Preview Newsletter
ACC PM - 9/25/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) How China Systematically Pries Technology From U.S. Companies
Sep 26, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Bob Davis
DuPont Co. suspected its onetime partner in China was getting hold of its prized chemical technology, and spent more than a year fighting in arbitration trying to make it stop. -
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Look to Asia in Addressing Ocean Plastic Crisis
Sep 26, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Roughly 8 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year, according to the environmental group Oceana. That threatens marine animals and sea birds, that can get caught up in plastic nets or six pack containers or mistakenly eat pieces of plastic thinking it to be food. -
(ACC Mentioned) 'We Need to Acknowledge There is a Problem'
Sep 26, 2018 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Representatives from a nonprofit, a trade group, a chemical company and a packaging firm all walk into a conference. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Joins Coalition to Support Kigali Amendment
Sep 26, 2018 | Pennsylvania Business Report
By Kevin Randolph
The Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association announced Tuesday that it joined the Let America Lead coalition, an organization that is urging President Donald Trump to send the Kigali Amendment to the U.S. Senate for ratification. -
EPA Withdraws Rulemaking for 145 Snurs
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has withdrawn 145 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) issued under a direct final rulemaking, in response to adverse comments. -
US Senate Subcommittee Convenes Hearing on PFAS 'Crisis'
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A subcommittee for the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is holding a hearing, the Federal Role in the Toxic PFAS Chemical Crisis, on 26 September. -
How Retailers Benefit from Participating in Chemsec’s Marketplace
Sep 26, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Philip Krook
A couple of months ago, my dad told me about a job interview he once had. At the interview, he was given a pencil and a piece of paper with two dots on it, one on each side. He was then asked to connect the two dots. -
Oregon Amends Children's Product Reporting Requirements
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Oregon has adopted amendments to its children’s products reporting rule, which include modifications to its list of reportable substances and other changes to its fees and notification requirements. -
NGO Urges EU States to Reject Authorisation Applications
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Environmental Bureau is calling on EU member states to reject authorisation applications for uses of two SVHCs. -
Your Scented Products May Be Hiding a Dangerous Secret
Sep 26, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Some benzyl chloride with your vanilla-scented lotion? -
A Teflon Chemical Contaminating the Drinking Water of Millions May Soon be Banned
Sep 26, 2018 | Quartz
By Zoë Schlanger
In a decision announced Friday (Sept. 21) in Rome, a group of UN experts tasked with deciding which chemicals should be globally banned under the Stockholm Convention decided to add PFOA and PFOS to the list. -
Europe’s LNG Success Is U.S. Opportunity, Russia Challenge
Sep 26, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher Alessi and Sarah McFarlane
European efforts to import more liquefied natural gas are starting to pay off, moving the region further away from Russia’s energy orbit and potentially creating more opportunities for U.S. producers. -
Enviro, Tribal Groups Ask Minn. Regulators to Rethink Line 3
Sep 26, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Environmental and tribal groups asked Minnesota regulators yesterday to reconsider their approval of Enbridge Energy Partners LP's plans to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota. -
More Weapons Wastewater Sent from Colo. to Texas
Sep 26, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
The Army is again shipping liquid hazardous waste from a chemical weapons destruction plant in Colorado for disposal in Texas. -
Fear Climate Change — and Our Response to It
Sep 26, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Real Clear Energy)
By Tyler Cowen
The potential costs of climate change, already the subject of heated debate, may actually be understated. It’s not just the potential disruptions to weather systems, agriculture and coastal cities; it’s that we may respond to those problems in stupid and destructive ways. -
Greens Sue over Cement Industry Standards
Sep 26, 2018 | E&E Greeenwire
By Sean Reilly
Two environmental groups are challenging EPA's decision to leave hazardous air pollutant emissions standards for the portland cement industry unchanged following a legally required review.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) How China Systematically Pries Technology From U.S. Companies
Sep 26, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Bob Davis
DuPont Co. suspected its onetime partner in China was getting hold of its prized chemical technology, and spent more than a year fighting in arbitration trying to make it stop.
Then, 20 investigators from China’s antitrust authority showed up.
For four days this past December, they fanned out through DuPont’s Shanghai offices, demanding passwords to the company’s world-wide research network, say people briefed on the raid. Investigators printed documents, seized computers and intimidated employees, accompanying some to the bathroom.
Beijing leans on an array of levers to pry technology from American companies—sometimes coercively so, say businesses and the U.S. government.
Interviews with dozens of corporate and government officials on both sides of the Pacific, and a review of regulatory and other documents, reveal how systemic and methodical Beijing’s extraction of technology has become—and how unfair Chinese officials consider the complaints.
China’s tactics, these interviews and documents show, include pressuring U.S. partners in joint ventures to relinquish technology, using local courts to invalidate American firms’ patents and licensing arrangements, dispatching antitrust and other investigators, and filling regulatory panels with experts who may pass trade secrets to Chinese competitors.
In DuPont’s case, the dispute concerned a process to produce supple textile fibers from corn, a $400 million business for the company in 2017. The antitrust investigators, say the people briefed on the raid, told DuPont to drop the case against its former Chinese partner.
U.S. companies have long complained that Beijing pressures them to hand over intellectual property. More recently, their concerns have escalated as China turns into an advanced rival in industries ranging from chemicals to computer chips to electric vehicles.
Coerced technology transfer is now a central part of the spiraling U.S.-China trade fight, a standoff that appears to be only more entrenched. The White House estimates China inflicts $50 billion yearly in damages on U.S. companies. That transfer, U.S. executives regularly complain, weakens American businesses’ competitiveness and undermines the incentive to innovate.
Chinese authorities referred questions to a paper issued on Monday by the State Council, China’s cabinet, that says: “American companies in China have received huge returns through technology transfer and licensing, and are the biggest beneficiaries of technical cooperation” and that U.S. companies enter partnerships voluntarily.
“China’s offer to the world has been straightforward,” says a policy maker in Beijing. “Foreign companies are allowed to access China’s markets but they would need to contribute something in return: their technology.”
U.S. companies have gone into China with eyes wide open, for the most part, and many are wary of going public with complaints. American companies initially brought the idea of joint ventures to China as a way to get access to a market of 1.4 billion people and tap a low-cost workforce. The bargain included helping Chinese firms become more technologically advanced.
At a January U.S. Chamber of Commerce dinner in Washington, executives pressed U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad not to hit Beijing too hard on technology issues,according to dinner attendees. China has many ways to get even, warned Christopher Padilla, a vice president of International Business Machines Corp. , which licenses technology to Chinese firms.
“If someone gets knifed in a dark alley, you don’t know who did it until the next morning,” Mr. Padilla said at the dinner. “But there has been a murder.”
DuPont briefed U.S. officials on its problems but didn’t want its case raised in trade talks, say some of the people familiar with the case. Its former Chinese partner, Zhangjiagang Glory Chemical Industry Co., continues to sell chemicals used to make fibers that DuPont believes are knockoffs of its technology. DuPont and Glory declined to make executives available for comment.
China’s antitrust regulator said “the investigation is still ongoing,” declining to elaborate.‘Notable pressure’
About one in five members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai say they have been pressured to transfer technology, according to a survey conducted in the spring. Of those companies, 44% in aerospace and 41% in chemicals report “notable pressure.” China considers both industries strategically important.
Trading market access for technology dates to Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s effort to launch the pro-market policies that propelled China’s rise. General Motors Co. executives on an exploratory 1978 visit proposed a joint venture with a local company to boost a then-antiquated Chinese industry, say Chinese government advisers, historians and auto-industry executives.
The idea fit with Deng’s desire to obtain Western technology but limit Western influence. China “needs to give up portions of the domestic market in exchange for advanced technologies we need,” he pronounced in 1984. The policy was a success, according to a March 2018 paper by economists at the universities of Colorado, Hong Kong and Nottingham, who found that foreign technology “diffuses beyond the confines of the joint venture” and boosts competitors’ technology.
Foreigners bring cash, technology, management know-how and other intellectual property while the Chinese partner usually contributes some land-use rights, financing, political connections and market know-how. As the practice increased, one U.S. administration after another, with only modest success, pressed Beijing to ease requirements that U.S. companies fork over technology. The Trump administration says it wants to “change the paradigm” by hitting Beijing with tariffs.
China mandates that foreign companies wanting to open or expand in 35 sectors do it through joint ventures, though it announced a plan in April to phase out rules requiring foreign auto makers to share factory ownership and profits with Chinese companies by 2022.
The arrangement has worked for some. When China set out to build its first large commercial passenger jet in 2008, state-owned Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China made clear it would buy components only from joint ventures whose foreign partners would share technology. General Electric Co. agreed.
GE’s venture with state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. of China now is a main supplier of avionics for the domestic C919 aircraft. The joint venture helped GE avoid writing down a struggling avionics unit, according to former and current GE employees.
GE says “there was never a write down at our avionics business, nor was there risk of one.” It says, referring to intellectual property, that GE is “highly sensitive to the protection of our IP whether in our wholly-owned operations or in our” joint ventures.
Advanced Micro Devices Inc., a Silicon Valley chip company, entered a joint venture in 2016 with Chinese private and state-owned entities, including the government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. AMD licenses microprocessor technology to the venture and is developing new computer chips with it.
AMD has received about $140 million in licensing through 2017, enough to help boost it into the black last year for the first time since 2011. “We created a joint venture that was very much a win-win,” AMD Chief Executive Lisa Su said at a 2016 conference. An AMD spokesman says the joint venture is “part of our strategy to create a complementary product offering.”
Chinese leaders see innovative technologies as forces to propel its industries up the value chain into more sophisticated sectors and the country into rich-nation ranks. To ensure foreigners bring their best, phalanxes of regulatory panels scrutinize foreign investments to make sure they meet government goals.
Huntsman Corp. has singled out these review panels as a conduit for siphoning trade secrets. The Woodlands, Texas, chemicals maker is thriving in China, which accounted for about 14% of its 2017 revenues.
Still, “our competition isn’t going to be standing on the sidelines cheering a song,” CEO Peter Huntsman told analysts in June. They could be “trying to either steal the technology or develop the technology themselves.” Mr. Huntsman declined to be interviewed.
Regulatory panels, packed with industry experts, must approve many chemicals before they can be produced in China and require detailed information on formulas and production processes, say U.S. trade groups and chemical firms. “Enough information to duplicate the product,” is how the American Chemical Council trade group put it in a filing to the U.S. government.
For Huntsman, these panels have drilled down on specialized knowledge, such as how it makes plastics with high transparency and elasticity—the kind of material often used for making sports shoes—people close to Huntsman say. Soon after those experts conducted their evaluations, local competitors used the same kind of technology in their own products, they say.
Huntsman is battling over a crown jewel of its business, a black dye used in textiles that is less polluting to make. It filed a lawsuit in Shanghai against a Chinese company for infringing a patent on the dye in 2007. Huntsman then found a court-appointed review panel stacked against it, it said in a 2011 complaint it filed with the U.S. Commerce Department.
The three-panel members included an engineer from the company Huntsman was suing, another from a local dye-research group and a third who once worked at a local dye firm, according to the complaint and people with knowledge of the matter. The experts’ work “effectively turned them into allies and ‘spokespersons’ ” for the Chinese competitor, the complaint said.
Litigation of the patent-infringement case has dragged on. Huntsman has asked the Trump administration to consider blocking Chinese firms if they set up operations in the U.S. using disputed Huntsman technology.
For foreign auto makers, the review panels have become a battleground over electric-vehicle technology. New vehicles must get government approval before mass production, undergoing a mandatory technology audit that usually lasts several days, foreign makers say.
An audit this year convinced an employee at one foreign auto maker there was “clear evidence of collusion” between the audit team and Chinese auto makers. When the audit began, the person says, inspectors asked for only the blueprints of the electric-vehicle components the foreign company was striving to protect from its Chinese joint-venture partner.
“Somehow they knew exactly the areas to look at,” the person says. “There wasn’t a single question about any of the other very complex systems on the vehicle.”The DuPont raid
DuPont also shared information with its Chinese partner, Zhangjiagang Glory when it licensed the Chinese firm in 2006 to produce and distribute Sorona, the textile polymers made from corn. Within DuPont, the Glory deal was called a “tolling” partnership—a relationship that serves as a kind of toll to enter the market. DuPont trained Glory to set up a factory to produce Sorona polymers and to spin them into fibers.
Around 2013, say the people familiar with the case, DuPont didn’t renew Glory’s license amid suspicions the Chinese firm was ripping off its intellectual property to sell products similar to Sorona, which has grown to a $70 million business in China. DuPont filed two arbitration cases in China, alleging patent infringement, with hearings stretching through 2017.
Around that time, officials with the National Development and Reform Commission’s antitrust division in Beijing took an interest in the matter and started holding meetings with DuPont. The commission showed little interest in DuPont’s planned merger with Dow Chemical Co., completed late last year, even though it launched an antitrust investigation into the combined entity in December.
Rather, investigators focused on the DuPont-Glory standoff, say the people briefed on the case. During three days of meetings in December, DuPont became worried about a raid on its office. It planned an employee-training session on how to deal with one, but the investigators showed up first.
An investigator told DuPont officials they were looking at antitrust behavior, specifically their unwillingness to license technology to Chinese firms and their pursuit of the Glory case, say these people. DuPont officials, they say, now fear that even dropping the case won’t be sufficient to satisfy Beijing, which may want a hostage in the trade fight with Washington.
Trump-administration officials see cases like this as evidence of China’s economic aggression. “The combination of naiveté and hubris on the part of U.S. companies seeking to enter the Chinese market, coupled with a sophisticated Chinese effort to extract technology has been a lethal combination,” says White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a China hawk.
During August trade talks, U.S. negotiators pressed Beijing about coerced technology transfer. They cited memory-chip maker Micron Technology Inc., which filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California in December alleging technology theft by Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. Jinhua sued Micron in January in a court in Fujian province—whose government partly controls Jinhua—and won a temporary order blocking some Micron subsidiaries from selling products in China that each company claims patents to.
Jinhua declined to comment. In a July statement, it said Micron has “recklessly” infringed on its patents. Micron says it intends “to vigorously protect our intellectual property and business interests through all available means.”
Chinese negotiator, Commerce Vice Minister Wang Shouwen, dismissed the concerns in August trade talks, say officials familiar with the talks. Micron and Jinhua “are like brothers,” Mr. Wang said, according to the officials, “and brothers fight.”
—Trefor Moss in Shanghai contributed to this article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-china-systematically-pries-technology-from-u-s-companies-1537972066
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Look to Asia in Addressing Ocean Plastic Crisis
Sep 26, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Roughly 8 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year, according to the environmental group Oceana. That threatens marine animals and sea birds, that can get caught up in plastic nets or six pack containers or mistakenly eat pieces of plastic thinking it to be food.
It has become an increasingly sensitive political issue, with even the American Chemistry Council, the plastics industry's chief lobbying arm, calling it a "huge problem."
With cities, states and countries around the world creating laws designed to reduce the use of single-use plastic items like straws and shopping bags, U.S. plastics manufacturers, which are centered on the Gulf Coast, face an increasingly uncertain outlook. That could affect future demand for oil and natural gas, of which the plastics industry is a principal customer.
So far, Republicans are focusing on improving recycling and waste collection efforts, particularly in Asia, rather than reducing consumption.
"Plastic is crucial in virtually every aspect of modern society," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "That doesn't mean plastic should end up in our rivers in our lakes in our steams and oceans."
According to a 2017 study by the Ocean Conservancy, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are responsible for between 55 and 60 percent of plastic waste in the ocean. But according to scientists, no country is without fault.
Coastal areas in the United States generate more plastic waste than any country in the world, said Kara Lavender, an oceanographer at the Sea Education Association. Most of that ends up in landfills and recycling center but not all.
"Because of the sheer amount of plastic waste we create, even the small amount that is accidentally lost, or intentionally littered, adds up to a large amount available to enter the ocean," Lavender testified Wednesday. "Not creating the waste in the first place is a higher level strategy."
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Republicans-want-Trump-to-pressure-Asia-on-13259243.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'We Need to Acknowledge There is a Problem'
Sep 26, 2018 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Representatives from a nonprofit, a trade group, a chemical company and a packaging firm all walk into a conference.
But it's no joke that they all agree on something: The plastics industry is facing a serious problem with ocean pollution.
Plastics in the oceans or littered plastics on land headed that way have grabbed the industry by the throat during the past few years. And the grip is only getting tighter with the well-publicized figure of an estimated 8 million metric tons of the material entering the water every year.
The populace has taken notice. Cue the video of the turtle with a straw stuck in its snout. Or the photos of dead, decaying birds full of plastic they ingested.
So when folks from Amcor Ltd., the American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical Co. and Ocean Conservancy wound up on the stage together at the Plastics Caps & Closures 2018 conference in Chicago, they all said something has to change.
"It's not easy. There is no simple solution to the problem. It's very much a complicated matter," said Fabio Peyer, sustainability manager for Amcor Flexibles Americas.
While some places consider the merits of banning straws or plastic bags, for example, other parts of the world are leaking huge amounts of plastic litter either directly into oceans or into waterways that lead to oceans.
The United States is certainly not immune to contributing to the problem, but certain hot spots in Asia account for much more of this type of pollution, research shows.
Without effective waste management programs in the problem areas, there is no clear-cut solution readily at hand. Meanwhile, more and more plastic enters the environment.
The Trash Free Seas Program within the Ocean Conservancy helps oversee efforts to keep trash out of the water. It is part of the larger Trash Free Seas Alliance that includes other nonprofits, trade groups and companies.
But even the manager of that program, Eric DesRoberts, understands the limitations currently in place.
"We recognize the cleanup alone is not going to solve the problem," he said at the conference organized by Plastics News. "This is a global problem."
Waste management efforts have fallen behind economic and population growth in certain areas, with China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Philippines often cited as especially problematic areas.
But DesRoberts said the issue is not limited to one part of the world.
"While work that the Trash Free Seas Alliance is focused on is really in Southeast Asia, looking at some of the waste management challenges there with our other partners throughout the Alliance, there really is a global problem. We have a lot of problems in the U.S. that are contributing to this issue," he said.
Bans on plastic straws have become a hot topic of discussion in the United States thanks to their ubiquitousness, but Amcor's Peyer said outlawing straws is "very symbolic to some extent."
"It's just a sign that if we don't solve this problem, someone else will solve it for us, and it might be to the detriment to this industry," he said.
Amcor has come out with its own set of 2025 sustainability goals, including a pledge to make all packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025. The company was among a group of 10 brands and companies to make the commitment earlier this year through the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
The foundation has made headlines and pushed to become a voice in the plastics life cycle, advocating a circular approach, in recent years through its New Plastics Economy Initiative.
Amcor, a global company making both rigid and flexible plastics packaging, said it also said it is "committed to significantly increasing its use of recycled materials and driving consistently more recycling of packaging around the world."
Straws, meanwhile, are a "gateway issue," DesRoberts agreed.
"It's not going to solve the problem," he said, but "there is an opportunity to have a conversation about what are the different design options for drink delivery."
Jennifer Ronk is sustainability and advocacy manager, North America, for Dow Chemical Co.
"We need to acknowledge that there is a problem we have to solve, and once we solve the problem, we don't have to worry about bans," she said about the overall issue.
"I don't think it's a surprise that this is a gateway," she said about straws.
Ronk said the conversation about plastics must include their benefits as well as their challenges.
"I think it becomes imperative to us in that landscape to make sure that we talk about the sustainability benefits of the materials that we've got so that they can see the value that they bring," she said.
People, Ronk said, are reacting in a visceral way to images of plastic pollution. "We need to fix that. … We need to acknowledge there is a problem that we need to solve. I think once we solve the problem, we don't have to worry about bans," she said.
Amcor's Peyer said people must view packaging in a different light to ultimately help create change.
"I think packaging is probably one of the most misunderstood products," he said. "People really underestimate the role of packaging. … People don't understand the value of doing the right thing when it comes to the disposal of packaging."
The characteristics that make plastic packaging effective in the transportation, protection and storage of goods also makes it a problem once the material enters the environment, he said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180926/NEWS/180929936/we-need-to-acknowledge-there-8203-is-a-problem
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Joins Coalition to Support Kigali Amendment
Sep 26, 2018 | Pennsylvania Business Report
By Kevin Randolph
The Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association announced Tuesday that it joined the Let America Lead coalition, an organization that is urging President Donald Trump to send the Kigali Amendment to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol establishes a gradual, market-driven phasedown of current-generation hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and a transition to next-generation technologies, which have significantly less environmental impact. The Montreal Protocol was established in 1987 and is the first multi-national agreement to limit ozone-depleting substances.
Founding members of the coalition include the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the American Council for Capital Formation.
“Manufacturers support the Kigali Amendment and would like to see it ratified by the Senate,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “It is a smart, effective agreement that improves air quality and combats climate change in a way that protects manufacturing competitiveness and creates jobs.”
The coalition is working to demonstrate to President Trump why ratification of the Kigali Amendment would have a positive effect on American jobs and the economy.
In May, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy released an economic study conducted by Inforum and JBS Consulting that highlighted the impact that ratification would have on technology and manufacturing leadership in these industry sectors. According to the report, ratification would create 3,000 manufacturing jobs and 117,000 indirect jobs by 2027 as well as increase manufacturing exports by $5 billion and reduce imports by approximately $7 billion to improve the balance of trade.
Ratification of the Kigali Amendment is expected to grow the U.S. share of the world heating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment market by 25 percent over its current share. Without ratification, the U.S. share is expected to decrease by approximately 14 percent.
“President Trump’s record demonstrates his commitment to making leadership decisions based on their ability to deliver for American workers and American families,” said George David Banks, President Trump’s former adviser on international energy and environment policy and a senior advisor to Let America Lead. “Our nation’s manufacturers – large and small – serve as the foundation of our nation’s strength and will see positive benefits from the Kigali Amendment.”
https://pennbizreport.com/news/10935-pennsylvania-manufacturers-association-joins-coalition-to-support-kigali-amendment/
-
EPA Withdraws Rulemaking for 145 Snurs
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has withdrawn 145 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) issued under a direct final rulemaking, in response to adverse comments.
The rules, issued in August, address a variety of new substances that were approved for introduction subject to certain restrictions. The Snurs are intended to extend the requirements outlined in the substances’ consent orders – which are binding only to the original pre-manufacture notice submitter (PMN) – to others who may use the chemicals in the future.
But a number of businesses, industry groups and NGOs raised concerns with them. Some noted discrepancies between specific Snurs and the consent orders which they were intended to match, while others took issue with broader concepts common to all 145 rules.
Direct final rules – which are used to move forward non-controversial regulations on an expedited timeline – are required to be withdrawn if met with "significant adverse comment". The agency has consequently withdrawn the rulemaking.
The substances will now be addressed through a proposed rulemaking which was issued in tandem with the direct final rule. The comment deadline for that rule expired on 31 August.
In comments, several groups objected to the EPA’s approach of issuing the two rulemakings simultaneously, as this effectively shortened the amount of time to file responses.
But, as of publication, the agency has not extended or re-opened the comment period for the proposed rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70568/epa-withdraws-rulemaking-for-145-snurs
-
US Senate Subcommittee Convenes Hearing on PFAS 'Crisis'
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A subcommittee for the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is holding a hearing, the Federal Role in the Toxic PFAS Chemical Crisis, on 26 September.
Panel witnesses include:
· Peter Grevatt, EPA Office of Water;
· Maureen Sullivan, Department of Defense (DOD);
· Linda Birnbaum, National Institutes of Health (NIH); and
· Brian Lepore, Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The hearing comes amid mounting public concern and political controversy surrounding the substances.
And it follows a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing on PFAS contamination in the environment on 6 September. Environmental groups told Congress that new PFAS substances should be banned and called for a halt on continued uses of existing ones.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70548/us-senate-subcommittee-convenes-hearing-on-pfas-crisis
-
How Retailers Benefit from Participating in Chemsec’s Marketplace
Sep 26, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Philip Krook
A couple of months ago, my dad told me about a job interview he once had. At the interview, he was given a pencil and a piece of paper with two dots on it, one on each side. He was then asked to connect the two dots.
My dad took a couple of seconds to think about the test he was given. Very calmly he then folded the piece of paper so that the two dots would meet and picked up the pencil. With a swift movement, he pierced the piece of paper right where the two dots were.
At ChemSec, we also had two dots that we wanted to connect, or more precisely two groups of professionals within the chemicals space.
On the one hand, we noticed a strong drive from progressive retailers and brands to substitute hazardous chemicals in products and supply chains with safer alternatives. On the other hand, we saw all these small start-ups popping up with innovative technical processes and safer chemicals that would be game-changers in the industry if they only had the opportunity to market them. We also knew about large chemical producers that already had healthier alternatives in their portfolios but for various reasons did not actively promote them.
Connecting the suppliers with the demand would have such a positive impact, we thought. It would lead to a much swifter phase-out of toxic chemicals, while at the same time promoting the production of safer chemical alternatives.
So, we created Marketplace.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/09/26/how-retailers-benefit-from-participating-in-chemsecs-marketplace/
-
Oregon Amends Children's Product Reporting Requirements
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Oregon has adopted amendments to its children’s products reporting rule, which include modifications to its list of reportable substances and other changes to its fees and notification requirements.
The Toxic-Free Kids programme requires manufacturers of children’s products to notify the presence of substances included on the state’s High Priority Chemicals of Concern for Children’s Health (HPCCCH) list above de minimis levels.
As part of its triennial review of the programme, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) added five substances to the HPCCCH list, effective from 1 January. These are:
· bisphenol S (BPS);
· triphenyl phosphate (TPP);
· tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP);
· short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs); and
· 2-ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB).
And it will remove the following three substances at that time:
· phthalic anhydride;
· octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); and
· molybdenum and its compounds.
The amendments were based on modifications that Washington made to its Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) list last autumn. The neighbouring state removed the same three chemicals, and added 20 new ones, including these five.
Oregon’s list of of reportable substances will total 68 when these changes come into force.
Notification, fee changes
The OHA also adopted several modifications clarifying notification requirements and adjusting fee collection.
The updated rule says that notifications must include the number of children’s products offered for sale that contain a HPCCCH substance.
And it specifies that only one biennial report must be filed for a specific children’s product, and establishes a ‘hierarchy’ of entities which will be held responsible for this.
The product manufacturer sits at the top of this order of priority, unless that entity has no presence in the US. The distributor is next on the list, provided that it has a domestic presence. If it does not, then the responsibility falls to the importer.
The rule notes that enforcement actions will follow this hierarchy.
Further amendments address fee collection for exemption requests, in line with a bill (HB 5027) adopted into law last year.
These call for the collection of a $1,500 nonrefundable fee for a company requesting an exemption from reporting, and an hourly fee of $200 for the request to be reviewed by the OHA.
These notification and fee changes take effect from 1 October.
Phase 3
The final implementation phase of the state's 2015 Toxic-Free Kids Act calls for manufacturers to remove chemicals of concern from certain children’s products, or to request a waiver for their continued use.
The agency intends to start the rule development process for this third phase in the coming year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70575/oregon-amends-childrens-product-reporting-requirements
-
NGO Urges EU States to Reject Authorisation Applications
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Environmental Bureau is calling on EU member states to reject authorisation applications for uses of two SVHCs.
Its concerns were expressed in a letter to the competent authorities ahead of the REACH Committee meeting on 27-28 September, where preliminary discussions on the applications will begin. The talks will eventually lead to a vote.
In one of the applications, Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Kędzierzyn and Deza are seeking permission to use bis(2-ethylhexhyl) phthalate (DEHP) in PVC articles.
The NGO has said that:
· risks related to the uses of DEHP are not adequately controlled;
· there are suitable alternative substances and technologies for the uses applied for; and
· it has not been demonstrated that the socio-economic benefits of the continued use "outweigh" the risks to human health or the environment.
DEHP was in the first batch of chemicals placed on the authorisation list and according to REACH Article 58 the ‘sunset date’ was 21 January 2015, the letter said.
However, EEB said, these companies "are still allowed to keep placing this SVHC on the EU market pending the final authorisation decision, hence exposing our citizens and our environment." The NGO added that it regrets the "long unjustified delay" of this decision.
It went on to say that authorities should now acknowledge that DEHP has been identified as an endocrine disrupting chemical and that safer alternatives are available. "Otherwise, the Commission’s decision would be based on highly outdated scientific and economic information, communicated by the applicants and Echa’s committees at the time of the application (2013)."
Alternatives
The EEB is also urging the committee to turn down an authorisation application by Gerhardi Kunststofftechnik for a use of chromium trioxide.
It said it is "very concerned" about this being granted because Echa’s opinion is "outdated" and "disregards" the fact that technology has rapidly developed.
Alternatives are already available, the NGO added, and have been "economically and technically feasible for at least the last two years", according to the manifesto of the Alliance of PVD Providers, submitted to the REACH committee members earlier in September.
Approval would "undermine the credibility" of the process, turn authorisations into "permits to pollute", and create an economic disadvantage for companies that have invested in safer alternatives, the NGO said.
Concerning the DEHP application, it said that one of the applicants – Grupa Azoty – has ceased production of the chemical and moved to non-ortho-phthalate plasticisers, therefore "obviously proving" the availability of alternatives.
It has specifically asked the committee members to:
· reject the authorisation of the Gerhardi application because the applicant has not demonstrated that alternatives are not available; and
· reject the authorisation for the use of DEHP in PVC consumer articles based on REACH Article 60 (paragraphs 2 and 4).
The NGO added that the EU needs to reward the companies making substitution happen, instead of "the laggards" by granting them authorisations to continue the use of SVHCs.
To date the European Commission has not rejected an authorisation application for a use of an SVHC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70574/ngo-urges-eu-states-to-reject-authorisation-applications
-
Your Scented Products May Be Hiding a Dangerous Secret
Sep 26, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Some benzyl chloride with your vanilla-scented lotion?
Consumers may be surprised that their favorite scented products could contain some less-entrancing ingredients, according to a new report.
A study released Wednesday by Breast Cancer Prevention Partners found a host of unlisted chemicals in commonly used products, with most coming from the scents used to boost their allure. Many bear celebrity labels or are sold to vulnerable populations, it said.
Even as some retailers, states and manufacturers have begun to respond to consumer demands for more ingredient disclosure, scents remain something of a black box. Often listed in generic terms like “perfume” or “fragrance,” the study found that more than three quarters of the chemicals of concern were in the fragrance component of the products tested. Separately, a federal bill that would mandate listing those substances is expected to be introduced Wednesday.
“We found fragrance chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption and other serious health conditions in everything from children’s shampoo to body lotion to perfumes,” said Janet Nudelman, director of Program and Policy at the organization and director of its Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Our report shows that consumers and salon workers have good reason to wonder and worry about the presence -– and the safety -- of secret fragrance ingredients.”Chronic Maladies
More than a quarter of the ingredients identified in the products most extensively tested contained substances linked to cancer and to respiratory, developmental and reproductive problems, according to the report. Even products labeled as unscented aren’t necessarily exempt, since they can contain so-called masking chemicals to produce a neutral odor.
The product listed in the report as having the most chemicals of concern is a Strength of Nature Just for Me children’s shampoo, that is part of a kit for relaxing hair. Also high on the list was Wonderstruck Taylor Swift fragrance, endorsed by the singer.
Email requests for comments made to Strength of Nature before regular office hours weren’t immediately returned.
The cosmetics and personal-care industry has been mostly self-regulated, though states and retailers like Walmart Inc. have taken measures in recent years to require makers to disclose or eliminate some ingredients, and several states have introduced bills on listing fragrance ingredients and other heightened scrutiny of products. Previous federal bills to more closely regulate cosmetics have exempted fragrance, according to Nudelman.Schakowsky Bill
Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, was expected Wednesday to unveil the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2018. It calls for listing all ingredients, including fragrances, on packaging and having the U.S. Food and Drug Administration establish a list of banned ingredients.
Consumer-products makers are getting on board, too. In early 2017, Unilever said it would begin listing fragrance ingredients online and expand the labeling of fragrance allergens to its U.S. products. Procter & Gamble Co.followed suit later that year, and Johnson & Johnson said in August it would list all ingredients in its baby products.
Nudelman praised their actions but said national legislation mandating ingredient disclosure is needed, and her group’s report found chemicals of concern in some goods made by those companies. All three had products in the top 10 of the report, including Unilever’s Axe Phoenix body spray, popular with teenage boys.
Emails asking for comments to Unilever, P&G and Johnson & Johnson weren’t immediately returned.
Nudelman’s group recommends that companies draft lists of substances they won’t use and disclose every substance in products, including flavoring, colorants and contaminants, as part of developing a broader chemical-management plan.
In many cases, large manufacturers don’t know what’s in their fragrances, which are usually sourced from one of several big makers, Nudelman said. The self-regulated industry is able to hide specific ingredients under the umbrella of terms like fragrance, she said.
When Jessica Iclisoy started California Baby more than 20 years ago, she had trouble finding lavender oil for the shampoos and lotions she was concocting using only plant oils. When she asked a large fragrance maker to send samples made from pure lavender, she received a synthetic version instead. The company began importing lavender from France and also maintains fields in California to grow its fragrance ingredients.
“I had to do a lot of investigation and digging,” Iclisoy said. “The attitude was kind of like, it’s none of your business.”(Removes report’s incorrect reference to owner of Wonderstruck fragrance in 7th paragraph. An earlier version corrected in penultimate paragraph location of lavender fields.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-26/fragrance-secrets-in-your-cabinets-may-hide-noxious-surprises
-
A Teflon Chemical Contaminating the Drinking Water of Millions May Soon be Banned
Sep 26, 2018 | Quartz
By Zoë Schlanger
In a decision announced Friday (Sept. 21) in Rome, a group of UN experts tasked with deciding which chemicals should be globally banned under the Stockholm Convention decided to add PFOA and PFOS to the list.
These two chemicals, both in the PFAS family, are at the center of a the biggest drinking-water contamination scandal in a generation in the US—and more recently, Australia—where towns are finding it in their water supply near military bases and old factories.
At this point, most people in the US have been exposed to chemicals in the PFAS family, and water supplies of tens of millions are likely contaminated with them.
PFAS chemicals have been linked to a range of health risks including cancer, immune-system issues, and developmental problems in fetuses.
The group of UN experts—the review committee of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants—made the recommendation to globally ban both PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid, an ingredient in Teflon, the chemical used to make non-stick cookware, as well as waterproofed clothing and other products) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate, often used as a firefighting foam, especially at airports and on military bases). The sole exception for PFOS would be for use in implantable medical devices, and would expire in five years.A signal to manufacturers
The recommendation will be introduced at the next UN Conference of the Parties, in 2019. If adopted—and thus far, every recommendation of the committee has been adopted—it would be legally binding for the 181 countries plus the European Union that are party to the Stockholm Convention.
While some countries may be slow to implement such a ban, it will likely have the biggest effect among the companies that produce the chemicals, according to Pamela Miller, who attended the committee meeting in Rome and co-chairs IPEN, a nonprofit focused on reducing or eliminating hazardous chemicals. “It sends a signal to the industry and that’s a beginning of the end for that use.”
The ban has the biggest potential to change the face of the chemical industry in countries like China, where factories are still making PFOA and other fluorinated chemicals in earnest (production of PFOA ceased in the US in 2015). But the ban has the potential to be felt globally, since PFAS continue circulating in the environment—and in people’s bodies—for generations. Like other “persistent organic pollutants,” they even make it to the Arctic, where no PFAS are manufactured. There, they accumulate in animals that indigenous communities rely on for food. PFOA, for example, has been found to be increasing the risk for breast cancer among Inuit women in Greenland.No more PFOS in firefighting foam
“The big one is firefighting foam,” Miller said. The UN committee moved to ban PFOS in 2009, but left open an exemption for such foams, on the presumption that they were necessary to effectively combat conflagrations. But IPEN organized a panel of experts and produced a report to attest that the world no longer needs PFOS to stop fires—there are perfectly good alternatives now.
Among the experts who presented the case against PFAS in Rome last week was Graeme Day, the fire safety manager for London Heathrow Airport. Airports are among the biggest users of firefighting foam, along with military bases—both use the foams in drills. London Heathrow, one of the world’s biggest airports, has phased out PFOS foam from its firefighting supplies, Miller said. The committee removed the exemption for firefighting foams this time.PFOA still being produced in China
In 2015, after negotiations with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Dupont and seven other companies agreed to stop producing PFOA in the US. The move came about a decade after an unusual number of cases of cancer in a West Virginia town sparked a class-action suit against Dupont, and shed light on what turned out to be the US’s first PFOA drinking water crisis.
But even though no more PFOA is being produced in the country, the chemical lives on, leaching into the ground from industrial waste sites. The drinking water crises keep piling up. PFOA and PFOS are likely contaminating the water supplies of tens of millions of people in the US. PFAS contamination cases outside the US—particularly in Australia—are also beginning to emerge.
But as Sharon Lerner at the Intercept reported, when production dried up in the US, it skyrocketed in China. There, plants produce thousands of pounds of PFOA a day.
https://qz.com/1403021/pfoa-teflon-chemical-contaminating-drinking-water-may-soon-be-banned/
-
Europe’s LNG Success Is U.S. Opportunity, Russia Challenge
Sep 26, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher Alessi and Sarah McFarlane
European efforts to import more liquefied natural gas are starting to pay off, moving the region further away from Russia’s energy orbit and potentially creating more opportunities for U.S. producers.
Shifting to LNG has been a significant turning point for countries such as Lithuania and Poland, whose energy bills have fallen since they built LNG terminals in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
The new LNG terminals on the Baltic Sea, Russia’s former backyard, are expected to prompt the opening of other European facilities that can turn to shipments of natural gas from places like the U.S.and Qatar, industry experts said.
There are currently about six LNG projects in development or on the drawing board in Europe, most of them in countries that are in Russia’s former sphere of influence. Earlier this month, German energy company RWE AG signed up to take a chunk of the future capacity of a planned LNG terminal in Hamburg, Germany.
The success of the Baltic terminals should give investors and industry participants more confidence in the economics of these projects, experts said.
More European LNG import terminals would be welcome news for U.S. energy companies such as Cheniere Energy Inc., as they have been eagerly awaiting new projects abroad to eat into a glut of natural gas that has kept the U.S. benchmark price below $4 per million British thermal units for years. Natural-gas futures for October delivery settled at $3.0820 a million British thermal units Tuesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
More than a dozen export projects are awaiting regulatory approval in the U.S., according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
European efforts to import more liquefied natural gas are starting to pay off, moving the region further away from Russia’s energy orbit and potentially creating more opportunities for U.S. producers.
In the past, Lithuania was paying 20% to 25% above most other European Union countries for its Russian pipeline gas imports, said Mindaugas Jusius, chief executive of Lithuania’s terminal operator Klaipedos Nafta. With the LNG terminal, Lithuania was able to bring Gazprom to the table and renegotiate its contract for pipeline gas, he said.
“Since the initial goal was security of supply, I’m not sure if we were expecting such a quick pay-back,” said Mr. Jusius.
The EU has made LNG a big priority, helping fund the terminals in Lithuania and Poland and one in Malta, while committing money to a project in Croatia.
“The objective of the Energy Union strategy is to diversify the energy sources and ensure that no EU member state is dependent on a single supplier,” said a spokesperson for the European Commission.
Other countries also want to use more LNG.
Gas is expected to be 24% of the world’s energy mix by 2040, up from 22% in 2016, according to the International Energy Agency. LNG’s share of that market is set to rise to almost 40% in 2023, from around a third in 2017, the IEA forecast.
—Jon Sindreu contributed to this article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lng-in-europe-prompts-opportunities-for-u-s-challenges-for-russia-1537956001
-
Enviro, Tribal Groups Ask Minn. Regulators to Rethink Line 3
Sep 26, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Environmental and tribal groups asked Minnesota regulators yesterday to reconsider their approval of Enbridge Energy Partners LP's plans to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota.
The groups, including the Sierra Club, Youth Climate Intervenors, Friends of the Headwaters and Honor the Earth, filed their requests with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Opponents contend the line does not meet permit criteria.
In June, the commission gave Enbridge the green light to replace Line 3. But a PUC meeting to discuss whether Enbridge met conditions was postponed earlier this month after being disrupted by protesters.
Opponents argue the PUC erred in granting a certificate of need for Line 3 because alleged harm to society would outweigh the replacement line's benefits. They also say Enbridge did not prove the pipeline was needed.
"Line 3 would threaten our clean water, our communities, and our climate," Margaret Levin, state director for the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, said in a statement.
Winona LaDuke, executive director of Honor the Earth, said the PUC made a "rogue decision" to approve Line 3 against the recommendations of other agencies. LaDuke called it "a crisis of civil society" and said "we need the PUC to reconsider what this decision means for the future of Minnesota and the planet."
Native American and environmental activists contend the new line is unnecessary and risks spills in fragile areas. Canadian-based Enbridge said that the old line is increasingly subject to corrosion and cracking, and that its maintenance needs are accelerating. Enbridge said that without a new Line 3, its customers would have to rely more heavily on rail and truck transport, which have higher costs and risks.
"In June the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to approve the Certificate of Need for Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project. The petitions filed today are an expected part of this very thorough regulatory process," Enbridge said in a statement last night. "The Line 3 Replacement Project is a safety and maintenance driven project that is intended to protect the communities and the environment in northern Minnesota."
Line 3 runs from Alberta across North Dakota and Minnesota to Enbridge's terminal in Superior, Wis. Enbridge wants to replace the line, which it built in the 1960s and is running at only about half its original capacity. The replacement would restore its original capacity.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/26/stories/1060099765
-
More Weapons Wastewater Sent from Colo. to Texas
Sep 26, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
The Army is again shipping liquid hazardous waste from a chemical weapons destruction plant in Colorado for disposal in Texas.
The Pueblo Chemical Depot in southern Colorado began loading tanker trucks yesterday. They were bound for an incinerator in Port Arthur, Texas.
The waste would normally be processed at the Colorado facility, but officials say that part of the plant is undergoing modifications and isn't operating.
Officials expect to ship up to 250,000 gallons of wastewater to the Texas incinerator in about 50 truckloads until the wastewater facility in Colorado is operating again.
The plant shipped a similar volume of wastewater to the incinerator last year.
The plant is destroying 780,000 shells containing 2,500 U.S. tons of mustard agent under an international treaty.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/26/stories/1060099779
-
Fear Climate Change — and Our Response to It
Sep 26, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Real Clear Energy)
By Tyler Cowen
The potential costs of climate change, already the subject of heated debate, may actually be understated. It’s not just the potential disruptions to weather systems, agriculture and coastal cities; it’s that we may respond to those problems in stupid and destructive ways. As the philosopher and cartoon character Pogo said: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Consider how poorly we have responded to many non-climate-related problems. In the case of Brexit, for example, the Leave movement was arguably responding to some real problems. The European Union bureaucracy is too stringent, and perhaps the U.K. did not have an ideal arrangement with immigration. But Brexit is careening toward disaster, with no good plan on tap, the two major parties in splinters, the British pound declining, the Irish “Good Friday” agreement at risk, and the U.K. seriously talking about food stockpiles and other emergency measures.
It would have been better if the British had responded to their country’s problems in a less extreme way, or simply learned to live with the problems they had. Instead, they voted for a rash and poorly thought-out remedy.
Similarly, you might think that supporters of President Donald Trump have legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and U.S. unwillingness to stand up to China. Still, that did not require a presidential “remedy” that has brought chaos and corruption to the White House and U.S. foreign policy alike.
In short, the world increasingly appears to be reaching for extreme and imprudent remedies to admittedly complex problems. These overreactions do not seem to be mere accidents, but arise from some pretty fundamental features of polarized politics — namely, that discourse has become less rational and technocratic.
When it comes to climate change, all this plays out in interesting ways. In the U.S., imagine that many Florida residents have to leave their residences permanently, due to fiercer storms or rising sea level. The rational approach might involve well-functioning insurance markets, some public-sector transfers and compensation, and better infrastructure planning. The idea would be to limit the number of such moves or at least to lower their cost. That could prove very costly but essentially manageable.
But that is probably not what we will get. Instead, the debate may well radicalize Florida politics, which has consequences for national politics as Florida is a swing state. On the federal level, an infrastructure bill would invariably direct too much money to wasteful new projects in less populated states. Everywhere, the harsh, non-sympathetic tone of the debate will further corrode American politics.
Looking outside of the U.S.: Imagine that climate change forced or induced the migration of many people from Bangladesh. An ideal international reaction would involve foreign aid plus the cooperative parceling out of refugees to different countries. Circa 2018, following the crises in Syria and Libya, does anyone really expect such a rational outcome? A more likely, though admittedly speculative scenario, is clashes on the border with India, the further radicalization of Indian politics (“build a wall”), refugee camps full of hundreds of thousands of people, and more extremist terrorism in Bangladesh.
I am struck by the costs of climate change suggested in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, hardly a source of denialism. Its cost estimate — “1 to 5% of GDP for 4°C of warming” — is relatively reassuring. After all, global GDP is right now growing at more than 4 percent a year. If climate change cost “only” 4 percent of GDP on a one-time basis, then the world economy could make up those costs with less than a year’s worth of economic growth. In essence, the world economy would arrive at a given level of wealth about a year later than otherwise would have been the case. That sounds expensive but not tragic.
Unfortunately, that is not the right way to conceptualize the problem. Think of the 4 percent hit to GDP, if indeed that is the right number, as a highly unevenly distributed opening shot. That’s round one, and from that point on we are going to react with our human foibles and emotions, and with our highly imperfect and sometimes corrupt political institutions. (Libertarians, who are typically most skeptical of political solutions, should be the most worried.)
Considering how the Syrian crisis has fragmented the EU as well as internal German politics, is it so crazy to think that climate change might erode international cooperation all the more? The true potential costs of climate change are just beginning to come into view.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-25/how-we-re-making-climate-change-even-more-expensive
-
Greens Sue over Cement Industry Standards
Sep 26, 2018 | E&E Greeenwire
By Sean Reilly
Two environmental groups are challenging EPA's decision to leave hazardous air pollutant emissions standards for the portland cement industry unchanged following a legally required review.
The lawsuit, brought by the Texas-based group Downwinders at Risk and the Sierra Club, does not spell out the grounds for the challenge, but environmental organizations had previously argued that tighter emission limits were warranted to fully take advantage of developments in pollution control technology.
EPA had published the final rule incorporating the results of the residual risk and technology review this summer (Greenwire, July 30). Under the Clean Air Act, the agency is supposed to use the reviews to consider technological developments that could further curb releases of air toxics, as well as new evidence of the health effects of specific pollutants. The agency had originally adopted the standards, which cover some 95 plants nationwide, in 1999 and amended them several times since.
The suit, filed Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was slow to show up in the federal courts' online record system.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/26/stories/1060099803
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested