Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - January 30, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Backs US-UK Free Trade Deal
Jan 30, 2019 | ICIS
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) on Tuesday backed proposals for a free trade deal between the US and the UK in the event of the country leaving the EU. -
Proposal to Amend TSCA CDR Rule Goes to Interagency Review
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted a proposal to revise the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. -
Update to EPA’s Chemical Data Collection Rule Under Review
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An EPA proposed rule to update information that chemical manufacturers must provide periodically is being reviewed by the White House, a critical step before the agency can proceed to get comment on its ideas. -
Wheeler Sidesteps Worker Safety Pledge on Deadly Solvent
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has offered Congress no assurances that an anticipated agency rule will protect workers from the potentially deadly consequences of the paint-stripping solvent methylene chloride. -
Enviros Sue EPA over Failure to Regulate Pollutants
Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Waterkeeper Alliance is suing EPA for failing to update its drinking water standards. -
Greens Sue EPA to Force Drinking Water Standards
Jan 30, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
Environmental groups today sued EPA over missed deadlines for reviewing and issuing new drinking water standards. -
EU Moves to Ban Microplastics That End Up in the Environment
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Fertilizer and fertilizer ingredient companies are in a race against the clock as the European Union moves on a draft rule on microplastics. -
Echa Outlines Proposed Microplastics Restriction Measures
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has published its restriction proposal for microplastics, which includes three types of measures. -
‘Reliance on Science’ May Not Help Retailers Win Glyphosate-Cancer Lawsuits, Attorneys Say
Jan 30, 2019 | Mondaq (In Genetic Literacy Project)
By Lori Elliott Jarvis, Elizabeth Reese and Emily Mordecai
Glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, has dominated headlines over the last year as Monsanto has battled thousands of lawsuits brought by consumers who claim that the chemical causes cancer. -
EU Pic Chemicals Trade May Be Hit by 'No-Deal' Brexit Disruption
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
A requirement under the EU prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation to notify authorities more than a month before hazardous substances can be exported, has emerged as the latest major hurdle to chemicals trade in no-deal Brexit scenario. -
Parliament and Council of Ministers Provisionally Agree EU’s Third CMD Revision
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Council of Ministers and European Parliament have reached a provisional agreement on the third revision to the carcinogens and mutagens Directive (CMD). -
ExxonMobil to Begin Construction on Beaumont Refinery Expansion
Jan 30, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Erin Douglas
Exxon Mobil began construction Tuesday on an expansion to its refinery in Beaumont after reaching a final investment decision. -
Wheeler Won’t Reconvene Panels to Review Air Quality Standards
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency remains adamant that the current roster of seven science advisers has the expertise needed to review federal air quality standards for ozone and fine particle pollution. -
Ewire: Carper Says Wheeler Refuses 'Win-Win' EPA Policies
Jan 30, 2019 | Inside EPA
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee, is slamming acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler for rejecting a series of “win-win” policies that boost environmental protections while also winning support from industry. -
NO2 Exposure Raises Odds of Premature Death
Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Long-term exposure to increasing levels of nitrogen dioxide can lead to premature death for older people, university researchers conclude in a new study. -
Study: Climate Change Could Lead to Worse Heart Defects in Babies
Jan 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Morgan Gstalter
Rising temperatures associated with climate change could trigger heart defects in babies, according to a new study in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Heart Association. -
NRDC Files Court Challenge to Revived NSR Rule Almost a Decade After EPA First Published Its Project Aggregation Rule
Jan 30, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Stephen M. Richmond, David C. Weber and Felicia H. Barnes
After 10 years on ice, EPA’s 2009 project aggregation rule may finally see its day in court. -
‘Green New Deal’ Tests Ocasio-Cortez’s Clout in Democratic House
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Hundreds of young activists stormed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office after Democrats won the House last November, inspired by the new hero of the left, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), who briefly joined them in a live-streamed protest to demand passage of a radical plan to fight climate change.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Backs US-UK Free Trade Deal
Jan 30, 2019 | ICIS
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) on Tuesday backed proposals for a free trade deal between the US and the UK in the event of the country leaving the EU.
Testifying at a hearing convened by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on the possibility of a post-Brexit US-UK trade agreement, ACC director for international trade Ed Brzytwa said that the UK imported $2.8bn worth of US chemicals in 2017 and is a regional hub in the global supply chain.
“A trade agreement that eliminates U.S. tariffs on chemical imports from the UK could save US chemical manufacturers $88m per year,” Brzytwa said.
“Eliminating UK tariffs on chemical imports from the US would reduce tariffs paid in the UK by $84m. The cost savings from the elimination of tariffs would help boost economic and job growth,” he added.
The US chemicals industry’s priority for a successful trade deal with the UK is to build on regulatory cooperation talks that began during the stalled EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade negotiations.
Working to combat trade-distorting practices by other countries and removing tariffs on UK aluminium and steel exports to the country should also be priorities in any trade talks, Brzytwa added.
The EU and US have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, but a free trade deal between the two powers has yet to pass.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/01/29/10312202/acc-backs-us-uk-free-trade-deal/
-
Proposal to Amend TSCA CDR Rule Goes to Interagency Review
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted a proposal to revise the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
According to the EPA’s most recent regulatory agenda, the agency intends to revise the TSCA section 8 reporting rule’s requirements before the next reporting period, which takes place in 2020.
Part of this process will be to amend the size standards for small manufacturers, which will have an impacton certain reporting requirements under the scheme. The EPA has previously acknowledged that the current definition, which has not been updated since 1988, is in need of revision.
More broadly, the EPA says it aims to address companies' feedback following the 2016 submission period and "better align with new statutory requirements" brought about by the Lautenberg Act.
The agency also has indicated that it may consider reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts as part of the process. Efforts to address reporting for these substances through a negotiated rulemaking process were abandoned in 2017.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was submitted to OMB on 29 January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73840/proposal-to-amend-tsca-cdr-rule-goes-to-interagency-review
-
Update to EPA’s Chemical Data Collection Rule Under Review
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An EPA proposed rule to update information that chemical manufacturers must provide periodically is being reviewed by the White House, a critical step before the agency can proceed to get comment on its ideas.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal could alter the information that companies would submit next year or propose changes for future data collection cycles.
The proposal would revise the Chemical Data Reporting rule. That rule requires chemical manufacturers and importers to provide the EPA every four years with production volume information along with general information on how their chemical is used and the number of workers who could have been exposed to it.
Chemical manufacturers began Jan. 1 to collect the information they will submit to the EPA for the next reporting period, scheduled to begin June 1, 2020.
Better AlignmentThe EPA isn’t allowed to disclose specifics about the proposal it submitted Jan. 29 to the White House Office of Management and Budget, but the agency’s spring and fall regulatory agendas described general goals of its update.
The EPA wants the information that manufacturers submit to better align with the details it needs to oversee chemicals under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments, the agency said in last fall’s agenda.
The agency could simplify the reporting requirements faced by companies, such as electronics manufacturers that produce and recycle, reuse, or reprocess inorganic byproducts.
Metals are a common example of an inorganic byproduct that can be reclaimed from rinse waters, spent etching fluids, or other leftovers that result from the manufacture of electronics.
The TSCA amendments authorized easier reporting requirements, but a committee that debated changes never agreed on how that could be accomplish.
The revised Chemical Data Collection rule also could update the agency’s definition of small business.
Currently, producers of chemicals, pesticides, paints and adhesives, and petroleum products with less than $4 million in annual sales, regardless of production volume, generally have fewer reporting obligations than large companies.
The easier reporting obligation also applies to companies that produce less than 100,000 pounds of chemicals annually but have annual sales under $40 million.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/update-to-epas-chemical-data-collection-rule-under-review
-
Wheeler Sidesteps Worker Safety Pledge on Deadly Solvent
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has offered Congress no assurances that an anticipated agency rule will protect workers from the potentially deadly consequences of the paint-stripping solvent methylene chloride.
“Yes, under certain circumstances, methylene chloride not only can pose danger, but has also caused worker deaths,” Wheeler said in written replies to questions Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) sent to the Environmental Protection Agency’s acting chief earlier this month.
But details on the scope, implementation, and timing of the final rule, as well as associated EPA actions, will depend on the outcome of an interagency review process, Wheeler said.
He replied to questions Carper posed following a Jan. 16 nomination hearing. Carper released both his questions and Wheeler’s answers Jan. 29.
Two Potential RulesWheeler referred to two methylene chloride rulemakings pending at the EPA.
The first would be a final rule restricting some uses of the solvent. It would complete a rulemaking proposed under the Obama administration.
The deaths of more than 40 people have been attributed to methylene chloride when used in paint and coating removal, the EPA said in January 2017, when it proposed to restrict all consumer and most commercial uses of such removal products.
The second action the EPA is considering is a notice of proposed rulemaking that would invite ideas about ways workers could be trained to use the solvent and have their access to it limited.
Awaiting OMB ActionThe White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing both regulatory actions. The EPA can’t proceed with either until OMB clears them.
Regardless of what regulatory action the OMB approves, the EPA already is being sued for failing to have acted sooner to protect consumers and workers.
A coalition of environmental groups and the parents of two young men who died from exposure to that solvent filed a lawsuit Jan. 14 alleging that the EPA has violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by allowing a chemical the agency knows can be deadly to remain on the market.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/wheeler-sidesteps-worker-safety-pledge-on-deadly-solvent
-
Enviros Sue EPA over Failure to Regulate Pollutants
Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Waterkeeper Alliance is suing EPA for failing to update its drinking water standards.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is required to identify unregulated contaminants that should be monitored or regulated, and review and revise existing regulations for known pollutants.
The Waterkeeper Alliance, along with Waterkeepers Chesapeake and California Coastkeeper Alliance, says EPA has failed at those duties, risking public health.
"Unfortunately, over the last two decades, EPA has been perpetually behind schedule in virtually all phases of the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulatory process and has missed numerous deadlines, often by years," the lawsuit says. "With unsafe drinking water causing health crises in numerous locales across the country, EPA's delays and inaction with respect to regulating the quality of the nation's drinking water puts the public at unnecessary and unacceptable risk."
EPA has yet to develop new regulations for tetrachloroethylene (perc) or trichloroethylene (TCE), despite determining in 2010 that existing regulations for the solvents should be revamped to better protect human health.
The groups also slam EPA for inaction on updating standards for chromium, including hexavalent chromium, made famous by the movie "Erin Brockovich." When EPA last regulated the carcinogen in 1991, it assumed the chemical would not cause cancer through oral exposure. Since then, the National Toxicology Program has found "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity" when hexavalent chromium is ingested via drinking water, but EPA has not yet completed its own review of the chemical or updated drinking water regulations for it.
The lawsuit also said EPA did not follow Safe Drinking Water Act procedures for identifying and regulating new contaminants. Under the act, EPA is supposed to keep a "candidate contaminant list" and make determinations on at least five of the listed contaminants every five years.
The agency never completed regulatory determinations due in August 2016. And EPA did not publish a new candidate contaminant list that was due in February 2018.
The lawsuit comes one day after reports that EPA will not set a legal limit for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) — in drinking water sparked outrage among environmental groups and members of Congress (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
PFAS are a group of chemicals that have been linked to cancer, liver problems and birth defects.
The lawsuit mentions that there are no regulations of the contaminants.
Waterkeeper Alliance's Executive Director Marc Yaggi said the groups filed their lawsuit because the Trump administration "is actively allowing toxic chemicals to pollute our drinking water."
"It is also failing to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which stops polluted water from reaching our taps," he said. "EPA is supposed to protect human health and the environment, but its actions and omissions are threatening one precious resource we all need: clean drinking water."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/30/stories/1060119005
-
Greens Sue EPA to Force Drinking Water Standards
Jan 30, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
Environmental groups today sued EPA over missed deadlines for reviewing and issuing new drinking water standards.
Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers Chesapeake and California Coastkeeper Alliance filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that EPA's failure to update standards for several closely watched contaminants violated the Safe Drinking Water Act. The lawsuit also challenges the agency for missing key deadlines set by the law for reviewing new contaminants and making regulatory decisions on those it has already studied.
The suit comes the same week POLITICO reported that EPA decided not to regulate two separate toxic chemicals under the law.
“At the same time the Trump administration is proposing to weaken the Clean Water Act and is actively allowing toxic chemicals to pollute our drinking water, it also is failing to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which stops polluted water from reaching our taps,” said Marc Yaggi, Waterkeeper Alliance’s executive director, in a statement.
Among the specific contaminants targeted for action by the new lawsuit are tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, hexavalent chromium and Legionella.
Under the drinking water law, EPA is required to review unregulated drinking water contaminants every five years and make decisions about whether or not five of those previously studied contaminants need to be regulated. EPA has regularly missed those deadlines.
EPA did not immediately comment on the new lawsuit.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EU Moves to Ban Microplastics That End Up in the Environment
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Fertilizer and fertilizer ingredient companies are in a race against the clock as the European Union moves on a draft rule on microplastics.
The proposed rule, which the European Chemicals Agency proposed Jan. 30 under the EU’s REACH chemicals law, would largely ban the intentional addition of microplastics in products in which they can enter the environment.
The rule would apply to cleaning and cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads.
But the greatest volume by far of intentionally added microplastics is in controlled-release fertilizers, in which nutrient pellets are coated with a polymer that breaks down slowly and delays the release of nutrients into the soil.
Microplastics from controlled-release fertilizers could amount to 262,500 metric tons over 20 years compared to about 126,000 metric tons from all forms of cosmetics, detergents, and other cleaning products, according to the chemicals agency.
A restriction on these microplastics is needed because “they can be extremely persistent in the environment, lasting thousands of years,” and the long-term effects of their presence in the environment are currently unknown, the European Chemicals Agency said in a Jan. 30 statement.
Intentionally added microplastics mainly end up in soils, with the amount released to the environment each year equivalent to “approximately six times the present size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” the agency said.
Fertilizer ChallengeFor fertilizers, the draft restriction under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) would reinforce other draft EU rules that require polymers used in controlled-release fertilizers to be mostly biodegradeable.
The REACH restriction would allow a five-year transition period for phase out of nonbiodegradeable fertilizer coatings.
Fertilizer companies are working on developing biodegradeable coatings and needed a realistic period in which to do so, according to Lukasz Pasterski, spokesman for industry group Fertilizers Europe in Brussels.
Controlled-release fertilizer “offers various advantages for farmers as it allows for the precise release of fertilizers in line with the plant demand, ensuring highly efficient nutrient use, and thus minimizing losses to the environment,” Pasterski said.
Controlled-release fertilizers also are used on golf courses, sports fields, and ornamental areas.
BASF SE, which produces fertilizer coatings, would assess the impact of the draft REACH restriction, spokesman Christian Zeintl told Bloomberg Environment.
ICL Fertilizers “will act according to the new regulations when published,” the company said in a statement.
Fertilizer producers Haifa Group and Yara International ASA didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Polymers and PesticidesThe draft REACH restriction would provide no transition period for companies that produce cosmetics and cleaning products to phase out plastic microbeads, because the companies already pledged to stop using them by 2020.
Plastic microbeads are used because of their abrasive or exfoliating functions in cosmetics.
In cleaning products, however, polymers that could be classified as microplastics also are used as opacifiers, typically to give a milky appearance, and to encapsulate droplets of fragrance and thus slow down their release, said Roberto Scazzola, scientific and technical affairs director of the International Association for Soaps, Detergents & Maintenance Products in Brussels.
Companies would respond to the restriction by adapting their products but a transition period should be given to allow for development of alternatives, Scazzola said.
Polymer encapsulation also is used for slow release of some pesticides. Prohibiting use of such coatings could reduce microplastic emissions by 15,000 metric tons over 20 years, according to the European Chemicals Agency.
“Our industry recognizes the importance of this issue; we are committed to reducing the use of microplastics and to developing more sustainable alternatives,” said Graeme Taylor, director of public affairs at the European Crop Protection Association in Brussels.
To be finalized, the draft REACH restriction must be assessed by the European Chemicals Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee and Socio-Economic Analysis Committee, a process that includes public consultations.
The draft restriction and the committees’ opinions will then be forwarded to the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, for a final decision.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-moves-to-ban-microplastics-that-end-up-in-the-environment
-
Echa Outlines Proposed Microplastics Restriction Measures
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has published its restriction proposal for microplastics, which includes three types of measures.
A year ago the European Commission asked the agency to prepare the REACH Annex XV restriction dossier on the use of intentionally added microplastic particles in all consumer and professional use products.
The request is part of the EU plastics strategy. This sets out measures to reduce use of microplastics, defined as pieces of plastic less than 5mm in diameter.
The proposed restriction comprises three types of action. These are:restriction on the placing on the market of microplastics on their own or in mixtures, where their use will inevitably result in release to the environment, irrespective of conditions of use;labelling requirement to minimise release to the environment for uses of microplastics where release is not inevitable but where residual releases could occur if they are not used or disposed of appropriately; andreporting requirement to improve quality of information available to assess potential future risks.
Intentionally added microplastics are most likely to accumulate in terrestrial environments, because the particles concentrate in sewage sludge that is frequently applied as fertiliser, the agency said. A "much smaller proportion" is released directly to the aquatic environment.
"Once released, they can be extremely persistent in the environment, lasting thousands of years, and practically impossible to remove," Echa added. "Currently it is not possible to determine the impact of such long-term exposure on the environment."
According to the agency, if adopted, the restriction could result in a reduction in microplastics emissions of about 400,000 tonnes over 20 years.Transitional arrangements
The restriction proposal’s scope covers a wide range of uses in consumer and professional products in multiple sectors. Echa has proposed specific transitional arrangements for some sectors and provided justifications for them.
Companies manufacturing detergents, waxes and polishes containing microplastics, other than microbeads, will have five years to substitute them. But detergents and maintenance products using microbeads are excluded because industry is expected to be able to phase out their use as an abrasive by 2020.
Similarly no arrangements have been suggested for microbeads contained in rinse-off cosmetics products (that is, microplastic with an exfoliating or cleansing function) because of the voluntary phase out.
However, arrangements will be in place for other rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products, with four- and six-year transitional periods respectively. This is "based on the similarity to the cost effectiveness of previous restrictions for substances with similar concerns", the agency said.
Other sectors in scope include various products used in medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices and in the oil and gas industry.NGO reaction
NGO alliance Rethink Plastics welcomed the move as a "significant step forward", but said that the proposal grants "unnecessary delays" for most industrial sectors and excludes some biodegradable polymers.
Elise Vitali from the European Environmental Bureau, part of the NGO alliance, said the microplastic problem was "fed by irresponsible firms, such as those making personal care products that decided to swap out natural ingredients".
The alliance, she added, will be "pushing hard to tighten this proposal to ensure real impact".
And Ninja Reineke from CHEM Trust while supporting the proposal said the transitional periods "are far too long and fail to address the urgent need to turn the tap off now".Next steps
The restriction proposal will now be subject to a conformity check by Echa’s scientific committees during the March plenaries. If it is passed, a public consultation on the dossier will start later that month.
Echa’s Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis (Rac and Seac) will then begin deliberations and provide scientific opinions on the proposal. These are expected to be sent to the Commission for decision making at the beginning of 2020.
Several EU member states have already introduced, or are introducing, bans on the use of microplastics in certain types of products, largely concerning wash-off cosmetic products – namely Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden and the UK.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73819/echa-outlines-proposed-microplastics-restriction-measures
-
‘Reliance on Science’ May Not Help Retailers Win Glyphosate-Cancer Lawsuits, Attorneys Say
Jan 30, 2019 | Mondaq (In Genetic Literacy Project)
By Lori Elliott Jarvis, Elizabeth Reese and Emily Mordecai
Glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, has dominated headlines over the last year as Monsanto has battled thousands of lawsuits brought by consumers who claim that the chemical causes cancer. Now, other companies in the retail supply chain are beginning to feel pressure as consumer groups and plaintiffs' lawyers turn their attention to other, less obvious targets after early success against Monsanto in both state and federal courts. But as the potential pool of defendants has expanded, so too has the disconnect between the plaintiffs' success in court and the scientific and regulatory landscape, suggesting that reliance on science will do little to mitigate the risk and cost of glyphosate litigation for companies in the retail industry.
Although the scientific and regulatory communities have disagreed about the alleged carcinogenicity of glyphosate for years, the debate drew little attention from the general public until August 2018, when a California state jury slammed Monsanto with a $289 million verdict after a groundskeeper claimed that his exposure to Roundup® weed-killer caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, in Johnson v. Monsanto.1 While the Johnson court later slashed the punitive damages award by $211 million on due process grounds, it ultimately left the jury's causation findings intact and the reduction in damages has done little to quell the media attention on glyphosate.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—a subdivision of the World Health Organization—first classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. Two years later, in December 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a risk assessment classifying glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." A majority of regulators around the world have since sided with EPA, including multiple European agencies, Australia and New Zealand. While California had initially placed glyphosate on its Prop 65 list of chemicals "known to the state to cause cancer" in July 2017 just before EPA released its risk assessment, a federal court temporarily enjoined the state from requiring companies to place Prop 65 warning labels on foods that may contain traces of glyphosate in February 2018, finding that requiring labels would violate the First Amendment because, aside from IARC, "almost all other regulators have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer."2 The federal court presiding over the Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL) has also weighed in on the controversy, calling the testimony of plaintiffs' scientific experts "shaky," but ultimately admissible under the Daubert standard.3
While retail companies may believe that they have science on their side, the Johnson verdict and federal MDLDaubert decision make clear that that argument may not be enough to win in court. Companies will be forced to defend against the narrative crafted by plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer advocacy groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG), who have worked to keep glyphosate in the public eye by criticizing prominent companies for alleged glyphosate residue in their products and calling for tougher regulations. EWG has emerged as an early leader in glyphosate consumer advocacy, publishing a self-commissioned "study" five days after the Johnson verdict that reportedly found that the majority of the food samples tested by EWG contained glyphosate levels higher than what EWG considers to be safe—although none of the products exceeded current legal limits. EWG followed up with a second round of tests in October 2018, claiming that it detected traces of glyphosate in 28 samples of different oat-based food products. EWG has also teamed up with eight major food companies to petition EPA to reduce the current glyphosate tolerance level in oat-based products from 30 ppm to 0.1 ppm, the original level set by EPA in 1993. Most recently, EWG attacked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after the agency released a report in October 2018 concluding that over 99 percent of United States-sourced foods it tested in 2016 complied with federal glyphosate tolerance levels. EWG criticized the FDA for not testing oat- and wheat-based products—the type of products EWG claims are most likely to be contaminated by the chemical.
Spurred by their early success against Monsanto and armed with the support of consumer groups like EWG, plaintiffs' lawyers are now looking to target a wider range of defendants, especially those whose products may contain ingredients treated with glyphosate. At least two different companies have been hit with putative class action suits based, at least in part, on the results of EWG's study. Six days after the Johnson verdict, General Mills was hit with a putative class action suit in Florida, relying on EWG's report in alleging that General Mills deceived consumers by failing to disclose that Cheerios products contain traces of glyphosate.4 The new claims against General Mills came just as the company agreed to remove the phrase "natural" from its granola products to settle a two-year-old lawsuit alleging that the "100% Natural Whole Grain Oats" label misled consumers because the products contained traces of glyphosate.5 Another putative class, also citing EWG's report, recently sued Kellogg Co. in California for failing to disclose traces of glyphosate allegedly contained in two of its popular food products.6
We expect plaintiffs' lawyers to continue to bring glyphosate-related claims against an increasing range of defendants in the retail industry in 2019, which will bring a number of milestones in glyphosate litigation and regulation. The first bellwether trials of the Roundup federal multidistrict litigation are scheduled to begin in February and May 2019, and Monsanto's appeal of the Johnson verdict will work its way through the courts.
Because glyphosate is so widely used in agriculture, it is likely that plaintiffs' lawyers have only scratched the surface of the potential pool of glyphosate defendants, which could include any company in the retail chain associated with a product with components that may have been treated with glyphosate at some point in the manufacturing process. Companies that advertise their products as "natural" or "organic" or tout their products' health benefits should be especially aware of the threat of glyphosate litigation, especially because plaintiffs' lawyers tend to bring those types of claims as nationwide class actions. And all companies should take the opportunity now—before being hit with litigation—to review supply and distribution agreements to evaluate and negotiate risk-shifting and indemnification provisions associated with products that may be the subject of glyphosate litigation.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/01/30/reliance-on-science-may-not-help-retailers-win-glyphosate-cancer-lawsuits-attorneys-say/
-
EU Pic Chemicals Trade May Be Hit by 'No-Deal' Brexit Disruption
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
A requirement under the EU prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation to notify authorities more than a month before hazardous substances can be exported, has emerged as the latest major hurdle to chemicals trade in no-deal Brexit scenario.
Under the Regulation exporters in member states are obliged to notify their national authorities 35 days prior to shipping hazardous chemicals listed in Annex I, mostly to non-EU developing countries.
These chemicals are banned, or severely restricted, in the EU, but can be exported to other regions or traded internally within the EU, provided that certain conditions are met. In 2017, Echa received export notifications for nearly 830,000 tonnes of Annex I chemicals, according to its latest annual report.
For Pic exports to continue seamlessly in a no-deal scenario, shipments to and from the UK intended after 29 March would need to be notified by 24 February at the latest. And Britain would have to implement its own Pic legislation within two weeks.
Britain issued no-deal Pic guidance in October, with more issued on 23 January. It envisages establishing an independent standalone regime to ensure Britain can continue to meet its international obligations under the Rotterdam Convention.
Yet concerns are growing in industry and within Echa that if Britain leaves without a deal, Pic exports will suffer a hit, not just from the UK to EU27 and non-EU countries, but also from EU27 into the UK. And Echa's ePiC notification platform would need to be amended to include Britain as a non-EU country.
The degree of potential disruption is not known, because Echa does not provide a breakdown of individual countries' Pic exports due to confidentiality reasons.35-day rule
Echa said the 35-day rule "is a concern". The agency has flagged the issue with the European Commission and hopes to have an answer "soon".
"Every measure possible will be taken in order to ensure companies in [the] EU27 will not be penalised as a result of [the UK’s] late decision on Brexit," Mercedes Vinas, head of Echa’s submission and processing unit, told Chemical Watch.
She added that she is "not able to say" if that means "waiving the 35-day rule or reducing it". Echa has made plans to amend its Pic submission tool for a no-deal scenario but will wait for a decision on Brexit "to go live", she said.
The Commission did not immediately respond to Chemical Watch’s queries.
Waiving the 35-day rule at the EU end would help exporters into the UK for chemicals in Part 1 of Annex I that only need a prior notification. However, for about 50% of exports – concerning chemicals in Part 2 of Annex I – an additional explicit consent is required from a UK authority.
In the worst-case scenario, Ms Vinas said, if the UK is not ready with its own legislation, at least 50% of EU27 exports into Britain "would take place anyway". But if the explicit consent of the UK authority is required "there may be some disruption".
Currently there are 196 chemicals in Part 1 and 95 in Part 2 of Annex I, Echa figures show.Industry concerns
Cefic also said it was "concerned" about the situation. "We are awaiting the publication of a new set of preparedness notes [from] the European Commission to see whether we need to draw their attention to these problems," a spokesperson said.
But given the Pic notification timeline, they added, "it seems impossible to continue exports of materials subject to EU Pic to Britain after Brexit without disruption".
And Jean-Pierre Feyaerts, former head of the Belgian REACH helpdesk and a Brexit commentator, said that some Pic consignments might have to be postponed and in many cases "simply abandoned" due to the complexities of a no-deal Brexit.
"It is not clear if EU enterprises that will export substances subject to Pic from the 30th of March will be able to get prior consent in time," he said.
On 29 January, British MPs voted on amendments to prime minister Theresa May’s EU withdrawal deal. The outcome means the likelihood of no-deal Brexit has diminished but still poses a threat.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73832/eu-pic-chemicals-trade-may-be-hit-by-no-deal-brexit-disruption
-
Parliament and Council of Ministers Provisionally Agree EU’s Third CMD Revision
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Council of Ministers and European Parliament have reached a provisional agreement on the third revision to the carcinogens and mutagens Directive (CMD).
The agreement was reached on 29 January and will now be submitted to the member state representatives in the Council for endorsement. A plenary of the Parliament will then vote on the final text.
When adopted, the amendment will reduce exposure levels for five carcinogenic substances. These are:cadmium;beryllium;arsenic acid;formaldehyde; and4,4'-methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline)(MOCA).
The Romanian Presidency of the Council welcomed the agreement. "The directive, when adopted, will improve the working conditions for workers across the EU and prevent thousands of cases of ill-health at the workplace," said Marius-Constantin Budăi, Romanian minister of labour and social justice.
It also reiterated that the proposal commits the European Commission to assessing, no later than five years after the new CMD enters into force, whether it should add the combination of an airborne occupational exposure limit with a biological limit value for cadmium.
The lack of a wider range of monitoring techniques for the metal was a sticking point when the European Council of Ministers discussed the proposal in December.
Several ministers had asked to include the option of human biomonitoring as a measure for sampling exposure to cadmium.
At the same time, the Commission will assess "no later than the end of the second quarter 2020" whether to extend the scope of the CMD to include a list of hazardous drugs, including cytotoxic drugs, which are carcinogenic or mutagenic, the Council noted.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73804/parliament-and-council-of-ministers-provisionally-agree-eus-third-cmd-revision
-
ExxonMobil to Begin Construction on Beaumont Refinery Expansion
Jan 30, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Erin Douglas
Exxon Mobil began construction Tuesday on an expansion to its refinery in Beaumont after reaching a final investment decision.
The expansion, expected to start up in 2022, will increase the refinery's capacity by 250,000 barrels per day — equivalent to a 65 percent increase in current capacity. When complete, the refinery will be among the nation's largest.
Exxon Mobil previously announced that it was in the midst of planning for the additional unit, which will allow it to process light crude. Most refineries in the Gulf can only process heavy crude, which typically comes from Venezuela and Canada. As more oil flows in from the booming Permian Basin of West Texas, that isn't helpful, as the oil there is light.
"The Beaumont refinery is strategically positioned to benefit from Permian production growth," said Bryan Milton, president of Exxon Mobil Fuels and Lubricants Company in a statement.
This is the third crude unit within the facility, which currently has the capacity to refine 366,000 barrels per day of crude oil. Exxon Mobil already has a large presence in the Beaumont area, employing 2,100 employees, according to the company. The company, headquartered in Irving, Texas, expects to create 1,850 jobs during construction of the expansion and add 40-60 jobs in the area once it is complete.
The expansion is part of more than $20 billion ExxonMobil has invested in growing its manufacturing presence on the Gulf Coast, which includes expanding its petrochemical plants, a major maintenance project on its refinery in Baytown, Texas, and liquefied natural gas projects.
The company plans to triple its production in the Permian Basin by 2025 and spend more than $2 billion on transportation upgrades.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/ExxonMobil-to-begin-construction-on-Beaumont-13570871.php
-
Wheeler Won’t Reconvene Panels to Review Air Quality Standards
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency remains adamant that the current roster of seven science advisers has the expertise needed to review federal air quality standards for ozone and fine particle pollution.
Andrew Wheeler, responding to the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, defended his October 2018 decision to disband outside panels of scientists and engineers that acted as subcommittees of sorts to the full Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)..
“I believe the current CASAC has the experience and expertise needed to serve in this capacity as well as to complete the reviews for the particulate matter and ozone NAAQS,” Wheeler wrote in his written response to Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) who in turn released them to the public late Jan. 29.
Wheeler faces a confirmation vote Feb. 5 before the Senate committee, following a hearing that took place in mid-January.
‘Informed Review’?Carper had asked Wheeler to explain whether the current lineup of scientists was qualified enough to conduct an “informed review,” even though none of them was an expert in epidemiology.
This expertise, Carper noted, is crucial because it would help the advisers understand how fine airborne pollution contributes to early deaths and heart attacks.
He also asked whether the EPA would complete the reviews by its self-imposed deadline of 2020.
Wheeler remained confident that the reviews of the 2015 standards for ozone—a known lung irritant—and the 2012 standards for fine airborne particle pollution would be completed by the end of 2020, the deadline set by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and panned by existing advisers as “too aggressive.”
This is despite the government shutdown that lasted a record 35 days, when all work by the committee came to a halt. Although former committee members were skeptical, the EPA for its part remains confident it will meet the deadline.
Wheeler insisted the seven-member committee is filled with qualified independent experts in fields such as toxicology, engineering, medicine, ecology, and atmospheric science, who are more than capable of completing the reviews with due diligence and on time.
The group wouldn’t need outside help, Wheeler said, a claim that current and former members of the committee have publicly disputed.
Sidestepping QuestionsWheeler sidestepped when asked whether he consulted the advisory committee before disbanding the outside panel of experts.
He noted that the EPA has the ability to seek advice from other experts to help the advisory committee on an “as needed basis” but stopped short of reinstating the panels.
“The current Clean Air Science Advisory Committee itself does not believe this, much less anyone else,” tweeted John Walke, senior attorney and clean air programs director for the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to Wheeler’s insistence. Wheeler’s “professed ‘belief’ merely serves an agenda to rush completion of smog & health standards that won’t protect Americans by 2020.”
Members of the advisory committee, which is charged with reviewing key scientific assessments for revising or retaining the ozone standards, said they may not have enough time and expertise to meet this deadline and still maintain the review’s scientific integrity.
Their comments came Nov. 29 during the committee’s first public teleconference to discuss the EPA’s draft integrated plan for reviewing the ozone limits.
These members again reported their concerns when the full committee met in early December to discuss EPA’s integrated science assessment of the 2012 particulate matter standards.
They said their concerns stemmed from Pruitt’s decision to complete the review by 2020, along with Wheeler’s move that led to disbanding the panels.
Despite these serious reservations, Wheeler “really has dug in his heels,” Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists Center for Science and Democracy, told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 30.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/wheeler-wont-reconvene-panels-to-review-air-quality-standards-1
-
Ewire: Carper Says Wheeler Refuses 'Win-Win' EPA Policies
Jan 30, 2019 | Inside EPA
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee, is slamming acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler for rejecting a series of “win-win” policies that boost environmental protections while also winning support from industry.
Carper's criticism comes as he released Wheeler's responses to the senator's questions for the record following Wheeler's Jan. 16 nomination hearing to lead the agency on a permanent basis.
Wheeler “remained firm in his refusal to accept various 'win-win' opportunities for policies,” Carper charged in a Jan. 29 press release, citing “sensible” vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards, dropping a plan to scrap a key finding for the agency's utility mercury rule, supporting an international deal to phase down refrigerants that are potent GHGs, committing to ban a paint stripper chemical with major health risks, and failing to commit to a drinking water standard for a class of perfluorinated chemicals commonly known as PFAS.
“I never expected that Mr. Wheeler and I would agree on policy -- but I also didn’t expect that, when faced with ‘win-win’ policy opportunities that protect the environment and public health with support of regulated industry, Mr. Wheeler would fail to act responsibly each and every time,” Carper added.
The senator's critique is an extension of his remarks during EPW's recent nomination hearing, where he and other Democrats sought to paint the acting administrator as “extreme” in the sense that the Trump EPA so frequently sides with industry in seeking to weaken environmental protections.
But as Inside EPA's Doug Obey reported, Wheeler's management style threatens to complicate their pitch, underscored by recent deals with lawmakers that suggest he is more skilled than his predecessor at minimizing needless blowback to that agenda.
Wheeler's early tenure at the Trump EPA shows he both embraces the administration's deregulatory approach and has taken some early steps to avoid full-scale war with Democrats and environmentalists and side-step gratuitous provocations on Capitol Hill or in the courts.
For example, his transparency policies have won bipartisan praise, and the agency made a series of toxics and waste policy commitments to help pave the way for confirmation top officials.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-carper-says-wheeler-refuses-win-win-epa-policies
-
NO2 Exposure Raises Odds of Premature Death
Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Long-term exposure to increasing levels of nitrogen dioxide can lead to premature death for older people, university researchers conclude in a new study.
The study, published online this month in the journal Environment International, tracked deaths among some 14 million Medicare beneficiaries around the United States from 2000 to 2008 in conjunction with area air monitoring data for nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
Overall, a 10-parts-per-billion increase in annual average NO2 exposure was linked to a higher risk of death from heart and respiratory ailments and — to a much smaller degree — cancer, according to the findings. The researchers also found the first evidence "of adverse and significant association of NO2 with pneumonia mortality," the paper says.
NO2, a respiratory irritant, is part of a broader class of gases known as nitrogen oxides that are produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels. Leading sources of emissions are cars, trucks and coal-fired power plants. Under the Clean Air Act, it is one of a half-dozen pollutants for which EPA is required to periodically assess — and, if needed, revise — air quality standards based on the latest research into their health and ecological effects.
For NO2, the last such review concluded last year. EPA opted to leave its primary annual standard — intended to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety — unchanged at 53 ppb. The primary one-hour standard was similarly kept at 100 ppb (Greenwire, April 17, 2018).
While the connection between short-term NO2 exposure and the risk of hospitalization and premature death is already well-documented, there have been "few epidemiological studies" examining the potential effects of long-term exposure, according to the paper. For the eight-year period in question, the annual median NO2 concentration for the United States was 14.2 ppb. People on Medicare are typically aged 65 or older.
The study's authors are based at Tufts University, Northeastern University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/30/stories/1060119017
-
Study: Climate Change Could Lead to Worse Heart Defects in Babies
Jan 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Morgan Gstalter
Rising temperatures associated with climate change could trigger heart defects in babies, according to a new study in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Heart Association.
Mothers exposed to extreme heat during the early stages of their pregnancy, approximately three to eight weeks post-conception, could lead to their babies being born with congenital heart defects (CHDs) between 2025 and 2035.
The study found that higher temperatures caused by climate change could result in as many as 7,000 additional cases of CHDs in the United States during an 11-year period.
Midwestern states such as Iowa will potentially have the highest increase in mother’s exposed to excessively hot days during the spring and summer months, followed by the southern states such as Georgia and North Carolina.
The study notes that there is lack of research regarding heat-related CHDs although animal studies have found that heat exposure during early pregnancy can cause fetal cell death or severe fetal malformations.
CHDs are among the most common birth defects and are the leading cause of infant morbidity and morality in the U.S., The American Heart Association noted.
The U.S. Census Bureau has also projected that the number of births across the nation will continue to increase through 2030, estimating that 4.2 million pregnant women could be at risk of rising temperatures.
“The potential increases in both the number of pregnant women and maternal heat exposure suggest an alarming effect that climate change may have on reproductive health,” the study states.
The study’s release comes amid President Trump citing massive winter storms plunging temperatures across the Midwest as an attempt to dismiss global warming.
The president has repeatedly cast doubt on the existence and effects of climate change, although experts note that there is a difference between the climate and weather.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/427647-study-climate-change-could-cause-heart-defects-in-babies
-
Jan 30, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Stephen M. Richmond, David C. Weber and Felicia H. Barnes
After 10 years on ice, EPA’s 2009 project aggregation rule may finally see its day in court.
On Monday, January 14, 2019, NRDC filed a petition for judicial review of EPA’s recent revival of a 2009 Rule that amended EPA’s interpretation of New Source Review (NSR), a major source air permitting program administered under the Clean Air Act (CAA). NSR requires preconstruction permits for new major sources and major modifications at existing sources. The legal and practical requirements of NSR are significant, so uncertainty as to whether a project triggers NSR permitting is a big problem.
There are numerous areas of uncertainty about NSR permitting. For example, there has long been confusion regarding when sources must aggregate emission impacts for multiple projects, perhaps because they are closely spaced in time or they might appear to be interrelated. Seeking to provide more certainty on these questions, EPA issued a final rule in 2009 regarding when multiple projects at the same facility must be grouped together for NSR applicability purposes. NRDC opposed the changes and filed a petition to review to challenge the final rule.
In an unusual turn of events, both the 2009 Rule and the accompanying litigation were frozen in time... until now. The 2009 Rule was issued just as the presidential administration changed; the new EPA paused the 2009 Rule and litigation so it could reconsider (and try to revoke) the 2009 Rule without having to implement it or spend time and resources defending it. But EPA failed to complete its reconsideration (and revocation) before the next change in administration, allowing the 2009 Rule to be revived and litigation to roar back to life. Because of recent EPA actions, the project aggregation test in the 2009 Rule is now legally effective. And, with NRDC’s second petition to review filed this month, No. 19-1007, litigation before D.C. Circuit can now proceed on the 2009 Rule, as recently reaffirmed by EPA in 2018. Before too long, sources may finally have a more certain legal landscape for determining when changes at their facilities do or do not require preconstruction permits.What Did EPA Do In the 2009 Rule?
The 2009 Rule determines when multiple changes at the same facility must be aggregated together—or considered to be a single project—for NSR purposes. The 2009 Rule interpreted EPA’s existing NSR regulations to establish how facilities must conduct the step 1 of the two-step applicability analysis.
EPA uses a two-step test for deciding when a major modification will occur under the NSR program. In step 1, a project proponent asks whether the planned modification (a physical or operational change, also referred to as a project) will, on its own, result in a significant emissions increase. Step 1 looks solely at the emission impacts of the “project” without considering any prior emissions increases or decreases at the source. EPA recently issued guidance clarifying that the project emission accounting in Step 1 evaluates all emission impacts of the project, including decreases.
Under the 2009 Rule, multiple changes at a facility are a single “modification” only if they are “substantially related,” which means that the projects are technically or economically dependent on each other. Although EPA now concludes that the timing of projects, by itself, is insufficient to aggregate projects, EPA has established a rebuttable presumption that projects occurring three or more years apart should not be aggregated together.
This clarification will provide much-needed certainty to the NSR applicability evaluation process. EPA’s project aggregation policy is intended to ensure that nominally-separate projects occurring at a source are treated as a single project for NSR applicability purposes where it is unreasonable not to consider them a single project.” 83 Fed. Reg. at 57326. Prior to the 2009 Rule, EPA had only explained its project aggregation policy in numerous interpretive documents, such as EPA letters and memoranda that evaluated specific factual situations. These piecemeal evaluations and non-binding guidance documents have led to substantial uncertainty in the regulated community.What Happened from 2009-2019?
As noted above, before the 2009 rule could go into effect, a change in administration occurred, after which the new EPA stayed the effectiveness of the 2009 Rule. After a series of stays, EPA issued an indefinite stay of the 2009 Rule pending litigation before the D.C. Circuit, which was brought by Natural Resource Defense Council, No. 09-1103 (D.C. Cir.). This litigation was also paused because, in April of 2010, EPA began reconsideration of the 2009 Rule and proposed to revoke it. EPA took comments on its proposed revocation but did not issue a final rule. Both the 2009 Rule and the litigation were stayed indefinitely, with no end in sight.Where Are We Now, and What Happens Next?
Last November, EPA removed the indefinite stay of the 2009 rule, completed its reconsideration, and decided against revocation, leaving the 2009 Rule as is. 83 Fed. Reg. 57324 (Nov. 15, 2018). Having finished its reconsideration, on December 7, 2018, EPA filed a motion to restart the original litigation over the 2009 rule, D.C. Circuit Case No. 09-1103. The court agreed and set a deadline of February 14, 2019 for procedural motions to consolidate, proposals for briefing schedule/format, and other motions to govern. We anticipate that one of those motions filed in February will ask to consolidate NRDC’s original challenge to the 2009 Rule with NRDC’s new challenge, Case No. 19-1007, which is challenging EPA’s removal of the stay and reaffirmation of the 2009 Rule.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/nrdc-files-court-challenge-to-revived-nsr-rule-almost-decade-after-epa-first
-
‘Green New Deal’ Tests Ocasio-Cortez’s Clout in Democratic House
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Hundreds of young activists stormed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office after Democrats won the House last November, inspired by the new hero of the left, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), who briefly joined them in a live-streamed protest to demand passage of a radical plan to fight climate change.
More than two months later, political reality is setting in.
The so-called Green New Deal—a loosely defined legislative wish list to slow global warming by drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions—may never make it to the House floor for a vote. While Pelosi wants the chamber to take action on climate change, the progressive’s blueprint lacks political support among moderate Democrats let alone Republicans.
Pelosi has yet to throw her weight behind a Green New Deal, and when asked in an interview earlier this month if she would be willing to take up elements of the plan, she dodged.
“It goes to the committees of jurisdiction,” Pelosi said. “I want the entire Congress to take responsibility for the generational challenge that we have to protect our climate.”
Long OddsThe fight puts Pelosi, who has said addressing climate change will be a major part of her agenda, in a bind.
Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old Bronx politician has become a voice for a new and diverse generation thanks to her come-from-nowhere 2018 Democratic primary win and 3.5 million combined followers on Twitter and Instagram.
At the same time, Pelosi has to be able to act without forcing members of her caucus from moderate districts to cast votes that could put their seats in jeopardy in 2020.
Even with its long odds in the House, the idea is attracting support from the party’s presidential hopefuls. California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris became the latest 2020 candidate to throw her weight behind the plan.
The goal of the Green New Deal is to virtually eliminate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and remake the economy, but details are scant. Proposals include phasing out the use of fossil fuels and transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy within a decade, a living-wage job guarantee, as well as smaller items like new tax credits for electric vehicles and energy efficiency upgrades for homes and buildings.
Getting Governing LegislationMore than 40 House Democrats back the concept of a Green New Deal, which was inspired by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s economic New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression. Many of the supporters are freshman lawmakers such as Ocasio-Cortez who helped the party capture control of the House. But others include some senior members, such as House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat.
While the Green New Deal would certainly not pass muster with coal-state Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Donald Trump, some of the plan’s backers believe it is important to show that it has the blessing of the House Democrats in advance of the 2020 presidential elections.
“One of the mistakes Republicans made when they got all three branches of government is they didn’t have governing legislation and that slowed them down,” California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said in an interview. “We ought to have strong legislation on climate change ready to go so when we have the right president they can sign it.”
But it has been met with skepticism from some top Democrats.
Pelosi rejected calls by Ocasio-Cortez to create a select committee devoted to crafting the plan, with the power to pass legislation and subpoena officials. And New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said some tenets of the Green New Deal, such as phasing out fossil fuels, may not be achievable.
“This is something we should look at but some of it may not be technologically or politically feasible,” Pallone said in an interview with WNYC earlier this month.
Pushing for PlanOcasio-Cortez said she still pushing for a vote on the plan and is crafting a nonbinding resolution that will outline the details of what will be in the plan.
“I absolutely do think there is a path forward,” she said in an interview, adding she is working on convincing fellow lawmakers while marshaling her energetic supporters.
Other lawmakers, like early Green New Deal backer Vermont Democratic Rep. Peter Welch, said embracing the goal of the plan is more important than congressional passage.
“The Green New Deal sets a marker, like an Apollo-type project, that we have got to address climate change,” Welch said in an interview. “We can lay the foundation now.”
To be sure, not all backers are giving up on House passage, hoping they may be able to find a way to force a vote. And others are pursuing a piecemeal approach.
Green New Deal backers like Khanna, who represents California’s Silicon Valley, said a bill he is working on to create a “huge tax credit” for electric vehicles fits the mantel of greening the environment and creating green tech jobs. Other ideas range from legislation on environmental racism to reducing carbon emissions.
Think tank Data For Progress, which has played an integral role in sketching out what a Green New Deal might look like, has pointed to a slew of already introduced bills that could be included.
“It includes everything from carbon emissions to environmental racism,” Sean McElwee, the group’s co-founder, said in an interview. “It’s really hard to do it one bill.”
Presidential CandidatesSome deal supporters like the Sunrise Movement, the grassroots group that partnered with Ocasio-Cortez in pushing for the environmental plan, are instead focusing their efforts on gaining support from Democratic 2020 presidential candidates.
“There is no actual pathway for legislation,” said Varshini Prakash, co-founder and spokeswoman for the Sunrise Movement. “We will be pushing any Democrat who wants to be on the slate ahead of the 2020 primary to be strong on climate and back a green new deal.”
A 15-city tour is planned as part of a national campaign to make the Green New Deal one of the defining issues of the election, she said.
That strategy got a boost from Harris, the California senator and presidential candidate, who said during a CNN town hall in Iowa that “I support a Green New Deal.”
“Climate change is an existential threat to us, and we have got to deal with the reality of it,” she said.
Other Democratic contenders who have embraced the Green New Deal to varying degrees include Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; potential candidates such as Sens. Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Jeff Merkley; as well as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke.
But some argued that embracing the Green New Deal comes with risk.
“Democrats have to thread the needle between aggressive policies that will really make a difference and making sure rural and swing state members can embrace them,” said Paul Bledsoe, who worked on climate change in the Clinton White House. “If we can’t do that then we can’t win back the White House and the Senate. Climate has to bring Democrats together against Republicans, not fighting among themselves.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-new-deal-tests-ocasio-cortezs-clout-in-democratic-house
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested