy projects. Religious groups, major philanthropies, and public and private colleges and universities have pulled their money out of oil, gas, and coal investments.
The veil of invulnerability that the climate wreckers have hidden behind for decades is starting to tear. But will the new corporate-accountability efforts be enough?
Asignature difficulty of the climate threat is that it is so massive, and its causes so widespread, that people have a hard time wrapping their minds—much less their energy—around the thing. For years, activists have struggled to figure out where to place the bull’s-eye.
Then came the years-long campaign against the Keystone XL pipeline and the dramatic, Native-led opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016. When the grassroots movement against Keystone began to gather momentum, many DC insiders dismissed the campaign as unstrategic. But the effort had a kind of ripple effect: It is now virtually impossible for a fossil-fuel company to propose a major project anywhere without throngs of activists trying to tie up the bulldozers with little more than human bodies and bike locks.
The infrastructure fights have provided climate campaigners with something they had long been in search of: tangible local targets that ordinary citizens can focus on. In contrast to the campaigns in the early ’00s targeting ExxonMobil and Chevron, the “keep it in the ground” movement (as activists call it) has the power of emotional immediacy. The pipeline fights and oil-train opposition are fueled by the righteous parochialism that has always been the backbone of the environmental movement: the desire to save a beloved patch of woods or to protect a special river. “Everybody can relate to someone’s home, ranch, or sovereign land being threatened by a corporation, because they have a backyard too,” says Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska, one of the groups that have spearheaded the effort to stop the Keystone pipeline.
Activists concede that these infrastructure fights can feel like a game of whack-a-mole. But here’s the thing: Sometimes they succeed in hitting a mole. While TransCanada continues to make noise about stockpiling pipe for Keystone XL, the fact remains that, as of this writing, construction has yet to start on the critical northern section of the pipeline, and a federal judge has recently ruled that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally resurrect the project. Meanwhile, the Constitution pipeline, a proposed gas conduit from Pennsylvania to New York, appears dead, and a string of proposed coal-export terminals in Oregon and Washington have all landed in the dustbin.
Moreover, even when these campaigns ultimately fail to stop a proposed project, activists say they still have an important effect on public opinion. “It’s not about this one pipeline; it’s about changing the culture of how we think about the damages they do versus the benefits we get out of them,” says Cherri Foytlin, an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, which is fighting the construction of the Bayou Bridge pipeline through Louisiana. “You can still have a win even if it’s not a victory. If all we get out of this is an army of people willing to defend the waters of southern Louisiana, that’s a win, because it wasn’t like that before.”
But this strategy has a natural limit. One weakness of campaigning directly against the climate wreckers is that it’s simply unrealistic to expect a corporation to abandon the very reason for its existence. A lasting and equitable solution to climate change would put the fossil-fuel industry out of business, since these companies aren’t going to walk away from their (for now) still-profitable enterprises.
Recognizing that problem, organizers have sought to outflank the companies by targeting their bankers. As the protests and blockades make new fossil-fuel projects controversial, even notorious, there’s an increased reputational risk to lenders, who will begin to think twice about taking such projects on. That, at least, is the theory; in practice, the results have been mixed. “The reality is that, on the finances side, it was always going to be a long row to hoe,” says Lindsey Allen, the executive director of Rainforest Action Network. “Where we have seen the most progress is when we can get in front of a project before it is so far down the road.”
In response to grassroots pressure, most American lenders have retreated from financing mountaintop- removal coal mining. Last year, US Bank announced that it would no longer lend to oil-and-gas-pipeline construction projects. Most of the success, however, has been overseas. BNP Paribas, France’s largest bank, has announced that it will no longer fund tar-sands or oil-shale extraction. HSBC, the biggest bank in Europe, has also retreated from tar-sands projects, as well as from coal-fired power plants and oil drilling in the Arctic.
Yet while they’ve declined to finance specific projects, these banks are still extending loans to the carbon polluters’ various holding companies. And even their baby steps toward climate responsibility have generated blowback. HSBC has been quietly blackballed by the fossil-fuel industry, which has had little difficulty finding other lenders (most notably JPMorgan Chase) to fill the gap. For now, at least, the banks need fossil-fuel companies as much as these companies need the banks. “Until the revenue loss is greater than the revenue opportunity, the banks won’t stay out,” says one Wall Street banker, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Destroying the climate, in short, remains a winning business proposition.
Among activists, a consensus is emerging that legal action may prove the best way to bring the climate wreckers to account. While the direct-action and financial campaigns to keep oil and gas in the ground target current and future emissions, the city and county lawsuits seek to hold fossil-fuel companies liable for climate-related damages that have already occurred. In doing so, these lawsuits sharpen the public narrative about the imminence of climate change. Global warming is no longer some far-off, abstract threat; it’s something that’s causing real trouble now. “I think the thing that is most working [to hold carbon polluters accountable] is, in fact, the litigation,” Senator Whitehouse told me. “The fear of liability is the dominant driving factor in the fossil-fuel industry’s thinking about whether to sue for peace.”
The climate lawsuits, like the other strategies, have not been uniformly successful. This past summer, federal judges dismissed the complaints brought by New York City, Oakland, and San Francisco. But other lawsuits are still churning through state courts, and new cities continue to join the effort; Baltimore’s lawsuit was filed the day after New York’s suit was dismissed. A key to the landmark settlement with Big Tobacco was getting dozens of state attorneys general to file suits against the cigarette makers.
While acknowledging that there is strength in numbers, some legal observers say the magic number for success is one: A single judgment against the oil companies would be enough to change their political calculus about the value of continued intransigence. “I think, in some respects, it’s less about how many cases are filed, [and more about] whether a judge rules in favor of a city or county or state. That will open the floodgates,” says Ann Carlson, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has followed the climate-liability cases closely.
The climate wreckers do, in fact, appear to be shaken by the lawsuits. In a procedural counterattack, ExxonMobil has petitioned a Texas judge to allow it to depose attorneys and local officials from the California communities suing the company. During the federal-court proceedings in San Francisco, the fossil-fuel defendants all acknowledged that human activities are driving climate change—then swiftly pivoted to argue that the ultimate responsibility lies with the general public and its appetite for energy. The rhetorical sleight of hand perfectly captures the climate wreckers’ classic talking point: Since you can’t live without us, we’re innocent.
The more savvy wreckers like to say they’re open to Congress crafting a political solution. But their PR statements are hard to take seriously. On the same day that the San Francisco ruling came down, the House of Representatives voted 229 to 180 to condemn the idea of a carbon tax; only four Republicans voted against the nonbinding measure.
Moreover, if the fossil-fuel industry were genuinely interested in addressing the crisis through legislation, many climate advocates would gladly take them up on the offer. Whitehouse and Carlson, among others, think the lawsuits could open the way for a kind of grand bargain on climate change: In exchange for helping to pass a law mandating an economy-wide tax on carbon, the major polluters would receive immunity from lawsuits. But such a deal would have to come with financial accountability for the climate wreckers’ misdeeds—what Whitehouse called a “massive climate-relief fund” modeled on the tobacco settlement and BP’s settlement for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. “They don’t get to walk away scot-free,” Whitehouse said.
Of course, for that to happen, climate-action champions would have to gain control of Congress. Which means that climate activists, like the rest of the progressive movement, need to do everything they can to ensure that Congress changes hands.
That’s the sort of transformation that will require far more work—and many more people—than changing a light bulb.
Jason Mark is the editor in chief of Sierra magazine and the author of Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Man.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-climate-wrecking-industry-and-how-to-beat-it/
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested