Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/21/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) WOTUS What's Next
Dec 12, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Kelsey Tambarrino
...American Chemistry Council's Andrew Fasoli was first to correctly identify Colorado as the state that has the most land above an altitude of 10,000 feet... -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry: TSCA 'High-Priority' Designation Must Not Carry Risk Presumption
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups throughout the supply chain have called on the US EPA to provide routine communication to the public that a high-priority designation under TSCA does not equate to a finding on that substance’s risk. -
US EPA Round-up
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has reopened the comment period for 28 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs). -
US CIR Issues Final Assessments on Four Substances, Delays Parabens Decision
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) expert panel has declared four chemical substances used in cosmetics safe with some qualifications, at its recent quarterly meeting. -
Legislature OKs Bill to Limit Tougher Regulations
Dec 12, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By David Eggert
Democratic Michigan Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer and other future governors would have a tougher time adopting stricter environmental and other state regulations under a Republican-backed bill sent to Gov. Rick Snyder (R) yesterday. -
EU Delays Non-Toxic Strategy Until New Commission Takes Helm
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The EU's non-toxic environment strategy, due by the end of the year, will be postponed until the new European Commission takes office in 2019, the EU executive has said. -
Survey Finds REACH and Brexit to Dominate in 2019
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EU REACH SVHC and authorisation obligations will be the top regulatory drivers in 2019, according to 60% of companies that have already responded to the Chemical Watch annual Chemicals Management and Control survey. REACH registration... -
Funding Negotiations Could Delay Echa’s SVHC Database Information Requirements Still to Be Defined
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Negotiations on how Echa's proposed substances in articles database will be funded could risk a delay in its development and implementation. -
Mobile Phone Casing Could Indicate Chemical Exposure, Study Suggests
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Mobile phone casings could be a good indicator of general chemical exposure, according to a recently published Canadian study. -
When It Comes to Natural Gas, Us ‘Open for Business’
Dec 12, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jie Jenny Zou
Last November, diplomats from Brazil to Japan joined oil and gas executives at the headquarters of Washington’s largest lobbying group to christen a new partnership. -
U.S. Probe Cites 'Ineffective' Safeguard in Husky Oil Refinery Blast
Dec 12, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Erwin Seba
An "ineffective" safeguard failed to prevent an explosive mixing of air and fuel at a Husky Energy refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, leading to a blast and fire in the plant's gasoline-producing unit in April, a U.S. industrial safety group said on Wednesday. -
Canadian Government Declares Oil Trains Safe and Plans to Get Into the Oil Train Business
Dec 12, 2018 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
As Canadian oil-by-rail numbers reach record new volumes (and expected to rise), Canada's Transportation Safety Board (TSB) announced recently that it would no longer list shipping the hazardous material by rail as a top safety concern. -
The U.S. Is Still in the Paris Climate Deal. Here’s How Leaving Would Actually Play out -- in 2020
Dec 12, 2018 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
For those who remember President Trump’s announcement of America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement last summer, it may be surprising that the country is still participating in U.N. climate talks in Katowice, Poland, right now. -
States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change. Let’s Get to Work.
Dec 11, 2018 | Washington Post
By Larry Hogan and Ralph Northam
The Trump administration’s pursuit of policies to reverse or supplant environmental laws that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions has made combating climate change difficult. But where the federal government refuses to lead, state governments will. -
Around the World, Climate Goals Clash With Reality
Dec 12, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Emre Peker
As negotiators at United Nations climate talks in Poland this week hammer out a rulebook to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, some of the biggest boosters of the 2015 Paris accord are undermining efforts back home to curb global warming. -
Investors with $32 Trillion at Stake Sound the Alarm on Climate Change
Dec 12, 2018 | CNN (In Real Clear Energy)
By Ivana Kottasová
Investors managing assets worth $32 trillion have called on governments and businesses to step up efforts to tackle climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) WOTUS What's Next
Dec 12, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Kelsey Tambarrino
With help Anthony Adragna, Darius Dixon and Zack Colman
Editor's Note: This edition of Morning Energy is published weekdays at 10 a.m. POLITICO Pro Energy subscribers hold exclusive early access to the newsletter each morning at 6 a.m. To learn more about POLITICO Pro's comprehensive policy intelligence coverage, policy tools and services, click here.
WOTUS WHAT'S NEXT: After months of waiting for the Trump administration's rewrite of the Waters of the U.S. regulation, EPA delivered its proposal on Tuesday — but the questions it left unanswered will churn in policy circles for years. Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler delivered the proposed rule in front of a room full of grateful Republican lawmakers though it will be the lawyers and judges who ultimately have the final word on the regulation that would be the biggest rollback of Clean Water Act protections since shortly after the law took effect.
Under the plan, federal pollution safeguards for tens of thousands of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands would be rolled back. And despite Wheeler's promise that every landowner could easily know whether a waterway falls under the federal purview, water experts say they are scratching their heads about the definitions, as Pro's Annie Snider breaks down here. We'll likely be digging into the lengthy proposal for days and weeks to come — but here are some key takeaways:
Look to the courts. The new proposal will get 60 days of public comment before it can be finalized. And once it is, it will face numerous lawsuits. "Make no mistake: we will make use of the full strength of our nation's bedrock environmental laws to protect families and communities from dangerous attacks like this. We will hold this administration accountable in court as we have from the start," said Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers didn't offer any estimates about the amount wetlands or the number of streams that would lose Clean Water Act protections, an omission that could open up a legal vulnerability, Annie reports, since the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to clearly lay out the environmental impact of their actions. While NEPA has been interpreted not to apply to EPA, it does apply to the Army Corps.
House Democrats are champing at the bit to look into WOTUS in the next Congress. Rep. Peter DeFazio, who's expected to chair the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told reporters he planned on holding "extensive oversight hearings and exposing how this would harm the majority of the people and interests in this country to favor a few polluting entities and a few rapacious developers."
State lawmakers will be called on to pick up the mantle. The Trump administration argues the new definition would return power to state governments, but environmentalists say a narrower federal regulation will leave downstream states to bear the brunt of the harm — especially since most states have law prohibiting them from enacting stricter rules than the federal government.
Docs: Read the proposed version and economic analysis and agency fact sheets.
IT'S WEDNESDAY! I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. American Chemistry Council's Andrew Fasoli was first to correctly identify Colorado as the state that has the most land above an altitude of 10,000 feet. For today: Who started the tradition of playing "Hail to the Chief" whenever a president appears at a state function? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/12/12/wotus-whats-next-452675
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry: TSCA 'High-Priority' Designation Must Not Carry Risk Presumption
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups throughout the supply chain have called on the US EPA to provide routine communication to the public that a high-priority designation under TSCA does not equate to a finding on that substance’s risk.
The comments come in response to the EPA’s ‘working approach’ for prioritising substances for risk evaluation, which lays out both a short- and long-term plan.
And while many of the comments focused on the agency’s plans to ‘bin’ substances on the TSCA inventory, others flagged up concerns around public perception of the prioritisation process.
The US Chamber of Commerce, for example, called on the EPA to "consistently communicate that the agency’s selection of candidate chemicals for possible review are not determinations of risk or safety."
And the Downstream Users Coalition – representing trade groups covering paper, plastic, toys, tyres and automotive equipment – agreed that its member companies and the public will benefit from such messages.
In the light of this, the coalition called for "proactive procedures to help to reduce concerns from consumers and the potential for adverse commercial effects related to premature product deselection or substitution decisions."
It is these downstream companies, not the chemical manufacturers, that may be "required to reformulate their products if risk is determined or may be contacted by the consumer with questions and concerns," it said. "It is their businesses and reputations on the line."
The coalition further encouraged the EPA to incorporate "as many uses as possible" in its evaluations. These, it said, would benefit from the risk evaluation’s preemptive effect at the state level. But it also called for the agency to issue early safe use decisions when it identifies certain conditions of use that pose a "remote likelihood" of unreasonable risk.
'Tremendous amount of energy in the system'
Speaking earlier this autumn at Chemical Watch’s US regulatory summit, Jeff Morris, the EPA’s director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), indicated that the agency is aware of the disturbance that prioritisation decisions can cause.
Mr Morris said that his experiences developing the TSCA workplan have underscored that whenever the agency identifies a substance, sector, or category of substances as being of interest, it "generates a tremendous amount of energy in the system".
"Making sure that we’re able to discharge the chemical prioritisation requirements in TSCA, while avoiding any unintended consequences in terms of market disruption or other things is a very, very challenging" task for the agency to handle, he added.
As we move to our first prioritisation exercise, "making sure that we’re being transparent, open and engaged" is a really important foundational step, he said. Getting the prioritisation process right, he added, is "critical".
The American Chemistry Council commended the agency in its comments for including a statement in the prioritisation working approach reflecting that a prioritisation decision does not indicate a safety finding.
And it called on the agency to reiterate this "immediately upon initiating the process of identifying candidate chemicals for prioritisation, and again upon proposing and finally designating priorities."
"How EPA communicates the rationale underlying its actions is critical to increasing public confidence in the agency’s actions," said the ACC. "EPA should not lose sight of the importance of clear and accurate communication regarding its prioritisation process and decisions under TSCA."
https://chemicalwatch.com/72760/industry-tsca-high-priority-designation-must-not-carry-risk-presumption
-
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EPA reopens comment period for Snurs
The US EPA has reopened the comment period for 28 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs).
The rules were originally issued under both a direct final rule and a proposed rule on 17 September. The EPA withdrew the former, however, having received significant adverse comments from several industry, animal rights and environmental organisations.
A law firm filed a request to reopen the comment period in order to provide detailed information on the physical-chemical properties of a substance, subject to a proposed Snur: carboxylic acids, C6-18 and C5-15-di-, polymers with diethyleneglycol, glycerol, sorbitol and terephthalic acid.
Comments on the proposed rule will now be accepted until 9 January.
BOSC January meeting
The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Sustainability subcommittee is holding a meeting on 14-16 January at the EPA’s Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.
The agenda will include an update on the agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) chemical safety for sustainability and human health risk assessment research programmes, as well as a review of draft strategic research action plans and charge questions.
Requests to provide oral testimony at the meeting will be accepted up to one business day before.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72732/us-epa-round-up
-
US CIR Issues Final Assessments on Four Substances, Delays Parabens Decision
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) expert panel has declared four chemical substances used in cosmetics safe with some qualifications, at its recent quarterly meeting.
The CIR – an industry-backed organisation that reviews the safety of cosmetic ingredients in the US via quarterly panels of medical and scientific experts – determined in December that methylxanthines (three ingredients) are safe as used, whereas hydroxyethyl urea and acrylates copolymer (126 ingredients) were both found so with qualifications.
Another chemical substance – vinylpyrrolidone polymers, covering 30 ingredients – garnered a split decision, with 27 types considered safe, and three determined to have insufficient information. For these, residual monomer concentration were needed "for at least a representative ingredient from this subgroup", according to final notes from the CIR after the meeting.
Tentative safety assessments were also issued for seven substances. These are likely be finalised at the next meeting on 8-9 April 2019. They are:
· salicylic acid & salicylates (19 ingredients) – safe with qualifications;
· alkyl lactyl lactate salts (10 ingredients) – safe with qualifications;
· fatty acids & fatty acid salts (102 ingredients) – safe with qualifications;
· brown algae (82 ingredients) – split conclusion (6 safe; 76 insufficient);
· basic red 76 – safe as used;
· benzyl salicylate – safe with qualifications; and
· alkoxylated fatty amides (40 ingredients) – safe with qualifications.
CIR has seen some controversy over perceived conflicts of interest in the last year because it is funded by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) – the trade association representing the majority of US cosmetic manufacturers. The CIR, however, has defended their independence and described the claims as "baseless".
Final call on parabens delayed
A final assessment on parabens was delayed until the April 2019 meeting, following NGO pressure. CIR published a draft of its amended safety assessment for its use in cosmetics in August, which suggested it was safe.
Ahead of CIR’s September meeting, the NGO Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) submitted comments calling for a reassessment.
The comments raised concerns with the information included, such as the calculation of the margin of safety. Others related to:
· parabens in vaginally applied cosmetics as a hazard for sperm motility;
· its bioaccumulation; and
· personal care products as a significant contributor to overall exposure.
In a 9 November response to WVE, the CIR agreed to better justify the conclusions of their initial assessment. The body also agreed to recalculate the margin of safety using "more conservative product usage amounts and absorption rates."
to come to the next Commission "with some ideas and ambitious objectives" on a new programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72759/us-cir-issues-final-assessments-on-four-substances-delays-parabens-decision
-
Legislature OKs Bill to Limit Tougher Regulations
Dec 12, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By David Eggert
Democratic Michigan Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer and other future governors would have a tougher time adopting stricter environmental and other state regulations under a Republican-backed bill sent to Gov. Rick Snyder (R) yesterday.
He vetoed similar legislation in 2011, but this measure — unlike that one — includes an exception that would let regulators still impose rules tougher than federal standards if there is a "clear and convincing" need.
The bill cleared the GOP-controlled House on a narrow 57-51 vote in the lame-duck session, with Democrats and some Republicans in opposition.
Democrats said Michigan should be free to impose more stringent water and air pollution regulations than the federal government. They pointed to the need to strengthen the limit for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — industrial compounds that have been found in high levels in communities across the state.
"We would be unable to do what we know is right for Michigan and would be at the mercy of an often slow and unresponsive federal government," said Rep. Winnie Brinks of Grand Rapids. She said the legislation would tie the hands of Whitmer, "stopping her from taking action to do what is right for Michigan families and continuing the current lame-duck playbook of stripping authority away from duly elected Democrats and subverting the will of the people."
Republicans countered that the bill would stabilize the regulatory environment, particularly for businesses, and allow department directors to put stricter regulations in place as long as they justify them.
"Right now we have unelected bureaucrats that place rules that have the power of law that circumvent elected officials like myself and the rest of my colleagues," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Triston Cole of Mancelona. "This offers some transparency into why they're making these rules, which would take us introducing legislation to undo."
He said efforts to more tightly regulate PFAS would not be limited by the legislation because it would only apply in situations where the federal government has a standard, and there is not one for the contaminants that were used in products like firefighting foams and carpets.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/12/stories/1060109441
-
EU Delays Non-Toxic Strategy Until New Commission Takes Helm
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The EU's non-toxic environment strategy, due by the end of the year, will be postponed until the new European Commission takes office in 2019, the EU executive has said.
Under the 7th Environment Action Programme, which steers the bloc's policies until 2020, the Commission is legally obliged to release its strategy this year on how it will eliminate toxic substances from the environment.
However, with the EU executive currently racing to finalise the regulatory fitness check of non-REACH chemicals legislation, which has suffered several rounds of delays, it has decided to hand over the non-toxic strategy work to the next Commission.
The current Commission's term of office runs until 31 October 2019, but it is not certain when the next Commission will take over because this depends on the Parliament's and Council's approval of its make up.
EU Parliament elections are expected to be held from 23-26 May. The Parliament will then nominate the next Commission president and commissioners.
A spokesperson for the Commission said draft reports on the fitness check would be ready by the end of the year, with "publication most probably sometime in 2019".
This has repercussions for the non-toxic strategy, one of the building blocks of the review.
The EU executive will consider "whether and how to take stock" of:
· the fitness check;
· the second REACH Review published in March; and
· a communication in January on the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation.
Together they provide a "comprehensive assessment" of the situation in the chemicals area, the spokesperson said. This will prepare the ground for the next Commission and allow the future decision makers to choose the best way forward.
In October last year, the Commission published seven sub-studies that will form the basis of its non-toxic strategy.
A final report on the main study, published earlier, highlighted the variety and complexity of risks posed by millions of articles used every day and the inadequacy of current EU law.
The report concluded that new approaches to prevent toxic substances from entering articles, and increased supply chain transparency, are key to achieving a non-toxic environment.
Plans for 8EAP
With the EU's 7EAP approaching its end, member state authorities and NGOs are calling for an 8th environmental plan.
They criticised the Commission’s "unsatisfactory" progress in implementing chemicals policies under the current programme.
In comments submitted to the public consultation on 7EAP, they said the EU has been "much too slow" in actioning policies to control endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), nanomaterials and substances in articles.
A new plan should "continue steering the challenging processes beyond 2020", they said.
The Commission released a working document on 8EAP in June. And DG Grow Director General Daniel Calleja Crespo, speaking at a conference in Brussels on 5 December, invited stakeholders to come to the next Commission "with some ideas and ambitious objectives" on a new programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72774/eu-delays-non-toxic-strategy-until-new-commission-takes-helm
-
Survey Finds REACH and Brexit to Dominate in 2019
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EU REACH SVHC and authorisation obligations will be the top regulatory drivers in 2019, according to 60% of companies that have already responded to the Chemical Watch annual Chemicals Management and Control survey. REACH registration, dossier updates and evaluation are also cited by over 55% of respondents.
With uncertainty persisting over the shape that Brexit will take, 46% of companies saw this as a top driver for regulatory activities in 2019.
So far, over 200 respondents have used the survey to share the challenges they face, opportunities they see and the big issues they expect to be dealing with in the future.
If you haven’t done so already, please take the survey so our picture can be as accurate as possible. As well as the usual questions on industry drivers, salary and careers, and the service providers market, this year’s survey includes questions designed to build an industry benchmark of chemicals compliance.
The survey will be open until the end of January, and final results published in the 2019 Service Providers Guide.
Multiple chemicals management pressures
Demonstrating the huge range of issues the community is grappling with, respondents have already listed over 25 distinct topics as emerging priorities. Keeping up with new and evolving chemical regulations globally is the most frequently mentioned, but after that a diverse set of drivers are seen as critical.
To obtain a view of chemicals compliance and management within companies, the survey includes a series of questions examining how these functions are organised and integrated within the business, as well as the value placed on them.
We are encouraging companies to participate as the results will be aggregated to form a benchmark. This will help them to identify strengths and weaknesses while they work to optimise chemicals management. This work is particularly important because regulatory compliance departments have historically struggled to be recognised for the benefits they bring to the business.
Our annual Chemicals Management and Control survey provides a comprehensive analysis of the priorities and challenges for members of the Chemical Watch community.
The Chemicals Management and Control survey is still open. Have your say and contribute to the findings here.
The final results will be published in next year’s Service Providers Guide, due for release in April. In the meantime, you can read the 2018 edition.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72730/survey-finds-reach-and-brexit-to-dominate-in-2019
-
Funding Negotiations Could Delay Echa’s SVHC Database Information Requirements Still to Be Defined
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Negotiations on how Echa's proposed substances in articles database will be funded could risk a delay in its development and implementation.
The agency and the European Commission are currently in talks on how resources to support and maintain the database will be provided.
But in a paper presented to November's Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) meeting, Echa says the next stages of the project will need an investment for dedicated resources, which are not yet available.
"This delay may put at risk implementation of the database by the timelines foreseen in the Directive," the paper says.
The database proposal came out of the revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that entered into force in July. The agency is required to complete its task by 5 January 2020, eighteen months after the Directive takes effect.
The database would contain information provided by companies producing, importing or supplying articles that contain candidate list substances. They will need to submit this for articles placed on the market from 5 January 2021.
In response to a query from Chemical Watch, Echa said: "At this time, we cannot provide more details on whether this may impact the possibilities for reaching the deadline".
Information requirements
Echa confirmed in October that information requirements for the database will not exceed those demanded under Article 33 of REACH.
This requires companies to provide the recipient of their product or article "sufficient information, available to the supplier, to allow safe use including, as a minimum, the name of that substance". It applies to a product containing any SVHC above a concentration of 0.1%.
However, the agency told Chemical Watch that this wording is "very generic when it comes to the information which should be provided by suppliers".
It said that to satisfy the new provisions under the WFD database, it is "necessary to go one step further in defining what information should be submitted to Echa, for the purpose of proper identification of the article and availability of any necessary safe-use instructions".
The agency added it will need to refine the requirements so that information is accessible to the waste treatment operators and consumers "as foreseen in the WFD".
At Chemical Watch's electronics conference in San Francisco last month, Rémi Lefèvre, scientific officer for Echa's risk assessment unit, said that data such as unique identifiers and concentration ranges could not yet be ruled out until the work on this was concluded.
In this month’s Global Business Briefing, Martin Führ, a professor at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences and his research group Sofia, writes about the development of the database and industry’s concerns.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72753/funding-negotiations-could-delay-echas-svhc-database
-
Mobile Phone Casing Could Indicate Chemical Exposure, Study Suggests
Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Mobile phone casings could be a good indicator of general chemical exposure, according to a recently published Canadian study.
After analysing samples collected from the surfaces of electronic devices in the homes of 51 women in Toronto and Ottawa, the study team found a number of chemicals taken from mobile phone surfaces matched those found on their owner's hands.
It is not yet clear whether the chemicals come from the mobiles themselves, or they indicate total exposure from other sources, write the researchers in the journal Environment International.
Led by Miriam Diamond at the University of Toronto, the researchers used wipes to pick up the chemicals from the devices and the hands. They also analysed air, dust and urine samples for organophosphate ester (OPE) flame retardants and plasticisers.
Five OPEs were detected in more than 80% of the samples, with tris(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (TBOEP) the most abundant on mobile phones, followed by triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) and tris(2-chloroisopropyl)phosphate (TCPP).
Mobile phone wipes had the highest OPE levels, followed by home phones and tablets, with the lowest levels from desk-top computers, televisions and stereos.
Phone in hand
The study found that OPEs in hand wipes most frequently and strongly correlated with levels on handheld electronic devices, rather than those in dust or air. In particular, six OPEs found in hand wipes "strongly correlated" with those in mobile phone wipes.
The team, which included scientists from Health Canada, believes that it is "highly unlikely" that so many flame retardants would be added to electronic devices or that so many OPEs would be used as plasticisers.
"Mobile phones contain only very small amounts of flame retardants and most of them are used in interior parts of the phone and are unlikely to come in contact with the skin," confirmed the Phosphorus, Inorganic and Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association (Pinfa), a Cefic sector group. "There is also no requirement by law or technical standard to add flame retardants to the phone's casing," it added.
Pinfa points out that some OPEs mentioned in the research are not commonly used as flame retardants in handheld mobile devices but are more likely to be found in furniture and construction materials.
The Canadian team suggests that chemicals in indoor air could perhaps form a film on electronic surfaces, aided by skin oils. The mobiles could also accumulate chemicals transferred from hands after touching other flame retardant-containing products.
Exposure indicators
The researchers suggest that mobile phone wipes could provide an integrated indicator of exposure to flame retardants and plasticisers, accumulated from multiple sources.
"Our study opens up many questions," said Professor Diamond. "Are these devices holding up a mirror to the chemicals to which we are exposed, or are our handheld devices adding to our exposures?"
Pinfa has compiled a list of flame retardants used by its members in electronic devices. "Electric and electronic appliances, such as laptops and mobile phones, are among the largest users of flame retardants globally," it added.
"The use of flame retardants in these appliances is crucial for consumer safety because plastics materials coming in contact with electric voltages and currents face an increased risk of fire."
https://chemicalwatch.com/72750/mobile-phone-casing-could-indicate-chemical-exposure-study-suggests
-
When It Comes to Natural Gas, Us ‘Open for Business’
Dec 12, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jie Jenny Zou
Last November, diplomats from Brazil to Japan joined oil and gas executives at the headquarters of Washington’s largest lobbying group to christen a new partnership.
Inside the marble walls of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a crowd of 200 welcomed the U.S. Gas Infrastructure Exports Initiative — a coalition of 25 companies, nine trade groups, five law firms, at least five federal agencies and a nonprofit think tank. Its mission: to drive sales of American natural gas by pumping dollars into pipelines and gas-processing facilities overseas.
The initiative, coordinated in part by a natural gas lobbyist, is the latest federal effort to market the fuel as a “clean” energy source amid surging U.S. drilling and exports. American gas production is projected to account for almost 40 percent of the world’s gas growth through 2040, according to the International Energy Agency. Countries like China are buying up tank loads of LNG — natural gas that has been supercooled to liquefy it — to generate power, heat buildings and fuel trucks.
“When it comes to exporting LNG, the United States is open for business,” Mark Menezes, undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, assured the audience at the launch of the gas initiative. Menezes, a former utility industry lobbyist, added that exporting U.S. liquified natural gas is “clearly in our economic interest.”
Since its launch a year ago, the initiative has funded 13 gas projects in 20-plus countries and generated more than $1.5 billion in exports, according to the U.S. Trade Development Agency, which heads the program. USTDA is a tiny federal office that helps companies secure funding for projects in developing countries like India and Mozambique as a way to promote U.S. goods and services. In letters to members of Congress, USTDA described the gas initiative as a way “to ensure that emerging markets have the gas infrastructure necessary to be long-term off-takers of U.S. LNG exports.”
This comes as the science underpinning the fuel’s status as a climate-friendly alternative to coal has eroded. Natural gas is made up primarily of methane, a potent greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Recent research shows methane leaks at oil and gas sites were 60 percent higher than current federal estimates. Even if methane weren’t an issue, gas still emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide when burned — roughly 50 percent less than coal and about 25 percent less than gasoline or diesel. Those reductions wouldn’t be enough to head off catastrophic climate change at a time when experts at the United Nations say the Earth is heating up faster than ever.
Despite these downsides, investment in gas infrastructure has only accelerated. The country’s handful of LNG export terminals all sent out their first shipments within the last three years, and there are plans for at least a dozen more terminals. Record-high U.S. gas production is also spawning thousands of miles of pipelines and hundreds of gas-fired power plants nationwide, despite urgent recommendations from scientists for a more rapid and extensive transition to zero-emissions sources of energy, such as solar and wind. The latest from the government’s National Climate Assessment showed global-warming impacts are already being felt, from worsening blazes such as the November wildfire that tore through Northern California — the deadliest in state history — to intensifying storms like Hurricane Florence, which pummeled the Carolinas with record rainfall in September.
By specifically promoting LNG exports, the U.S. is helping guarantee the success of a handful of companies — using taxpayer dollars to boost a nascent industry it also regulates. Arguably, no company has benefited more from the government’s LNG push than Houston-based Cheniere, which in 2016 became the first U.S. company to export the commodity from a major terminal and is among the gas initiative’s 25 corporate partners. Cheniere was the lone U.S. company exporting LNG to burgeoning markets like Asia until earlier this year.
Cheniere has become one of the hottest energy stocks and a company in close orbit to the White House. Carl Icahn, a major Cheniere investor, is a friend of President Donald Trump’s who served briefly as his special adviser on deregulation before resigning amid news coverage alleging conflicts of interest related to his other energy holdings. (Icahn wrote in his resignation note that he left to avoid “partisan bickering.”) The company is expanding both of its sites on the Gulf Coast.
Programs like the gas initiative are contributing to an infrastructure build-out that environmentalists and researchers say will lock the globe into using another fossil fuel for decades.
“The world as a whole is going to need to reduce its use of all fossil fuels, gas included, in order to achieve the kinds of emission reductions we need,” said Nathan Matthews, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club. “When we’re building infrastructure now, it’s got to be the infrastructure that’s gonna get us to zero emissions.”
The Sierra Club was among several green groups that initially championed gas as a pathway to renewables but quickly soured on the fuel amid mounting concerns over methane and drilling. In 2012, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune wrote, “It’s time to stop thinking of natural gas as a ‘kinder, gentler’ energy source,” as he launched Sierra’s “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign.
The USTDA declined to make Acting Director Thomas R. Hardy available for an interview. In an emailed statement, Hardy defended the gas initiative as a “common-sense approach” to help countries grow “while reducing the negative health and environmental impacts” associated with fuels like coal and diesel.
“USTDA is proud of its long-term commitment to supporting energy projects around the world, which are introducing lower carbon-intense energy solutions in emerging markets,” he wrote.
The idea for the gas initiative dates back to the Obama administration, when USTDA officials began planning a public-private partnership centered on gas exports. That effort, which was part of an overall strategy by Obama officials to promote LNG as a climate-friendly fuel, stalled but was ultimately launched by the current administration. The agency had been targeted for elimination by Trump but survived, becoming a fervent champion of his “energy dominance” agenda.
Though tasked with promoting a variety of exports, USTDA has long focused on energy. Projects in that sector accounted for 46 percent of its activities last year. Transportation, in second place, made up 20 percent of funding. In addition to launching the gas initiative, USTDA also restarted its efforts in the coal sector, an industry Trump promised to revive during his presidential campaign.
USTDA’s budget looks minuscule compared to the likes of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Export-Import Bank and the International Trade Administration — federal agencies that help finance private businesses and also signed on to the gas initiative. The typical USTDA grant is $500,000; rarely do they exceed $1 million. But small awards don’t mean small returns. The agency claims every dollar it invested in 2017 generated $95 in exports. Companies have used USTDA grants to fund studies, training and contracts for technical expertise.
Not every LNG supporter is a fan. The Heritage Foundation, a free-market group that approves of LNG exports, considers USTDA a form of corporate welfare and suggested in its budget recommendation last year that the agency be eliminated. Nick Loris, a Heritage fellow, said USTDA’s gas efforts “just belong in the private sector, and if they’re good economic ideas, the private sector will find ways to make the proper investments.”
USTDA has received more than 40 gas-related proposals this year, including a facility to help supply LNG to Morocco, Spain and Portugal, a gas-fired power plant in Egypt, gas terminals in Honduras and Romania, and a floating gas processing unit on China’s east coast. The USTDA declined to provide any information on the projects it has chosen to fund.
One of the agencies working on the gas initiative is the Energy Department. Energy Secretary Rick Perry was on hand to celebrate Poland’s 24-year gas contract with Cheniere last month in Warsaw as part of an LNG-focused tour of Eastern Europe. Perry, who has become an unofficial cheerleader for the natural gas industry, met with Cheniere’s CEO during his first month on the job in 2017. He has also traveled to India and Saudi Arabia, two nations that have purchased gas from Cheniere, to promote LNG. A Cheniere spokesperson declined to comment. The Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment.
The USTDA initiative offers low stakes and potentially high rewards for partners. An agency document advised prospective participants that there were “no required meetings, no funding requirements, or any other heavy lifting. All you have to do is say you want to be part of the group, and send us your logo for our marketing materials.”
Gas initiative members include the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group that has lobbied extensively for LNG exports, fought against drilling oversight and funded research and marketing efforts disputing climate change. Law firm K&L Gates, which has a dedicated LNG practice, is also taking part in the initiative. API declined to comment on its role in the initiative and K&L did not respond to requests for comment.
Among the first to join the gas initiative was LNG Allies, a trade group that strives to “maximize LNG exports” and has ties to both API and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The group is operated by Franklin-Hamilton Inc., a private firm wholly owned by public relations consultant Fred Hutchison, who is also the head of LNG Allies. At least through early last year, the embassies of Lithuania, Croatia and the Czech Republic were “informal advisors” to LNG Allies, according to Franklin-Hamilton’s filings with the U.S. Department of Justice. All three countries have raised concerns about Russia’s dominance of the European gas market.
Documents released to the Center for Public Integrity in a records request showed Hutchison acted on USTDA’s behalf to help get the initiative running. In an email to Cheniere, Hutchison wrote, “The USTDA Team I’ve been working with would like to confirm some ‘early partners’ and very much want to include Cheniere on that ‘short List.’” In an email to USTDA, he wrote, “I am pleased to let you know that the K&L Gates law firm has agreed to be listed as a partner with USTDA (and LNG Allies) on the U.S. Gas Infrastructure Exports Initiative!”
Agency officials copied Hutchison on dozens of coordination emails, many about the launch event. Responding to questions from the Center for Public Integrity, an LNG Allies representative confirmed Hutchison’s involvement but did not elaborate on his current role with the gas initiative. “LNG exports provide hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs and trillions in domestic economic benefits,” the group wrote in its email reply.
Hutchison was among several industry figures at last year’s launch, where climate change was openly discussed ? not as a Chinese “hoax” or questionable science, but as a sales pitch. The fuel’s low-carbon footprint was cited by panelists as a key reason to buy.
In its email to the Center for Public Integrity, LNG Allies called the research on methane emissions “far from settled.” Asked about the downsides of natural gas, the group had a one-word answer: “None.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/when-it-comes-to-natural-gas-us-open-for-business/2018/12/12/b094acc0-fe37-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.78787fa84005
-
U.S. Probe Cites 'Ineffective' Safeguard in Husky Oil Refinery Blast
Dec 12, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Erwin Seba
An "ineffective" safeguard failed to prevent an explosive mixing of air and fuel at a Husky Energy refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, leading to a blast and fire in the plant's gasoline-producing unit in April, a U.S. industrial safety group said on Wednesday.
Air seeped through a hole in a valve within a fluidic catalytic cracking unit (FCCU), the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) said, causing an April 26 explosion that led to a massive fire and a 24-hour-long evacuation of residents living within miles of the plant.
The board said 36 people sought medical treatment after the blast, including 11 working at the refinery. The plant was undergoing maintenance at the time.
Husky, according to the CSB, had only considered a failure of the valve when locked open, not a failure when it was closed, according to an updated report the board presented of its months-long investigation at a meeting Wednesday in Superior.
The failures leading to the Superior refinery explosion were similar to those that caused a 2015 explosion in an FCCU at a Torrance, California, refinery then owned by Exxon Mobil Corp. Exxon sold the refinery to PBF Energy in 2016.
"Prior to both incidents, the process hazard analyses identified scenarios in which hydrocarbons flowed into the air side of the FCCU and vice versa due to a failure of the spent catalyst slide valve (SCSV), but the safeguards listed to protect against those scenarios were ineffective," the board said.
The CSB, created by the U.S. Clean Air Act, has no regulatory or enforcement authority but is charged with determining the causes of chemical plant explosions and fires and making recommendations to government and industry.
"Given the similarities between these two incidents, the CSB will be examining areas of further improvement that need tobe taken by industry," the board said.
FCCUs use a fine, silica catalyst in high heat to make gasoline from gas oil and the passage of the sand-like catalyst over the slide valve at the Superior refinery wore a hole in it.
A mixture of air and hydrocarbon within the unit can easily find an ignition source in the 1,300 degree Fahrenheit (715 Celsius) operating temperature of the FCCU.
The Husky refinery was shut after the April explosion. Husky expects to restart production at the plant in 2020.
Most CSB investigations take up to a year to complete.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/12/12/us/12reuters-refinery-blast-probe-husky.html
-
Canadian Government Declares Oil Trains Safe and Plans to Get Into the Oil Train Business
Dec 12, 2018 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
As Canadian oil-by-rail numbers reach record new volumes (and expected to rise), Canada's Transportation Safety Board (TSB) announced recently that it would no longer list shipping the hazardous material by rail as a top safety concern.
Just a month later, the Alberta provincial government — where the majority of tar sands oil is produced — announced plans to bail out the tar sands industry by getting into the oil-by-rail business.
Here's why that's bad news for the communities in both Canada and the U.S. where this influx of oil train traffic will pass.
Canada's Transportation Safety 'Watchlist'
At the end of October, the TSB said it is was removing the issue of transportation of flammable liquids by rail from its “watchlist” of safety issues.
In a letter explaining the decision to The Hill Times, TSB Chair Kathleen Fox wrote: “Since the two CN [Canadian National Railway] accidents in Northern Ontario in February and March 2015, there has been one main-track train accident involving a spill of crude oil; in this case, only a small amount of product was released.”
She also makes the case for the decision by pointing to the (slow) phase-in of a new type of safer tank car required by regulations and the resulting removal of the riskiest tank cars from oil-by-rail service, saying that the risks of oil trains have been adequately addressed.
A rather glaring omission from Fox’s statement on oil-by-rail accidents was the June 22 train derailment in Iowa that resulted in a 230,000 gallon oil spill into the flood waters of a local river. While the derailment and oil spill happened in the U.S., the train originated in Canada and was carrying Canadian crude oil.
Not only that: The train was carrying that oil in retrofitted DOT-117R tank cars, which meet the new highest safety standards that Fox was touting.
To add to safety fears, Fox is apparently ignoring an issue that is on the rise with rising volumes of Canadian oil trains. An internal Transport Canada document, obtained by CBC news via Canada’s Access to Information Act, notes that rail crew fatigue is an increasing risk and was likely a contributing factor in the Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster which killed 47.
Record volumes, rail tank cars that spill during derailments, and fatigued crews — and yet the TSB decides this is the time to de-prioritize the safety of the oil-by-rail industry.
Bailing Out Failing Tar Sands Industry With More Oil Trains
Not long after the Transportation Safety Board said oil-by-rail safety issues have been addressed sufficiently in Canada, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and the pro-tar sands Alberta government made an unusual proposal to the Canadian government: Going in together to buy oil tank cars and locomotives to help the struggling tar sands industry deal with a lack of pipeline capacity and an oversupply of tar sands oil.
The proposal would help move an additional 120,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day over rail on top of the already record-breaking 275,000 barrels per day currently being shipped. That represents a major increase in potential oil-by-rail volumes over the next several years.
And while the national government initially appeared to oppose the idea of buying oil trains, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his administration now seem more open to it. Trudeau said the proposed purchase is “something we're happy to look at.”
Getting into the oil train business seems like a natural extension after earlier this year, the Canadian government bought the troubled Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project for $4.5 billion, which would further connect tars sands suppliers in Alberta with ports in British Columbia. Justin Trudeau and Canada’s government appear to be going all-in on the tar sands industry, even as it continues to lose between roughly $50 million and $100 million a day.
However, as the majority of Canadian oil heads to the U.S. for refining and increasingly for exports, both Canadian and American communities will be exposed to the risks of the Canadian oil-by-rail boom.
Oil Trains to Supply Tar Sands Exports for U.S. East Coast
Oil-by-rail traffic to U.S. East Coast refineries dropped dramatically when oil prices began rising after the 2014 price crash and the Dakota Access pipeline began operations in 2017.
However, recent low oil prices and record Bakken oil production once again are leading to pipeline constraints, and oil-by-rail volumes out of the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota and Montana are increasing again. While Bakken oil has continued to move by rail to the West Coast at any price, the oil industry has just restarted moving it to the East Coast by rail. (When prices drop, East Coast refineries shift to buying cheaper oil from Africa, rather than buying oil shipped by rail from the Bakken, an option not available for West Coast refineries.)
For the first time, however, this Bakken cargo isn't just destined for East Coast refineries. The crude oil also is being exported from Perth Amboy, New Jersey, Reuters reported in late November.
Buckeye, the oil company undertaking the endeavor, began by exporting small amounts of Bakken oil but has plans in the works to export much larger volumes of tar sands oil from the same terminal on New York Harbor in 2019. Its CEO recently told investors the company was close to locking in a “long-term contract” for “Canadian heavy crude.”
Exporting Canadian tar sands has been the long-term plan for the Perth Amboy facility since at least 2014. And with Canada’s current desperation to move tar sands oil to export markets and Buckeye’s promise of a long-term contract, oil trains look set to become a fixture for East Coast communities once again.
With all of these factors, and similar pipeline constraints in the Permian Basin in Texas, the oil-by-rail industry is making a comeback in a big way and appears to be a growth market for the next several years.
Hobbled After Years of Pipeline Fights, Tar Sands Industry Forced to Cut Production
The reason the Alberta government is planning to buy approximately 7,000 rail tanker cars and 80 locomotives is because the region lacks sufficient pipeline capacity to move all of the tar sands oil being produced — even with the current record levels of oil shipped by rail.
Without a place for all that oil to go, the price of Canadian tar sands oil plummeted below $20 per barrel, leading both to huge losses for the capital-intensive industry and to the provincial government announcing it would mandate lower production output. In other words, telling the tar sands industry — as activitists like to say — to keep it in the ground.
For years, anti-oil activists have stopped and delayed the construction of new oil pipelines in North America, a tactic which appears to be paying off when it comes to the tar sands. While this lack of pipeline capacity has shifted some of that oil to move by rail, the rail industry can only replace a fraction of the capacity of the delayed or canceled pipelines.
At the same time, community and environmental activists also shut down almost all attempts to build new oil-by-rail infrastructure in American ports, which would have exported Canadian tar sands oil arriving by rail. The proposed oil-by-rail project in Vancouver, Washington, canceled earlier this year, was designed to handle up to 360,000 barrels per day. That was just one of many proposed oil-by-rail projects that were blocked by local communities on both U.S. coasts.
There is no question that the financial woes Canada’s tar sands producers currently face are in large part due to the efforts of activists to block pipeline and oil-by-rail infrastructure. As a result, tar sands oil has not reached the ports where it could be sent to China and other oil-hungry Asian markets.
Oil industry supporters like to say that blocking pipelines leads to more oil on the rails, but that scenario hasn't exactly played out. And these arguments ignore the primary issue for many oil-by-rail activists trying to stop these projects, which is trying to protect their communities from the dangerous and inadequately regulated practice of moving large volumes of this flammable substance by rail.
Toronto-based columnist Linda McQuaig best sums up the Canadian failure to regulate oil-by-rail when she wrote:
“And, no, the answer isn’t more pipelines. The answer, for God’s sake, is proper regulation of our railways.”
If the Canadian and U.S. governments properly regulated the oil and rail industries, and the many necessary steps were taken to make oil safe to move by rail, the cost would likely render oil-by-rail economically unviable.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/12/12/canadian-government-declares-oil-trains-safe-alberta-tar-sands
-
The U.S. Is Still in the Paris Climate Deal. Here’s How Leaving Would Actually Play out -- in 2020
Dec 12, 2018 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
For those who remember President Trump’s announcement of America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement last summer, it may be surprising that the country is still participating in U.N. climate talks in Katowice, Poland, right now.
There, the United States has gained notoriety not only for sponsoring a fossil-fuel focused event but also for allying with Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations to weaken a reference to a key report detailing the swift pace of climate change and just how close we are to key warming thresholds. The change of stance of the United States, which used to be a leader in the talks, has created a vacuum and a re-sorting of alliances that has left progress in doubt.
But aren’t we supposed to be out of this process, you might wonder — rather than trying to scale back its ambitions?
Well, no. The Trump administration could have pursued a more radical means of withdrawal from the Paris agreement, but it is still going by the book — and in this case, that means Article 28 of the Paris agreement. That text specifies that after joining the agreement, a country can’t leave for three years, after which there is a one-year waiting period for the leave to be fully in effect.
Here’s what that actually means for the United States — a timeline that, as we’ll see, has major political resonance.
The Obama administration moved very fast to have the United States formally join the Paris climate agreement, and other countries did as well. That means that the agreement itself legally entered into force on Nov. 4, 2016.
So that’s the day when the clock started ticking for any possible U.S. withdrawal, under the terms of the agreement.
“The U.S. can initiate the withdrawal process as early as of November 4, 2019, which is three years from the date on which the Agreement entered into force for it,” said Susan Biniaz, a former State Department climate negotiator and currently a lecturer at Yale Law School, by email.
There’s a formal process involved for withdrawal, but it is not burdensome. It has to be done in writing, and written notice has to go to the United Nations.
“It would just be probably a letter or something like that from the State Department,” said Dan Bodansky, an international environmental law expert at Arizona State University. “But it would be an official document.”
Assuming the Trump administration is ready to go and files that document at the earliest possible time, another clock starts ticking. After one year passes, the U.S. withdrawal would then be complete and it would quietly, but concretely, leave the agreement.
But the earliest possible day that could come is consequential — at the earliest, Nov. 4, 2020.
Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020.
This is where things get very interesting. If we assume that Trump will be the Republican nominee again, and that any Democrat running against him would want to rejoin the Paris agreement, then the election could potentially put the United States right back in again if the Democrat wins.
Granted, on this timeline, the United States would at least briefly leave the agreement even in the event of a Democratic victory. That’s because the new president is not inaugurated until January 2021.
But after that, reversal could be swift, at least under the Obama administration’s interpretation that the agreement is not one that needs to be submitted to the Senate for ratification.
It would then take 30 days after submission of notice for the United States to rejoin the agreement formally, Biniaz explained. This, again, is based on the text of the Paris climate agreement.
Of course, if Trump wins, and has withdrawn from the agreement formally, then his victory could be expected to cement the U.S. withdrawal.
What this means, clearly, is that unless Trump somehow changes his mind and decides not to withdraw after all, U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement seems likely to be a live matter of political debate in the next two years, especially after the formal withdrawal paperwork gets filed.
“Climate change could easily be a campaign issue, and then President Trump, if he’s given notice of withdrawal, then the clock starts ticking,” Bodansky said.
In the meantime, if you think U.S. participation in international climate talks has been rather awkward lately, just wait until next year’s annual climate meeting. Negotiations will probably take place next December, though the location is up in the air because Brazil just announced the country will no longer host the meeting.
That meeting could occur right after the United States has formally submitted its Paris withdrawal paperwork but while the country is still in the waiting period for the withdrawal to occur. In other words — on the outs but not quite there yet.
And again, that could then be followed by a major case of international climate whiplash if the United States promptly rejoins. But that’s just the way it goes when you have treaties with formal timelines, and an extremely polarized climate change debate domestically.
It wouldn’t be the first time such a strange reversal has happened in the international arena. Just to give one rather messy example: Iceland, a whaling nation, was a member of the International Whaling Commission for decades. It withdrew in 1992 after the body enacted a commercial whaling moratorium but rejoined (after an extremely close vote) in 2002, with a reservation to the moratorium.
“Countries do withdraw from treaties and rejoin,” Bodansky said. “It does happen.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/12/heres-what-election-means-us-withdrawal-paris-climate-deal/?utm_term=.9aeadc090324
-
States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change. Let’s Get to Work.
Dec 11, 2018 | Washington Post
By Larry Hogan and Ralph Northam
Larry Hogan, a Republican, is governor of Maryland. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, is governor of Virginia. They are members of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
The Trump administration’s pursuit of policies to reverse or supplant environmental laws that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions has made combating climate change difficult. But where the federal government refuses to lead, state governments will.
For the sake of our future and the future of our children, it is time to put aside partisan interest and get to work.
Today, nations from around the world are in Poland working on a common set of rules that will govern the implementation of the Paris climate agreement and report on their progress. The citizens of Maryland and Virginia, as well as all those in other states across the country, have a stake in ensuring that the agreement succeeds. The difference between continuing to emit carbon at current levels and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), as a recent U.N. report on climate change recommended, is millions of lives and billions of dollars.
That is why we support the elected officials and leaders from cities, tribes, businesses, universities, hospitals and churches who represent U.S. support for the Paris climate agreement. Together, this delegation of leaders will make it clear to the world that we are doing our part to keep the United States on track to fulfill the promise it made in Paris.
We are already experiencing the negative impacts of climate change, as the recent National Climate Assessment from 13 federal agencies made painfully clear. The impacts differ by location, but whether it’s stronger storms and rising seas, or hotter heat waves and more intense wildfires, every state is grappling with the effects of a warming climate. This new report from the federal government confirms what we already know: Climate change can hurt public health and cripple our economy.
Our most important job as governors is ensuring the safety of our constituents. So when we face a threat to people’s livelihood and way of life, showing leadership means acknowledging the risk and addressing it. Climate change hits Democrats and Republicans alike, and we need to work together, despite our differences, to stop it.
This is why a bipartisan group of governors joined to form the U.S. Climate Alliance. After starting with three governors, the alliance has now grown to 17 state leaders who have committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris agreement. We are united in our belief that smart, coordinated state action can ensure that the United States continues to contribute to the global effort to address climate change. Together, we are taking action to implement a range of climate policies — such as lowering the cost of renewable energy and promoting the use of electric vehicles.
In our home states of Maryland and Virginia, we are experiencing rising seas, more extreme weather events, regular high-tide flooding and a changing Chesapeake Bay. That’s why Maryland has become a leader in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and passed a law to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent, creating a model for others to follow. Maryland also has an active, bipartisan Commission on Climate Change and is a leader in climate resilience and preparedness, as well as championing green infrastructure, open space, and a climate academy for local officials and citizens. Recently, the state has announced its intention to ban the manufacture and use of hydrofluorocarbons, a super-polluting greenhouse gas.
And just to the south, Virginia has begun the process to reduce carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2030 and recently announced its intention to significantly reduce emissions of methane — a greenhouse gas that is more than 80 times more damaging than carbon dioxide in the short term. Virginia also issued an executive order last month detailing steps to address extreme weather, including the creation of a Coastal Resilience Master Plan to protect private property and critical public assets, using nature-based infrastructure whenever possible.
Our states will continue to develop our clean- and renewable-energy supplies. We will reduce emissions from fossil fuels. And we will make plans to adapt and protect our citizens and our coastlines. These steps will help slow climate change, but we need help. We call on leaders of all political persuasions to get to work and cooperate across aisles and across borders — both national and international — to meet the challenge of climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/states-can-lead-the-way-on-climate-change-lets-get-to-work/2018/12/11/2f3e4590-fd75-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?utm_term=.76d1c944ef99
-
Around the World, Climate Goals Clash With Reality
Dec 12, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Emre Peker
As negotiators at United Nations climate talks in Poland this week hammer out a rulebook to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, some of the biggest boosters of the 2015 Paris accord are undermining efforts back home to curb global warming.
China is ramping up coal-fired electricity generation despite pledges to cut emissions, according to clean-energy advocates. Canadian provinces are challenging federal carbon-price rules and adopting local policies that go against national emissions goals. And the European Union is bickering over how much carbon dioxide cars should be allowed to emit and subsidies to coal-fired power plants that threaten its climate targets.
Since President Trump’s June 2017 decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord, China, Canada and the EU have sought to fill the leadership vacuum and uphold the deal to fight climate change.
Their efforts gained urgency in October, when a U.N.-led scientific body warned that the world has 12 years to meaningfully curb global warming or face irreversible environmental changes. High-profile natural disasters this year increased the sense of urgency for many.
“We have all seen that the implications of not getting climate change under control are profound and costly,” EU Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete said recently. “Business as usual is not an option.”
In the U.S., the Trump administration is rolling back Obama administration climate policies, and in August overturned an effort to reduce emissions from existing power plants, though 10 states led by California representing more than a third of the country’s gross domestic product launched a campaign to help the U.S. reach the accord’s goal for reduced emissions.
China, Canada and the EU showed support for the Paris accord by unveiling ambitious agendas ahead of the U.N. talks in Katowice, in the heart of Polish coal country. China launched the world’s biggest carbon market last year and is working to expand it. Canada last week signaled more ambitious emissions-reduction targets. New EU regulations are lifting the bloc’s target for renewable-energy generation.
Yet all three economies face corporate lobbying, local economic concerns and political blowback eroding climate ambition.
China’s coal consumption declined from 2014 through 2016 as its economic growth slowed and shifted to services, and due to environmental and health concerns. Last year the trend reversed amid state-backed loans to juice the economy and a surge in provincial permits. China is now on track to add coal-fired power equal to almost the total U.S. capacity, according to Coalswarm, an advocacy group for clean-energy that tracks plants world-wide. That would push coal-fired production in China up to and over Beijing’s existing cap of 1,100 gigawatts. Its current production is already equivalent to half of the world’s total coal-fired generation and nearly quadruple that of the U.S.
China’s CO2 emissions resumed their rise in 2015 after leveling off in 2013-2014, according to research by Climate Action Tracker, a website that follows efforts to curb global warming. Last year China accounted for one-quarter of global CO2 production.
Coal’s relatively low cost and difficulties transitioning to clean-energy sources have frustrated Beijing’s efforts, said Li Shou, Greenpeace’s senior global policy adviser in East Asia.
“The continued building up of coal-powered plants in the country is definitely not in line with China’s climate targets and ambitions,” he said.
China’s foreign and environmental ministries didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did the government’s top economic planning agency.
In recent statements and state media interviews, senior officials with all three agencies reiterated that China will meet its Paris agreement commitments. As to the expansion of coal-fired generating capacity, the official People’s Daily quoted a senior Environmental Protection Ministry official as saying the trend is to replace quantity with quality so as to reduce carbon emissions.
In Canada, Saskatchewan and Ontario have filed suit against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s push to toughen emission controls with a national carbon price on pollution. Ontario’s recently elected conservative premier is also reversing his liberal predecessor’s policies, challenging Mr. Trudeau.
Canada has missed every target to curb greenhouse-gas releases it set out since 1992 and is on track to miss its 2020 target, said Catherine Abreu, executive director of Climate Action Network in Canada.
Mr. Trudeau told Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview that aired Sunday that Canada would meet climate targets with help from the planned carbon tax. Lawyers representing the government argue that the provincial challenge to Ottawa’s carbon-pricing measure won’t stand because emissions are a matter of national concern, under parliament’s jurisdiction.
EU governments and the European Parliament on Monday failed for a fourth time to compromise on regulation to reduce car CO2 emissions. Negotiations have foundered over opposition from German auto makers, divisions among the bloc’s 28 members and a parliament push to more strenuously curb polluting vehicles.
“The EU is arguing for greater ambition in Katowice and here we are, cutting ambition on CO2 emissions from cars,” said an EU diplomat involved in the negotiations, who supports larger reductions.
EU members heavily reliant on coal-powered energy also oppose European Parliament efforts to end subsidies to the most polluting plants by 2025, seeking delay of one decade.
In a sign of how incendiary the issue has become, nationwide riots in France began as a protest against a carbon tax on fuel.
In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the U.N.-led scientific body known as IPCC—set a 12-year deadline to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Signatories to the Paris accord—every country in the world except Syria—pledged to keep global warming since the industrial revolution at “well below” two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Failure to meet that goal would be catastrophic, the IPCC said. The report’s authors called for “rapid and far-reaching” changes to almost every facet of society.
Negotiators from across the world aim this week to agree on a rulebook to govern the Paris accord. Disputes over funding transitions in developing countries will persist, though observers say the debates now matter less than action.
“Ultimately, what matters is what everyone does when they leave Katowice and go home,” Ms. Abreu said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/around-the-world-climate-goals-clash-with-reality-11544616000
-
Investors with $32 Trillion at Stake Sound the Alarm on Climate Change
Dec 12, 2018 | CNN (In Real Clear Energy)
By Ivana Kottasová
Investors managing assets worth $32 trillion have called on governments and businesses to step up efforts to tackle climate change.
A group of 415 investors warned Monday of an "ambition gap" between steps governments have promised to take, and the actions needed to meet goals set out in the Paris climate agreement.
The statement from the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change has been endorsed by financial heavyweights including HSBC (HSBC), Nomura Asset Management and UBS Asset Management.
The group, which controls assets worth more than twice the value of the Chinese economy, claims that its push is the single largest policy intervention from investors on climate change.
"Much more needs to be done by governments to accelerate the low carbon transition and to improve the resilience of our economy, society and the financial system to climate risks," the group said in a statement.
The plea comes as world leaders gather in Katowice, Poland, for an annual summit on climate change.
Leading on climate change can produce big gains including new jobs and investment, the group argued.
"The countries and companies that lead in implementing the Paris Agreement and enacting strong climate and low carbon energy policies will see significant economic benefits," it said.
Global investors are becoming more active in pushing companies to take meaningful actions to combat climate change.
Follow This, a Dutch activist shareholder group that helped pushed Shell (RDSA) on climate change, has started a similar campaign targeting BP.
The group announced Monday that it has filed a shareholder resolution demanding that BP (BP) sets hard targets for cutting carbon emissions. It said it will target ExxonMobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX) with similar resolutions.
"We keep making the same fair ask ... we request these companies to align their targets with the Paris Climate Agreement," said Mark van Baal, the group's leader.
BP said it had received the resolution and will consider it carefully.
This recently scored a major victory after years of campaigns focused on Shell. The energy company said earlier this month that it would start linking executive pay to climate change goals.
"With Shell, we've seen how effective climate resolutions are," said van Baal.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/10/business/climate-change-investors-cop24/index.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested