Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/10/18
-
Dem Lawmakers Request Interior Chief Rescind Order on 'Open Science'
Oct 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Democratic lawmakers are asking Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to rethink his secretarial order “Promoting Open Science,” fearing it will do just the opposite. -
It's No Secret: Dems Distrust New 'Open Science' Policy
Oct 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Michael Doyle
Congressional Democrats are pushing back against a new Interior Department science policy they fear could put political handcuffs around important research. -
Acting DOJ Environment Head to Stay on After Clark's Confirmation
Oct 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Jeffrey Wood, who has been the acting head of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) environment division since President Donald Trump took office in 2017, is planning to stay on as the principal deputy to DOJ's newly confirmed permanent environment chief Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a spokesperson for the department tells Inside EPA. -
UK Government Publishes No-Deal Brexit CLP, Pic Technical Notices
Oct 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK government has issued guidance on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) and prior informed consent (Pic) regulations in the event that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March without a trade deal. -
100 Million Barrels: The World Hit a Daily Oil and Liquids Record
Oct 12, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Dan Murtaugh
The world is pumping out more oil and other petroleum liquids than ever before. -
How The U.S. Could Transform Global Liquefied Natural Gas
Oct 12, 2018 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
In the years ahead, to me, there will be no more interesting energy market in the world than the booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade. -
Cuadrilla to Begin Shale Gas Fracking After Last Hurdle Dismissed
Oct 12, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Sabina Zawadzki
British energy company Cuadrilla said on Friday it would begin fracking a shale gas well at its Lancashire site on Oct. 13 after a court removed the final hurdle to the first hydraulic fracturing in Britain in seven years. -
EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants
Oct 12, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Olivia Rosane
It seems that every day scientists discover more about the dangers of air pollution. -
Web Page for EPA Soot Advisory Group Vanishes
Oct 12, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
An EPA web page for a scientific committee that advises the agency on soot regulations has disappeared following a New York Times report that the agency planned to disband the group. -
EPA Publishes Methane Rule Redo
Oct 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA's proposed amendments to its methane rule on the oil and gas industry will appear in Monday's edition of the Federal Register. -
A Carbon Tax is a Good Idea — So Long as it Doesn't Come with Industry Handouts
Oct 12, 2018 | Los Angeles Times - Opinion
Exxon Mobil made a bit of a splash Tuesday when it announced a $1-million, two-year donation to the Republican-led Americans for Carbon Dividends, an organization pushing for a national tax to help curtail emissions of atmosphere-warming carbon. -
Advisers Say They're Being Sidelined on Kids' Health
Oct 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA advisers accused the agency of neglecting experts and failing to properly protect children this week as top officials rushed to affirm their dedication to kids' health.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Dem Lawmakers Request Interior Chief Rescind Order on 'Open Science'
Oct 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Democratic lawmakers are asking Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to rethink his secretarial order “Promoting Open Science,” fearing it will do just the opposite.
Four House Democrats, led by Rep. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to Zinke on Thursday urging him to rescind the Sept. 28 order that they worry will lead to gagging scientists.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We have little trust in the Department’s current leadership to faithfully adhere to principles of scientific integrity,” the lawmakers wrote. “Political decision-makers should never be given as much unilateral authority over scientific data as the Promoting Open Science order would.”
The order, issued by Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, mandates that officials only use scientific studies or findings whose underlying data are publicly available and reproducible, with few exceptions. The approach is similar to a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that would require agency regulations to be based off transparent scientific data.
Critics of the EPA rule call it the “secret science” rule and argue that it would exclude consideration of a number of important scientific studies whose evidence can’t be made fully public due to patient privacy concerns.
The lawmakers raised that concern in their letter to Zinke.
“Both policies threaten the suppression of scientific information not aligned with this administration’s agenda under the auspices of improving science based decision making,” the Democrats wrote.
The secretarial order is not the first time Interior political officials have made strides to influence the way science is used and spoken about at the department.
In April, a draft report by the National Park Service, which is housed within Interior, was stripped of any references to climate change, including data on how sea level rise would affect public parks. Since President Trumptook office, several Interior websites have been scrubbed of any reference to climate change or carbon.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/411129-dem-lawmakers-ask-interior-chief-to-rescind-order-on-open-science
-
It's No Secret: Dems Distrust New 'Open Science' Policy
Oct 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Michael Doyle
Congressional Democrats are pushing back against a new Interior Department science policy they fear could put political handcuffs around important research.
In a missive whose full measure might be felt after the November elections, four Democratic members of the House Natural Resources Committee have urged Interior to withdraw the potentially far-reaching "Promoting Open Science" order put forth Sept. 28.
"This new order is simply the most recent in a long line of scientific integrity offenses that have occurred at the Department of the Interior under this administration," Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and three colleagues declared in the letter, dated yesterday.
The Interior order states that the department "should utilize and prioritize publicly available, reproducible, peer reviewed science to the extent possible" (E&E News PM, Oct. 1).
All the department's contracts, grants and cooperative agreements will permit the agency to publicly release associated data, analysis, methodology and other related information under the order.
"The department has an obligation to the American people to ensure that decisions are based on the best available science," the order states, adding that it will "ensure that the American people have sufficient information about what their government is doing to assess where it is coming from and correct us when we err."
Skeptics counter that the policy could curtail use of research that requires confidentiality for health or other data (E&E Daily, Oct. 4).
The new Interior "open science" policy appears to be a variation on an EPA proposal aired last April, titled "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" by administration officials and cast as the "secret science" directive by others.
The EPA proposal would block the agency from using specific studies for developing new regulations unless the underlying data "are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation."
On its face, the House Democrats' three-page request that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke "rescind this order" is purely quixotic. Interior officials, of course, have no intention of retracting the policy, for which a formal rulemaking and public comment period will soon take place.
But if Democrats next month gain the 23 additional seats they need to take control of the House in January, the new letter foreshadows some of the oversight and investigative targets of its signatories.
Grijalva is poised to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, if Democrats take over. Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), is in line to lead the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, while Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) would be heir apparent on the Water, Power and Oceans panel. Each could turn a spotlight on a distinct science-related issue.
Their letter, for instance, cites alleged Interior efforts to "censor" a report for the National Park Service on sea-level rise as well as alleged limitations on conference presentations by Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey experts (Greenwire, May 3).
"We have little trust in the department's current leadership to faithfully adhere to the principles of scientific integrity," the House members wrote.
The fourth Democrat signing the letter, Rep. Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts, is retiring.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/12/stories/1060102447
-
Acting DOJ Environment Head to Stay on After Clark's Confirmation
Oct 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Jeffrey Wood, who has been the acting head of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) environment division since President Donald Trump took office in 2017, is planning to stay on as the principal deputy to DOJ's newly confirmed permanent environment chief Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a spokesperson for the department tells Inside EPA.
“Jeff Wood was presidentially-appointed as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General (AAG) and has been serving as Acting AAG since Jan 20, 2017. Upon Jeff Clark’s swearing-in, Jeff Wood will resume under the title of Principal Deputy AAG,” the spokesperson says.
The Senate confirmed Clark by a 52-45 vote on Oct. 11, paving the way for him to step in as head of the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division that represents EPA and other environmental agencies in litigation. Once sworn in, Clark will be responsible for directing DOJ's defenses of EPA's regulations as well as prosecuting the agency's enforcement actions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/acting-doj-environment-head-stay-after-clarks-confirmation
-
UK Government Publishes No-Deal Brexit CLP, Pic Technical Notices
Oct 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK government has issued guidance on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) and prior informed consent (Pic) regulations in the event that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March without a trade deal.
It published advice on REACH at the end of September.
Concerning CLP, the government said it would effectively adopt the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemicals and would base its regime on the existing EU one. Therefore suppliers’ main duties and obligations would remain the same.
Companies operating in the UK would deal with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The government said certain changes would take place:companies importing chemicals into the UK from EU countries would become importers under CLP and need to comply with importer duties and obligations;HSE would act as the British CLP competent authority. Existing harmonised classification and labelling for named substances or groups of substances would continue to have legal effect in the UK. Following withdrawal from the EU, HSE is free to implement new arrangements for mandatory classification and labelling. These would allow new and revised classification and labelling to be proposed and adopted after liaison with the devolved authorities;companies would be required to use new arrangements and IT tools provided by HSE, namely a mandatory classification and labelling list of substances and a notification database. The arrangements will be operational after 29 March if there is no deal; andresponsibility for chemicals being imported into the EU from the UK would rest with whoever is the EU-based importer – the importer may therefore need details of chemicals involved from the UK-based company.Pic implications
In another technical notice, the government said the UK would establish an independent standalone regime for Pic, also known as the Export and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Regulation. This will ensure Britain can continue to meet its international obligations under the Rotterdam Convention.
It would initially be based on the existing EU regime, with amendments to enable functions carried out by the trade bloc to continue. British exporters would continue to notify exports of listed chemicals to HSE. Those exporting or importing listed chemicals (including to or from EU countries) would need to comply with UK Pic requirements.
While much of the existing system would continue to apply, the following differences will apply:UK-based companies would no longer have access to ePIC and must use the HSE system to notify exports of listed chemicals. New procedures for notifying exports will be implemented ahead of exit day for UK businesses to use them for exports after 29 March;the UK Pic Regulation would apply to export of listed chemicals leaving the country, including to EU countries. Companies that currently only move listed chemicals within the single market and do not export them outside would have to notify these to HSE;HSE intends to recognise UK export notifications for 2019 that are already in place, with no requirement to resubmit for that year (export notifications are only valid in any calendar year). Where the first export of the chemical in 2019 falls after 29 March, British companies would need to notify this under the national system;where explicit consent has been given by an importing country to another EU state under EU Pic arrangements, it may be necessary to seek that country’s consent for UK exports after 29 March; andin the information submitted to HSE in the first quarter of each year, exporters and importers must include details of quantities of listed chemicals exported to or imported from EU and other countries.Other technical notices
In its technical notice on the control of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the government said existing obligations and protections set out in the Stockholm Convention and EU regulation would largely remain the same.
Concerning controls on mercury, the UK said it will continue to be party to the Minamata Convention and laws would mostly be aligned with the EU’s.
The government also issued a technical notice on biocidal products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71007/uk-government-publishes-no-deal-brexit-clp-pic-technical-notices
-
100 Million Barrels: The World Hit a Daily Oil and Liquids Record
Oct 12, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Dan Murtaugh
The world is pumping out more oil and other petroleum liquids than ever before.
Global supply rose to 100.3 million barrels a day in the third quarter, the International Energy Agency said Friday in its monthly oil market report. Output, which includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, biofuels and refinery processing gains, was 2.3 million barrels above the same period last year and 1.3 million barrels a day higher than the second quarter.Recommended Video
RELATED: Oil falls most in eight weeks as investors avoid risky assets
The new quarterly output record underscores how growing demand in the developing world requires new sources of supply in the short term, even as increasing sales of new energy vehicles and renewable power generation threaten the long-term growth of fossil fuels. The IEA sees production from outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries rising another 1.7 million barrels a day next year.
The output increase from the second quarter was led by OPEC, which boosted production by 500,000 barrels a day, and the Americas, which saw a rise of 400,000 barrels a day. Biofuel production also increased by 300,000 barrels a day from the previous quarter, according to the report.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/100-Million-Barrels-The-World-Hit-a-Daily-Oil-13301825.php
-
How The U.S. Could Transform Global Liquefied Natural Gas
Oct 12, 2018 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
In the years ahead, to me, there will be no more interesting energy market in the world than the booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade. Starting exports in February 2016, the U.S. will be an increasingly larger player in LNG, an export bonanza that's likely second to the shale production revolution as the most transformative development in the history of the U.S. natural gas market.
Natural gas is the go-to source of energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and backup intermittent wind and solar. Now, I'm not saying any energy source is "bad" (all have their good attributes), but gas will be leaned on most heavily to meet new energy demand. This explains why the major oil companies are now promoting themselves as major gas companies.
By the end of next year, the U.S. will have tripled its LNG export capacity to ~10 Bcf/d, or some 25% of the current global market. We are the emerging LNG supplier, as the U.S. demand markets of electricity, industry, and niche uses like transport will not satisfy our production surge. A domestic surplus of gas makes exports the natural next step, and buyers increasingly covet the shorter and more flexible contracts that we offer. We are inserting liquidity to a longtime overly rigid system that limited new entrants.
In fact, we've already shipped to 30 destinations, and some model that we could eventually export over 20 Bcf/d of LNG within 15 years. That's about as much gas as our Marcellus shale play - the largest gas field in the world - yields in total.
Today, LNG accounts for about 12% of all global gas demand but it's the fastest growing way to trade gas. With 40 today, by 2022 there will be over 50 importing nations. After rising 10% last year, LNG demand is expected to jump another 9% this year, with so much more to come. It's an industry that now requires a $200 billion infusion over the next 12 years.
With a rapidly maturing market, key players are building out their marketing and trading capability. As our own LNG exports take flight, the U.S. Henry Hub (HH) gas price, formulated at the main distribution point in Louisiana that serves as the delivery location for gas futures traded on NYMEX, could become a global benchmark price. HH is the most traded gas futures contract in the global market.
And HH is desirable because the price point is based on the transparent fundamentals of supply and demand, with stable, affordable, and increasingly flexible contracts. This is in stark contrast to other gas sales that are based on the price of oil, a precarious oil-indexation that still accounts for 65% of global LNG. U.S. sellers would love to become a global price setter: "How U.S. LNG may create new pricing fundamentals over the coming 5 years."
With so much U.S. LNG exports coming online, pioneer Cheniere energy says that HH-based contracts could account for 30% of global LNG by 2025. This would be a positive for buyers by breaking the stranglehold of other more risky sellers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/10/12/how-the-u-s-could-transform-global-liquefied-natural-gas/#107586cb2b96
-
Cuadrilla to Begin Shale Gas Fracking After Last Hurdle Dismissed
Oct 12, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Sabina Zawadzki
British energy company Cuadrilla said on Friday it would begin fracking a shale gas well at its Lancashire site on Oct. 13 after a court removed the final hurdle to the first hydraulic fracturing in Britain in seven years.
The privately owned company will spend three months fracking two horizontal wells, which involves injecting sand, water and chemicals to split the tightly packed shale rock and induce gas to flow out.
This will be the first fracking of a horizontal shale gas well since a 2011 attempt by Cuadrilla caused earth tremors, prompting protests, tighter regulations and delays.
The process will be followed by the first flow rate tests from fractured horizontal shale gas wells in Britain to ascertain not only whether the well could commercially produce gas but test how similar the prospect is to the shale plays that have transformed the U.S. gas industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We are delighted to be starting our hydraulic fracturing operations as planned," Cuadrilla's Chief Executive Francis Egan said in a statement.
Flow rate tests will be run after Cuadrilla fracks the two wells and results are expected in the new year. The company said last week it would put sensors in one well as the other is fracked to monitor any seismic activity during the process.
Egan said last week that a result matching an estimate that a single 2.5 km (1.6 mile) well could produce about 5 million cubic feet a day would be a good one.
A local resident wanted the fracking suspended to allow for a judicial review of the local council's safety procedures, but a High Court judge dismissed the case.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/10/12/business/12reuters-britain-cuadrilla-fracking.html
-
EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants
Oct 12, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Olivia Rosane
It seems that every day scientists discover more about the dangers of air pollution. It is well known that it causes heart and lung disease, but studies this year have linked it to dementia and found soot particles in placenta. Most recently, a study published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine found a connection between particulate matter and mouth cancer risk.
But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn't seem to be paying attention. The agency, under the direction of former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, is moving to disband a panel of scientists that advise the agency on setting safe levels of particulate matter pollution, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
An EPA official confirmed to The New York Times that the 20-person Particulate Matter Review Panel, which advises the agency on setting safe levels of the microscopic pollutants, was not listed as continuing to meet next year.
"To me this is part of a pattern," Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Research Director Gretchen Goldman told The New York Times. "We're seeing EPA trying to cut science out of the process."
Goldman cited recent agency decisions such as nixing the senior science advisor position and issuing a proposal that would limit the types of scientific studies the EPA can use to make decisions. In the case of particulate matter, this could have deadly consequences, as Goldman explained in a Twitter thread about the decision.
"The end result here could be a weaker particulate standard, not based on science and not protective of public health. PM is responsible for thousands of premature deaths annually in the US. A weaker standard does not help," she wrote.
In a separate blog post, Goldman explained more of the nuances of the EPA's most recent polluter-friendly move.
The U.S. has succeeded in reducing deadly particulate matter pollution because of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are reviewed every five years with the help of scientific experts. The teams working on those reviews include the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the separate pollution review panels.
Goldman explained why both are essential:These review panels are comprised of experts on the pollutant under review specifically, allowing the agency to benefit from subject matter expertise. For example, CASAC will include folks with air pollution modeling or monitoring expertise and epidemiologists, but the PM review panel might include experts on the toxicology of particulates or an expert on particulate measurement error. This is especially important because CASAC is small (seven people). No matter how expert, it would not be possible for this group to have working expertise of all elements of the relationship between a pollutant and health AND have that knowledge for all six criteria pollutants under CASAC's purview. As a result, EPA decisions on pollution standards can benefit from scientific expertise on all facets of the science on particulates and health.
But in a Wednesday news release, Wheeler announced that he would add five people to CASAC and task that group with revising particulate matter and ozone standards, with no mention of the separate advisory panels.
Goldman speculated that the Trump administration was attempting to fast-track the air quality standards review process in order to set new standards before the end of its time in office. That would be a boon to polluting industries at the expense of America's lungs.
https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-science-panel-air-pollution-2611852549.html
-
Web Page for EPA Soot Advisory Group Vanishes
Oct 12, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
An EPA web page for a scientific committee that advises the agency on soot regulations has disappeared following a New York Times report that the agency planned to disband the group.
The agency declined to comment on the disappearance of the web page for the Particulate Matter Review Panel, saying only that the review of the science around the soot regulation would be conducted by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee.
“Consistent with the Clean Air Act and CASAC’s charter, Acting Administrator Wheeler tasked the seven-member chartered CASAC to serve as the body to review key science assessments for the ongoing review of the particulate matter and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” EPA Spokesman John Konkus said in a statement.
The 20-member subcommittee on particulate matter includes doctors and scientists with expertise on the health impact of particulate matter. The group would typically advise CASAC on whether to alter pollution standards in the five-year reviews required by the Clean Air Act. However, the subcommittee is not mandated by law.
EPA is presently reviewing the soot standards, but the subcommittee, as first reported by the New York Times, will not meet again after December.
Instead that work will fall on the seven-member CASAC, a panel recently revamped by former Administrator Scott Pruitt and acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler with four new members.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Publishes Methane Rule Redo
Oct 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA's proposed amendments to its methane rule on the oil and gas industry will appear in Monday's edition of the Federal Register.
Under the proposal, EPA is considering easing the frequency of monitoring requirements for leaks of the potent greenhouse gas, along with other changes, such as well site pneumatic pump standards and certain certification requirements.
The agency is also proposing steps it says would "clarify and streamline" implementation of the Obama-era rule. EPA first floated the changes last month (Greenwire, Sept. 11).
The public will have until Dec. 17 to comment on the proposal. The agency says it's planning to hold at least one hearing about the rule but did not specify a date. An announcement will appear in a separate Federal Register notice.
EPA said the methane rule redo would lead to a total cost savings to industry between $380 million and $484 million, under two different projections.
Critics argue the Obama administration's action called for cost-effective emissions controls that would have helped to protect public health and address climate change.
The proposal would also lead to the release of 380,000 additional short tons of methane emissions, 100,000 additional short tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 3,800 additional short tons of hazardous air pollutants.
EPA estimated the lost climate benefits of the new rule would be $13.5 million to $54 million between 2019 and 2025. That only accounts for domestic impacts of rising global temperatures, an approach critiqued by scholars for significantly underestimating the risks of climate change (Climatewire, Nov. 20, 2017).
The changes to EPA's methane standards are part of the Trump administration's broader pattern of revisions to Obama-era climate initiatives.
A week after EPA announced its proposed changes, the Bureau of Land Management said it was also reviewing methane controls for oil and gas facilities on public lands. Unlike the EPA rule, the BLM version covers methane leaks from existing sources.
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt canceled an information collection request, initiated under President Obama, to help the agency draft rules that would control methane leaks on existing sources beyond those on public land.
EPA is also proposing less stringent standards for carbon emissions from the power sector, with its proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule, and is aiming to freeze fuel economy targets for cars at 2020 levels through 2026.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/12/stories/1060102439
-
A Carbon Tax is a Good Idea — So Long as it Doesn't Come with Industry Handouts
Oct 12, 2018 | Los Angeles Times - Opinion
Exxon Mobil made a bit of a splash Tuesday when it announced a $1-million, two-year donation to the Republican-led Americans for Carbon Dividends, an organization pushing for a national tax to help curtail emissions of atmosphere-warming carbon. A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy and driving investment toward carbon-free alternatives. It’s a sound approach, one this page endorsed more than a decade ago, and better than the related cap-and-trade plans, which California has used since 2012.
But the plan that Exxon Mobil is throwing its money at — pocket change, really, for a corporation that made nearly $20 billion last year — is less than it seems. Called the Baker-Schultz plan after two of its authors, former Republican secretaries of State James A. Baker III and George P. Schultz, the plan calls for gradually increasing the per-ton carbon tax to reduce the risk of market shock, and for returning the proceeds to consumers on a per-capita basis through the Social Security Administration. Everyone gets the same amount of cash, but those who use less carbon-emitting energy will pay less tax — giving them a powerful incentive to conserve. So far, all good. And a set rate helps companies better anticipate their costs; businesses like stability and predictability.
But there’s always a but, it seems. The Baker-Schultz plan also includes a waiver that would let oil companies and other emitters off the hook for past acts contributing to global warming, preempting the many lawsuits filed against them. And it would undo the Clean Power Plan and other federal regulations covering carbon dioxide emissions. That makes this sound less like a smart plan to reduce carbon than a toxic quid pro quo — “OK, we’ll go for a carbon tax if these lawsuits go away and we get sharper deregulation.” Another plan, pushed by the Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups, would similarly escalate the per-ton tax over time and return the proceeds in a per-capita dividend, without the corporate giveaways. That’s a better option.
A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive.Share quote & link
Whatever approach might ultimately gain traction, it will be a useless gesture unless the tax is sufficiently high to compel changes in producer and consumer behavior. How much is too little? How much is too much? We’re not going to pretend we know — there are experts who can make that calculation. But this is an area in which compromise isn’t much of an option. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change warned, without near-immediate and drastic action to curtail the rise of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mankind faces a dire environmental future. Rising seas, more severe weather patterns — a lesson just reinforced by Hurricane Michael — deep agricultural impacts and worse droughts and flooding.
We’ve known about this problem for decades. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius predicted nearly 120 years ago (building on earlier work by Irish-born scientist John Tyndall) that warmer temperatures would follow increased levels of human-generated atmospheric carbon. Over the subsequent few decades scientists recorded changes in carbon levels, and by the early 1970s there were international calls for research into the phenomenon. The world — particularly the industrialized world — has known this reckoning was coming yet has done little more than wave at it. It’s like a homeowner who ignores the leak in the upstairs bathroom until the house’s structural integrity begins to get compromised. Well, the bones of this building are weakening.Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »
The problem confronting us is that understanding the threat and the available solutions — both technological and behavioral — does nothing for us unless we find a way to overcome the enormous political hurdles posed by self-interested polluters, self-centered consumers and the climate skeptics controlling the levers of government. The science and the already evident effects of global warming haven’t moved the needle on global action enough to stop the needle on the global thermometer.
It might be tempting to sigh and give up, but that would be just as foolish as continuing the disastrous policies that are imperiling the health of the very environment that makes life possible. There’s an adage that “it's an ill bird that fouls its own nest.” If so, we’re some rather sick birds.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-carbon-tax-global-warming-20181012-story.html
-
Advisers Say They're Being Sidelined on Kids' Health
Oct 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA advisers accused the agency of neglecting experts and failing to properly protect children this week as top officials rushed to affirm their dedication to kids' health.
A committee tasked with advising EPA about children's health convened in Washington this week, shortly after the agency unexpectedly placed the head of its Office of Children's Health Protection on leave. EPA has released few details on the decision, saying only that Ruth Etzel, a longtime public health expert who joined EPA in 2015, was put on leave while the agency reviews "allegations" about her leadership of the office.
At the meeting, which was on the books before the uproar over the children's health office began, committee members said yesterday that they've been frustrated by the Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks and inaction on climate change — both of which, they said, would harm kids.
"This should be keeping you up at night," said Maeve Howett, assistant dean for nursing and education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a member of the EPA advisory panel.
Howett slammed EPA's recent decision declining to update national air pollution standards for nitrogen dioxide, saying the move ignored the impact of climate change on kids. While not a greenhouse gas itself, nitrogen dioxide is important to the creation of tropospheric ozone, which is one.
"When you see this aggregate of greenhouse gases and current storms, all of that impacts children's health, the suggestion of just retaining standards is really inadequate when you are talking about children's health protection," she said.
She asked Clint Woods, deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, whether he had read the dire climate change report released by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier this week.
He hadn't. "The president hasn't read it yet either," he replied.
Tom Neltner, another committee member, who is chemicals policy director for Environmental Defense Fund, criticized EPA's plan to streamline its national air quality reviews, noting that a May memo signed by former Administrator Scott Pruitt "never mentions children's health."
Riffing off a phrase Pruitt used frequently, Neltner said, "When I hear this brings us 'back to basics,' I get worried it's going back to a time before we had the Office of Children's Health Protection."
Woods defended the administration's efforts.
"Please don't view that memo as replacing the importance and central role of children's health and potentially susceptible populations," he said.
Committee members also criticized the Trump administration for asking for their input on policies only once in the past two years. That's a decrease from previous administrations, which generally asked for advice twice a year.
In particular, Joel Forman, an associate professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai Hospital, told acting EPA Deputy Administrator Henry Darwin that the committee should have been asked to weigh in on agency plans to revisit Obama-era Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
"That's what we are here to do. If there's really a commitment to children's environmental health, we should be asked," Forman said.
"We are ready and willing to assist you, so feel free to put us to work," added committee Chairwoman Barbara Morrissey, who works for the Washington State Department of Health.
Darwin said he was unaware that the committee can only officially weigh in on proposed rulemakings after being asked by the EPA administrator.'Very much in the dark'
The flurry of criticism that followed Etzel's removal from office last month has put EPA in damage control mode, with agency leaders publicly emphasizing their dedication to the issue (Greenwire, Oct. 11).
Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a memo yesterday "reaffirming" EPA's commitment to kids' health and the office at the center of the firestorm.
"The EPA Office of Children's Health Protection plays an essential leadership role in protecting children through engagement on key children's health issues," the memo says. "OCHP will continue to work with internal and external stakeholders in risk communications and training, as well as scientific and policy analyses."
The new acting leader of that office, Michael Firestone, told the advisory committee he asked Wheeler to issue the memo after an event celebrating Children's Health Day last week where reporters asked questions about Etzel's status. The children's health office's staff drafted a memo, and "that was pretty much what the administrator signed," Firestone said. He added that he knew the document might not immediately assuage concerns.
"Of course, there's just having the memo there and then you will all watch the actions at EPA," he said.
Advisory committee members themselves did not mention Etzel at the meeting, but other children's health experts brought up her absence during a public comment period.
Jerome Paulson, a pediatrics and environment and occupational health professor at George Washington University, said the agency needed to explain its decision.
"It has been over two weeks, and we are all left very much in the dark," Paulson said. "I think that the statement in the memo put out today is very nice, but even as Dr. Firestone mentions, we will have to see whether actions accompany the words."
Elizabeth Brandt of the advocacy group Moms Clean Air Force agreed, saying she was particularly concerned that Etzel's status would result in the EPA children's health office having less input in regulatory decisions like the mercury standards.
"The timing is very suspicious to us," she said. "It's nice that we got a memo to say that children's health is important, but to me, as a mom, that's like my 5-year-old saying she's going to clean her room. I want to see it happen."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/12/stories/1060102443
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested