Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - February 6, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arthur C. Brooks Headlines Chamber Day Legislative Dinner on March 12
Feb 6, 2019 | 1340 AM WBIW
Arthur C. Brooks, president, and CEO of the American Enterprise Institute, author of nearly a dozen books and columnist for The Washington Post, will be the featured speaker at the Indiana Chamber of Commerce's Chamber Day... -
Ewire: Trump's State of the Union Omits Coal, Barely Mentions Energy
Feb 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump only barely touched on energy issues in his Feb. 5 State of the Union address, and he omitted any mention of coal, renewables, climate change and the environment in a speech that focused heavily on... -
State Attorneys General Push for Tougher Asbestos Reporting Rule
Feb 6, 2019 | Asbestos.com
By Tim Povtak
A coalition of 15 attorneys general are calling for a tougher asbestos reporting rule as part of the recently-revised Toxic Substances Control Act. Maine’s newly elected Attorney General Aaron Frey said last week the coalition wants... -
California, Massachusetts Lead Coalition Urging Epa to Issue New 'Asbestos Reporting Rule'
Feb 5, 2019 | Legal Newsline
By Marian Johns
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney Maura Healey are leading a 15-state coalition urging the federal government to issue a new "asbestos reporting rule" that would take away exemptions relating to... -
In Government Shake-Up, Safe Drinking Water a High Priority for Michigan Governor
Feb 6, 2019 | Governing
By Paul Egan
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday announced a reorganization of state government she said is largely aimed at ensuring safe drinking water for Michigan residents and fighting climate change. Whitmer announced the... -
Our Plastics, Our Selves
Feb 6, 2019 | Grist
By Eve Andrews
When I arrive at the marina in Victoria on a late-July morning, the sky and water are complementary shades of azure, and there is not one cloud in the sky — a Pacific Northwestern idyll. On the deck of the 72-foot shiny-bright Sea Dragon... -
Exposure to Chemicals Before and After Birth Is Associated with a Decrease in Lung Function
Feb 6, 2019 | Medical Express
A study co-directed by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) and the French Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (INSERM), in collaboration with other European teams, concludes that early life exposure to... -
Trump Praises U.S. Oil, Gas Dominance, Touts Trade Sanctions
Feb 6, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
President Trump delivered a one-hour State of the Union address Tuesday night that focused on a litany of priorities, but there were scant remarks about the tremendous gains in the U.S. oil and gas industry. Still, the comments, few as... -
Top Dem Previews Subcommittee Agenda
Feb 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The new head Democrat of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy offered a preview today of how the panel will look to advance clean energy technologies over the next two years. The strategy, heavily focused on... -
Everglades Oil Well Must Be Permitted, Florida Court Says
Feb 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
Florida regulators must permit an exploratory oil well in the Everglades, a state appellate court ordered after a four-year legal dispute over the project. If the project goes forward, it would be the first permit for oil drilling inside the... -
Ruling Allows Exploratory Well in Everglades
Feb 6, 2019 | Tampa Bay Times (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Samantha J. Gross
An appeals court in Tallahassee, Fla., yesterday cleared the way for a Miami real estate family to drill an exploratory oil well in the Everglades. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection had denied a 2015 permit application... -
Oil & Gas Industry Fights Opposition to Brownsville LNG Projects with Online Petition
Feb 6, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
The oil and natural gas industry is fighting opposition to three proposed liquefied natural gas export terminals at the Port of Brownsville with an online petition to support the projects. Texans For Natural Gas, an industry funded group... -
NTSB Releases List of Transportation Safety Improvements
Feb 6, 2019 | Transportation Today
By Melina Druga
The National Transportation Safety Board released its 2019–2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements Monday at a National Press Club event. The annual list highlights areas the agency believes could be... -
Climate Change Returns to Limelight
Feb 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
House Democrats this morning brought climate change back to the political forefront for the first time in nearly a decade and were met with a Republican tone shift far from the skeptical attitude the GOP has taken to the issue for years... -
This Climate Solution Is an Economic Opportunity Staring Congress in the Face
Feb 6, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jason Hartke
Roughly 100 new members of Congress have recently been sworn in. Together with returning lawmakers, they will be looking at answering the question of how to tackle the threat of climate change while strengthening the U.S. economy. -
Climate Change Was the Subtext of the State of the Union. It Should’ve Been the Headline.
Feb 6, 2019 | Vox
By Umair Irfan
In his Tuesday State of the Union speech, President Trump focused on five main issues: immigration, workers, infrastructure, health care and prescription drugs, and national security. And he squeezed in a boast about the surge... -
Green Buildings Must Do More to Fix Our Climate Emergency
Feb 6, 2019 | The Star
By Meg Holden and Rebecca Holt
After more than three decades of talk about the potential of building green, we’ve still failed to change the way we design and construct buildings so that the built environment stops being a dominant contributor to runaway 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
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arthur C. Brooks Headlines Chamber Day Legislative Dinner on March 12
Feb 6, 2019 | 1340 AM WBIW
Arthur C. Brooks, president, and CEO of the American Enterprise Institute, author of nearly a dozen books and columnist for The Washington Post, will be the featured speaker at the Indiana Chamber of Commerce's Chamber Day Dinner on March 12.
The newly-named Chamber Day Dinner (formerly the Legislative Dinner), will be held at the Indiana Roof Ballroom and annually draws a crowd of more than 700 policy, business and community leaders. Ice Miller LLP is the presenting sponsor.
Brooks has led the American Enterprise Institute, public policy, and research institute, since 2009. He'll be taking a new role this summer to join the Harvard Kennedy School and focus on the area of public leadership.
Author of titles such as The Conservative Heart, Social Entrepreneurship and The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise, Brooks' newest title, Love Your Enemies, will be released on March 12 - the same day as the Chamber Day Dinner. Each attendee will receive a complimentary copy of the new book at the event.
Brooks is also featured on the Indiana Chamber's podcast, the EchoChamber, in which he discusses the potential change in the extreme rule, the challenges brought forth by social media, his thoughts on Indiana and the Midwest, and why his overall view is "hopeful" (but not "optimistic"). Listen to the episode at www.indianachamber.com/echochamber.
Chamber Day Dinner tickets are $165 per person; tables are also available. Visit www.indianachamber.com/event/chamberday to purchase.
The reception sponsor is Caesars Entertainment; gold sponsors: NIPSCO, Ruoff Home Mortgage, Strada Education Network, St. Vincent and Thompson Thrift. Silver sponsors: American Chemistry Council, AT&T Indiana, Delta Dental of Indiana, First Merchants Corporation, Hoosiers Work for Health, IGT Indiana, Old National Bank, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Rolls-Royce, Smithville, The Kroger Co., and Vectren.
http://www.wbiw.com/state/archive/2019/02/arthur-c-brooks-headlines-chamber-day-legislative-dinner-on-march-12.php
-
Ewire: Trump's State of the Union Omits Coal, Barely Mentions Energy
Feb 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump only barely touched on energy issues in his Feb. 5 State of the Union address, and he omitted any mention of coal, renewables, climate change and the environment in a speech that focused heavily on immigration issues and the president's claim that he should get credit for the economy.
The only specific energy source that Trump name-checked was oil and gas, with the president saying, “We unleashed a revolution in American energy -- the United States is now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.”
Trump also bragged that his administration “has cut more regulations in a short time than any other administration during its entire tenure,” though he did not go into further detail to tout any EPA deregulatory actions or rollbacks in other agencies.
In addition, the president offered a brief pitch for a bipartisan bill to rebuild “America's crumbling infrastructure.”
He said he is eager to work with Congress on “new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.”
A follow-up fact sheet from the White House focused largely on transportation infrastructure, though he also cited water infrastructure. He only mentioned energy infrastructure in the context of streamlining permitting -- a Republican priority but a topic that Democrats would largely oppose as weakening environmental protections.
Trump's reference to “cutting-edge industries” referred to new wireless technology, “advanced manufacturing, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, [and] rural broadband,” according to the fact sheet.
A Washington Post report says Trump's most notable omission is coal, given how often he mentioned the fuel in his 2016 campaign.
The fact that coal was left out of the speech “is perhaps a small indication of the large difficulty the Trump administration has had trying to revive the struggling U.S. coal sector,” the article says, citing long-stalled Energy Department efforts to provide affirmative support for coal plants.
Similarly, The Hill reports that the Trump administration has “struggled to prop up the industry,” and that a record number of coal plants retired in 2018, with a “steady number” of closures expected this year as well.
In fact, the “energy revolution” that Trump touted is damaging coal's fortunes, with the glut of cheap natural gas from the shale boom significantly undercutting coal's market share in the power sector.
Many experts would add that the “revolution” also includes major price drops in wind and solar energy, spurring major market share gains for those technologies as well -- though Trump likely was not referring to this trend in his speech.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trumps-state-union-omits-coal-barely-mentions-energy
-
State Attorneys General Push for Tougher Asbestos Reporting Rule
Feb 6, 2019 | Asbestos.com
By Tim Povtak
A coalition of 15 attorneys general are calling for a tougher asbestos reporting rule as part of the recently-revised Toxic Substances Control Act.
Maine’s newly elected Attorney General Aaron Frey said last week the coalition wants to eliminate the exemptions for asbestos within the current Chemical Data Reporting guidelines.
The attorneys general have asked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to initiate a new rulemaking process, helping it comply with their interpretation of the legislation.
“This [new] rule would allow the EPA to comply with the Act by giving it the information it needs to properly regulate asbestos,” Frey said in a news release from the Office of the Maine Attorney General. “The evidence is clear that asbestos is a deadly substance, and the Toxic Substances Control Act is an important tool for protecting people.”
Coalition Strong Across the Country
The coalition of attorneys general is led by Xavier Becerra (California) and Maura Healey (Massachusetts).
Other members are from Connecticut, Minnesota, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia.
Asbestos is a toxic, naturally occurring mineral used ubiquitously through much of the 20th century.
Inhaling or ingesting microscopic asbestos fibers can lead to serious health problems, including mesothelioma and lung cancer.
An estimated 15,000 people in the United States die each year from an asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos is not banned in the United States, but it is heavily regulated today, and its use has been reduced significantly in recent decades.
The toxic mineral has not been mined or manufactured in the U.S. since 2002. Most of the imports are used by the chloralkali industry, which uses asbestos diaphragms in its chlorine manufacturing process.
New Use Rule Has Been Controversial
As part of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016, the EPA included asbestos on its top 10 priority list of dangerous chemicals subject for review.
The agency introduced a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) in 2018 as part of the act, but the intention is being widely disputed.
EPA administrators have said the SNUR will give it even more power to regulate asbestos, forcing any potential new uses or previous uses to be approved first by the agency.
Advocates supporting a complete ban of asbestos say it has the potential to allow a wider use of the substance and doesn’t go far enough in regulating the product.
Critics of the SNUR also believe it fails to require adequate reporting by companies using asbestos because of an exemption for “naturally occurring substances.”
“Each year, tens of thousands die from exposure to asbestos,” said Healey. “We urge Acting Administrator Wheeler to issue a rule that will protect the lives of thousands of workers, families and children in Massachusetts and across the country.”
Getting Rid of Asbestos Exemptions
According to Frey, the goal of the attorneys general coalition is to:Eliminate “naturally occurring substance” as an exemption for asbestos reporting.Require processors of asbestos as well as manufacturers and importers to adhere to all reporting requirements.Eliminate asbestos as part of the exemption for impurities in the Chemical Data Reporting guidelines.Require reporting with respect to imported articles that contain asbestos.
“We call on Acting Administrator Wheeler to begin the process of eliminating exemptions that allow this unsafe chemical to continue to harm tens of thousands of people each year,” Becerra said. “It is widely known that asbestos is one of the most harmful chemicals known to mankind.”
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2019/02/06/attorneys-general-tougher-asbestos-reporting/
-
California, Massachusetts Lead Coalition Urging Epa to Issue New 'Asbestos Reporting Rule'
Feb 5, 2019 | Legal Newsline
By Marian Johns
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney Maura Healey are leading a 15-state coalition urging the federal government to issue a new "asbestos reporting rule" that would take away exemptions relating to asbestos in the Chemical Data Reporting Rule.
In a petition sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the coalition states that the new rule would ensure more accurate reporting which the EPA is required to do per the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), according to the California Attorney General's Office.
“It is widely known that asbestos is one of the most harmful chemicals known to humankind,” Becerra said in a statement. “There is no excuse to continue allowing any amounts of toxic asbestos to pass into our community, especially into the lungs of workers and children, when we know the danger it presents. We call on acting administrator Andrew Wheeler to begin the process of eliminating exemptions that allow this unsafe chemical to continue to harm tens of thousands of people each year.”
“Each year tens of thousands die from exposure to asbestos,” Healey added. “We urge Wheeler to issue a rule that will protect the lives of thousands of workers, families and children in Massachusetts and across the country.”
According to Becerra's office, asbestos has been associated with life-threatening diseases such as mesothelioma, fibrosis, lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer and it kills 15,000 people each year.
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/511756336-california-massachusetts-lead-coalition-urging-epa-to-issue-new-asbestos-reporting-rule
-
In Government Shake-Up, Safe Drinking Water a High Priority for Michigan Governor
Feb 6, 2019 | Governing
By Paul Egan
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday announced a reorganization of state government she said is largely aimed at ensuring safe drinking water for Michigan residents and fighting climate change.
Whitmer announced the restructuring of the Department of Environmental Quality as the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. She also announced the creation of the following new offices within the restructured department: Climate and Energy, Clean Water Public Advocate and Environmental Justice Public Advocate.
Michigan was rocked by the Flint drinking water crisis in 2015 and more recently by statewide threats to drinking water safety from PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances used in firefighting foam and other substances.
Now, "we need to be laser-focused on cleaning up water in our state," Whitmer said at a news conference in Lansing.
Though mostly a shifting around of existing resources -- officials said no net gain in state employees will immediately result from the shake-up -- Whitmer's reorganization, which is effective April 7 and could face rejection from the GOP-controlled Legislature, does create new offices with new responsibilities.
The Clean Water Public Advocate will investigate concerns related to drinking water and establish "a statewide uniform reporting system to collect and analyze complaints about drinking water quality for the purpose of publicizing improvements and significant problems," according to one of the two executive orders Whitmer issued.
The Environmental Justice Public Advocate will investigate complaints related to residents who face discrimination based on factors such as race or income with respect to environmental issues.
A task force appointed by former Gov. Rick Snyder found in 2017 that environmental injustice was a factor in the Flint drinking water crisis. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission made a similar, but even stronger, finding in 2017, saying that the public health crisis had its roots in a history of systemic racism in the majority-black Michigan city. Among other findings, the commission said that implicit or unconscious bias among state officials could have influenced the inadequate response when Flint residents complained about the color, odor and taste of their drinking water.
The state has not yet named who will hold either of those posts.
Whitmer, a Democrat who took office Jan. 1, also announced that Michigan will be joining the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors from 19 other states who have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and said she is strengthening a state team responding to the threat of PFAS.
The change establishing the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team as a permanent advisory body within the environmental department is effective immediately.
Whitmer said the new offices she has announced will help ensure swift responses to concerns and complaints about drinking water and help restore public trust in what comes out of taps.
"This is about finding real solutions to clean up our drinking water so every Michigander can bathe their kids and give them a glass of water at the dinner table safely," Whitmer said.
Whitmer said she is abolishing the Environmental Rules Review Committee, which was created in 2018 through Republican-sponsored legislation and was dominated by industry appointees who would review proposed environmental rules. Critics described the committee as a "polluter panel."
"They created more bureaucracy," Whitmer said, when asked why she was eliminating the committee. "The business community, like anyone in our state, will have the ability to have a seat at the table."
Abolishing a committee established by statute -- as well as any other measures in the executive orders requiring the force of law -- could be overturned by majority votes in both chambers of the Legislature, if lawmakers act within 60 days. Whitmer spokesman Tiffany Brown said thatif either of the executive orders setting out the reorganization is rejected by the Legislature, it will be rejected in its entirety.
Citing as a concern recent wide swings in Michigan weather, in which temperatures went from 40 below with wind chill last week to the low 50s on Monday, Whitmer said her actions are aimed at fighting climate change, in addition to protecting drinking water.
"The science is in, and it's time to get to work to mitigate the impact of climate change for the sake of our kids and future generations," she said.
The new Office of Climate and Energy will do the work currently carried out by the Michigan Agency for Energy, plus coordinate state government responses to climate change and provide guidance on how to reduce greenhouse gases and mitigate the impact of climate change.
The reorganization won't immediately involve additional state employees, said Liesl Clark, who headed DEQ and will head the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. There will be "some shifting," with most functions and employees of the Michigan Agency for Energy moving from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the new environmental agency and the functions and employees of the Office of the Great Lakes moving there from the Department of Natural Resources, Clark said.
Whitmer's office didn't have an estimate of the costs associated with the reorganization, such as changing departmental letterhead, but Brown said it's expected to be minimal.
Environmental groups reacted positively to the announced changes, while Michigan's most powerful business group urged lawmakers to reject it.
"Gov. Whitmer's action sets a clear tone for how her administration is going to tackle climate change, protect the Great Lakes and our communities," said Mike Berkowitz, legislative and political director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. "We applaud Gov. Whitmer for taking a strong stance on climate change and fighting for our air, land, water and public health."
Mary Brady-Enerson, Michigan director for Clean Water Action, described the measures as "a step in the right direction toward reducing dangerous pollution in our Great Lakes, rivers, streams and drinking water and speeding up Michigan's transition to clean, renewable energy.
Rich Studley, president and CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, expressed disappointment with Whitmer's proposed elimination of the Environmental Rules Review Committee.
"The Michigan Chamber is opposed to silencing the voices of environmental stakeholders," and lawmakers should "seriously consider" voting to reject the change, Studley said in a news release.
Republican legislative leaders said they were still studying the details.
"The governor has proposed some significant changes to state government and we're in the process of reviewing the details," said Amber McCann, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake.
In setting out the reorganization, Whitmer issued the second and third executive orders of her administration and the 12th executive directive.
Executive orders can be used to reassign functions among state agencies, create temporary agencies, commissions or task forces, or proclaim a state emergency.
Executive directives establish basic internal policies or procedures for state agencies.
The state has spent hundreds of millions of dollars responding to the Flint water crisis, in which Flint's drinking water became contaminated with lead during the administration of Snyder, a Republican.
http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/tns-michigan-governor-drinking-water.html
-
Feb 6, 2019 | Grist
By Eve Andrews
When I arrive at the marina in Victoria on a late-July morning, the sky and water are complementary shades of azure, and there is not one cloud in the sky — a Pacific Northwestern idyll. On the deck of the 72-foot shiny-bright Sea Dragon, moored here in the island capital of British Columbia for just one day, are four young women, part of the crew of the research voyage “eXXpedition.” They’re hauling heavy buckets of black sludge up to the deck from the ocean floor, their labor set to a tinny radio serenade of Drake and Selena Gomez.
The team will meticulously pack the sludge — actually wet sand from the harbor floor — into little glass jars like you would some fresh vegetables you planned to pickle. These jars will be added to a library of sand, water, and air samples that they’ve collected over the past six weeks from across the North Pacific. They’ll ship some of those samples off to Plymouth, England, to be analyzed by eXXpedition’s marine scientist Imogen Napper. The idea is that by cataloging this library, she and the team will begin to get a better sense of what kind of plastic is out there in the ocean.
One thing they already know, because they’ve seen it every day for weeks: There is a whole lot of it. The Sea Dragon, with an all-woman crew of 14 aboard, launched from Hawaii in mid-June, traversing a part of the North Pacific Gyre known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” a swirling mass of trash the size of two Texases. The name conjures the image of great islands of refuse gently bumping up against each other, like a Waterworld made of old tires and sandwich bags. But, as eXXpedition founder Emily Penn tells me as we sway a bit on deck, it’s really more of a plastic soup, trillions of little bits and particles seasoning a million square miles of ocean.
“When we sailed into the southern edge of the Gyre, we started to see a piece of plastic over the side of the boat every 10 seconds — a cigarette lighter, a bottle, some sort of container,” she said. Her skin is tanned and her hair is bleached from weeks in Pacific sun, and as she describes the voyage, she’s dodging the spray of some deck-hosing that’s going on around us: “Then when you wake up the next morning, and it’s still going, and wake up seven days later, and it’s still going, and you’re 800 miles from the nearest human being — it’s that relentlessness that’s just so overwhelming.”
With this voyage, the eXXpedition is trying to make sense of that relentlessness. The women, a mix of scientists, sailors, writers, and activists, collected those samples of plastic from the air, water, and ocean floor to be analyzed not just in Napper’s lab but in others across the world. The point is that this problem is far larger than one very large patch in the North Pacific — plastic is found throughout all the oceans, in fish, in turtles, in shellfish, everywhere.
The samples that eXXpedition collected will help us understand how plastic might pick up other pollutants, like pesticides and industrial waste, and transfer them to humans through the food chain. In parallel with that work, the team also wrote about its experiences to raise awareness, and began developing ideas for both policy and technology to address this giant plastic dilemma.
One major mystery within that dilemma: what all these bits of plastic might be doing to us. For every tidbit of understanding we gain about the health consequences of chemicals released by plastics, there remains a Gyre-sized quantity of unknowns. But a growing body of evidence suggests some chemicals commonly found in many plastics are associated with everything from breast and prostate cancer, to underdeveloped genitalia and low sperm count in men, to obesity.
You’ve probably already heard about compounds like bisphenol A, which seeps into food and drinks from plastic bottles and canned-food liners — and has been tentatively linked to breast cancer and prostate cancer. That’s just one. There are many others. Some are merely suspected to be bad for human health; others are known to be dangerous.
They are scattered all around us — and even within us.
“So often when we talk about environmental problems we hear about things that are happening somewhere else, to somebody else, at some point in the future,” Penn wrote in the U.N. Chronicle magazine in 2014. “You and I already have a body burden, a chemical footprint that we will never get rid of.”
In particular, some of the substances that stick to plastics, seep out of them, or are released when they decay are endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), meaning that they interfere with the normal function of hormones in the human body. Some may contribute to cancer. They may also cross from a pregnant woman’s body into her fetus, potentially changing the way a baby develops.
It’s that last potential consequence of plastic junk that made Penn decide to found eXXpedition as an all-women’s endeavor. Men get these chemicals inside them as well, of course. “For women,” she said, “it felt like it was a greater significance because we’re passing them on to the next generation."
All of us live with those compounds. You can’t live on this planet and not come into contact with the indelible dusting of plastic that covers it. We know it’s everywhere, but we don’t know nearly everything about what it does or how we’ve been changed by it. Penn and her team plan to help us find out.
The scientific exploration of the hormonal effects of compounds in plastics dates back to July 1991, when physician and biologist Ana Soto traveled to Wisconsin to attend a conference on the potential effects of chemical exposure on human sexual development. She had been invited because her lab had made an important, impromptu discovery two years earlier: The suppliers of a plastic tube that Soto and her colleague Carlos Sonnenschein used in their lab had changed the tube’s formula, in order to make it stronger. The researchers then noticed that the nutrient mixture they stored in these new tubes was causing cells in their test cultures to proliferate when they hadn’t before. Soto and Sonnenschein eventually figured out the cells were responding to a compound leaching from the new tubes, nonylphenol, as if it were the natural sex hormone estrogen.
This was the first compound in plastic ever identified as an “endocrine disruptor,” a term Soto and 20 other researchers introduced at the conference to refer to synthetic chemicals that interfere with hormone signals.
Your endocrine system includes glands like your thyroid, pancreas, and sex organs which release hormones that attach to receptors on the cells of your brain and organs, instructing your body how to behave or how to turn food into energy. In particular, these hormones coordinate growth and development. If you interfere with the activity of a hormone just a little bit, you can make big changes in how the body develops.
Exposure to sex hormones in the wrong quantity and at the wrong time may increase the likelihood that a person could one day develop cancer. Once Soto and her colleagues discovered what nonylphenol was doing, they suspected that it and other compounds that acted like sex hormones could also increase a person’s risk of cancer.
The best evidence to support that suspicion was a large, unintended human experiment involving diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen prescribed to women from the 1940s through the 1960s to prevent miscarriages. It was eventually proven to be ineffective at preventing miscarriages, but tragically effective in producing babies who would grow up to develop vaginal cancer as adults. The incidence of vaginal cancer in women exposed to DES before birth was as much as 40 times higherthan that of the rest of the population. (That said, it was still just a small risk: Only about 0.1 percent of DES-exposed babies went on to develop vaginal cancer.) Their rate of breast cancer was also about twice as high.
Soto’s laboratory experiments on endocrine disruptors, conducted at Tufts University in partnership with Sonnenschein, started in the mid-1990s and continues today. Her research has shown that rats exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA while still in the womb are more likely to develop tumors in their mammary glands, as well as fertility problems, obesity, and behavioral issues as adults.
But there are two major obstacles to answering the question of whether being exposed to compounds from plastic while still in the womb eventually causes cancer or other health problems later on in humans. For starters: We’re all exposed! How could you possibly find a control group — that is to say, people who don’t touch plastic all the time?
Secondly, even if you were able to find the very isolated person who had never been exposed to plastics, the timelines make it really challenging to identify the cause of a disease. Cancer can take decades to develop after an exposure — even a lifetime. On top of that, there’s reason to believe that EDCs have an outsized impact on fetuses, which are still developing and therefore are especially susceptible to the shifts in hormones caused by endocrine disruption. Exposure can cause subtle changes to the structure of an organ in development — a small abnormality in the breast ducts, a slightly atypical uterus shape — that grow into bigger problems like cancer or infertility as the organ matures. That’s why the results of endocrine disruption may not be seen until much later in life.
Nearly 30 years of research have transpired between that Wisconsin conference and today, Soto explained. And that work has produced a body of evidence that prenatal exposure to EDCs is tied to a higher incidence of various disorders. Animal experiments link prenatal EDC exposure to a higher incidence of altered behavior and cancer. These results, Soto said, “provide strong support to the idea that environmental chemicals that have hormone-like properties are at least one of the causes of the increase in breast and prostate cancer and reproductive problems throughout the population.”
Rolf Halden, director of the Center for Environmental Health Engineering at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute, agrees that scientists studying plastic pollution are generally confident of the mechanisms by which EDCs are toxic to the human body: They imitate hormones and mess up the signals in our bodies. Halden’s own 2010 review of studies concerning the impact of plastic exposure on human health collected evidence that there’s reason to be concerned.Left: A sample of the plastic pieces collected throughout the eXXpedition voyage.
For example, in epidemiological studies, there’s a correlation between exposure to EDCs and endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome in women, and reduced sperm count and genital abnormalities in men. Similarly, the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children is correlated with their mothers’ exposure to EDCs — mothers with higher exposures to the compounds have children who are affected by these conditions at a higher rate. Other studies find a similar relationship between breast cancer in the children of mothers exposed to the endocrine-disrupting pesticide DDT.
In terms of everyday exposures to EDCs from plastics, however, the evidence isn’t always as clear. I asked Ruthann Rudel, a toxicologist with the Silent Spring Institute who researches the impact of environmental chemicals on breast cancer, exactly what that impact is. Rudel recently oversaw a review of studies of environmental factors that cause breast cancer, including endocrine disruptors in plastics. None of the studies were able to overcome those two major obstacles — the lack of the control group and the long delay.
“There wasn’t a human study that we thought was informative about plastics-related chemicals and breast cancer, although evidence from laboratory studies continues to raise concerns,” she said.
The official position of the Endocrine Society, the largest international medical organization devoted to endocrinology, is that there is a “possibility that low-level environmental exposure may still have significant and/or long-term biological impact.”
Just that possibility is concerning considering that the list of endocrine-disrupting chemicals now includes some phthalates — a component in many plastics, like Saran wrap, that makes them soft and pliable — which have been banned from products for small children in the European Union and are now starting to be phased out of products there and in the U.S. An estimated 1,000 others, many derived from plastics, are suspected to also interfere with normal hormonal function.
The problem is that our ingenuity in developing plastics has led to a bewildering variety of possible culprits to test — more than any scientist can ever hope to explore. “If we have to do all the research that we have done to determine endocrine-disrupting characteristics of BPA and nonylphenol and some phthalates, we will exterminate the rats and mice produced for research,” Soto said.
It’s a bigger job than researchers, studying one compound at a time, can hope to finish. That’s why Emily Penn believes that her work — sailing the world to build knowledge about plastics in the ocean, and get people to care about the problem — can make a difference. They cannot answer all those questions, but she and her crew can at least begin to raise the alarm about how much of this stuff is out there, what’s in and on it, and what impact it might have.
In the cramped common room below deck on the Sea Dragon, a table is scattered with Petri dishes containing pebbles of plastic in cobalt, lime, cream, and rose. They range somewhere between ice cream-sprinkle-sized and pea-sized. These have all come out of samples of water or sludge. Laura Leiva, a Honduran doctoral student at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, shows me how they look under the microscope, with many, many little fibers sprinkled throughout each piece.
The sailboat’s seemingly endless nooks and crannies are packed with hundreds of these samples. There are little tubes of plastics that were pulled out of the water with a trawl. There are larger jars of ocean air samples — yes, there’s plastic in the air, too — which are going to be analyzed by Stephanie Wright, a researcher at King’s College London. She’ll examine whether fibers like the ones I saw under the microscope, when airborne, pose a risk for human lungs and airways.
She’ll also begin to theorize how airborne plastic fibers in marine environments end up there. A hypothesis with some traction is those fibers come off our clothes when we wash them, entering the ocean through sewage systems. That’s what Sarah Dudas, a British Columbia-based biologist with the government agency Fisheries and Oceans Canada and adjunct assistant professor at the University of Victoria, tells me their team has gleaned from its research. “Out of all the plastic particles we found,” she said, “most of them are textile-based” — tiny filaments from fabrics such as nylon and polyester.
Dudas began studying plastic in seafood in 2015. When shellfish farmers expressed concern that their aquaculture equipment might be shedding microplastics and contaminating their oysters and clams, she worked with the University of Victoria, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association to find out. What would that do to the shellfish? they wondered. You and I might wonder: What would it do to the people who ate the shellfish?
Firm answers on that are yet to come. But what Dudas’ graduate researcher, Garth Covernton, did find was that all shellfish they sampled, whether they grew near a wild or farmed beach, had similar amounts of microplastics in them. The explanation for that, Dudas says, is likely just that microplastics are ubiquitous.
In one sample from the eXXpedition trip, the team counted more than 500 pieces of microplastic, which extrapolates to half a million pieces of plastic in a square kilometer of open sea. That’s not including all the far tinier nanoplastic shards that they know will show up on further inspection under a microscope.
This was not how it was supposed to be; plastics were developed to be indestructible. But it turns out they gradually disintegrate over time.
In 2009, Katsuhiko Saido, then a researcher at Nihon University in Japan, found that plastics are actually far less stable than believed; they decompose into pieces and particles. Saido’s research showed that as they break down into tinier and tinier pieces, plastics release endocrine-disrupting compounds such as BPA. Due to this process, he says, plastic debris in the ocean will give rise to new sources of global contamination that will persist long into the future.
The tininess of plastic pollution also can make it more dangerous to living things. These minute particles may persist for millennia, and they can also cross human tissue and embed themselves into organs, theoretically delivering a toxic payload at close range.
If you slurped down an oyster that had caught a plastic microbead, it would probably pass through your system and continue on its merry way. But a five-micrometer fiber in that oyster — perhaps shed from a jacket — is small enough to slip through the throat tissue, for example, and lodge in your body.
And now, you may have acquired a very, very, very tiny pollutant-soaked sponge. In addition to potentially releasing endocrine-disrupting chemicals itself, plastic is lipophilic — meaning it attracts other oil-based chemicals and can act as a magnet for organic pollutants around it, like DDT, flame retardants, and waterproofing materials that have washed into the water.
According to Arizona State’s Halden, plastics can concentrate those contaminants up to 100,000-fold, and then, at least in theory, carry that super-concentrated contaminant into the next creature that consumes it — a bit of plankton, a shrimp, a fish, and, continuing on down the food chain, maybe eventually to a human.
One test of that theory is being conducted by the crew of the Sea Dragon. During my visit, about half a dozen women of the eXXpedition crew gather around a bolted-down table below deck to snip clippings of each other’s hair and seal them away in little glassine envelopes. These samples will be analyzed for mercury, a persistent ocean pollutant that the team hypothesizes can be carried by plastic.Laura Leiva cuts a piece of Meg Tapp’s hair, which she’ll analyze for mercury — a persistent ocean pollutant that the eXXpedition team hypothesizes can be carried by plastic. Grist / Eve Andrews
Because all of this is still mostly hypothetical, the eXXpedition team is sending the samples they’ve collected from the ocean water and air for the past six weeks to laboratories all around the world to test whether toxic compounds are in fact adhering to the plastic. Counting, identifying, and analyzing toxic substances in microscopic bits of plastic throughout nature is tedious and costly, to say the least. “But I do think that technology is developing so rapidly, that we’ll get there,” Dudas said. “It will just take some time.
Plastic is an element of our world now, and one that will probably be with us for a very long time. “The amount of plastic waste in our natural environment is reaching a tipping point where nature cannot digest it,” Katsuhiko Saido said.
So it’s not realistic to rid the entire ocean of plastics. We humans cannot clean up the mess we created. It’s just too big. And we will not stop producing these products altogether. “There is nothing that comes risk-free,” said Soto, the biologist who did early research on endocrine disruptors in plastic. “And I’m not saying we should be Luddites or return to the Paleolithic era.”
It is realistic and urgent, in the opinion of every scientist I spoke to for this article, to stop pursuing product innovation above all else, because new variations of synthetic materials are approved for market release every day without much analysis of their environmental or health impact. There are already ways to prevent the plastic problem from continuing to get worse, such as implementing stronger regulations to study a material’s impact before it’s sold, rather than after it’s ubiquitous. Shrinking the waste stream is also necessary.
After all, the problem will not just drift away. Before the eXXpedition reached Victoria, its last stop was at the Broken Group Islands, a smattering of remote, barely inhabited scraps of rock and greenery off the western coast of Canada’s Vancouver Island. This atoll is protected as part of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, and the only way to set foot on the islands is if you row, swim, or sail up to them yourself. In the mythology of the local Tseshaht tribe, part of the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation, this is where the first man and woman were put on Earth.
Laura Leiva, the Honduran student studying in Germany, tells me that on the shores of these islands, the team found plastics in big, recognizable chunks. The bits that retained recognizable labels showed Japanese characters, indicating that they’d floated all the way across the Pacific.
Even in Eden, there is plastic.
https://grist.org/article/whats-plastic-doing-to-our-bodies-this-all-female-team-is-investigating/
-
Exposure to Chemicals Before and After Birth Is Associated with a Decrease in Lung Function
Feb 6, 2019 | Medical Express
A study co-directed by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) and the French Institute for Health and Biomedical Research (INSERM), in collaboration with other European teams, concludes that early life exposure to parabens, phthalates and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is associated with reduced lung function in children. The study, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, involved analysis of data from more than 1,000 mother-child pairs, and is one of the first to apply a comprehensive exposome approach.
People are continuously and simultaneously exposed to a wide range of environmental factors including changing climate, air pollution in urban settings and chemical substances in the home. The totality of these exposures is referred to as the exposome. To date, many studies have addressed the effect of environmental determinants on respiratory health, but most had focused on single exposures or a single family of chemicals.
"This is the first study that applies an exposome approach to identify associations between pre- and childhood exposure to a range of important environmental factors and impairment of lung function, thereby representing a new paradigm in environmental health research," explains Martine Vrijheid, ISGlobal researcher and co-coordinator of the study.
The new study, performed under the European HELIX project, analysed data from 1,033 mother-child pairs from six European countries: Spain, France, Greece, England, Lithuania and Norway. The researchers measured 85 exposures during pregnancy and 125 during childhood relating to outdoor, indoor, chemical and lifestyle factors. Lung function was measured by spirometry in children at six and 12 years of age.
The results show that prenatal exposure to two types of perfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, PFOA and PNFA, was associated with decreased lung function. PFAS are used as stain and water repellents and are found in many household products and food packages. They can be absorbed by the body through food or water, for example, and passed to an unborn baby through the placenta.
The study identified nine exposures associated with impaired lung function in children. Five phthalate metabolites including DEHP and DINP, which are used as plasticizers and can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin, showed the strongest association. An association was also found with ethyl-paraben, a phenol compound used in cosmetics, and with copper, which in the general population is ingested mainly through drinking water and diet. Finally, house crowding and high density of facilities around school were also associated with lower lung function.
"These findings have important implications for public health," concludes Martine Vrijheid. "Preventive measures to reduce exposure to the chemical substances identified, including stricter regulation and the labelling of consumer products to better inform the public, could prevent lung function impairment in childhood and benefit health in the long-term," she adds.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-02-exposure-chemicals-birth-decrease-lung.html
-
Trump Praises U.S. Oil, Gas Dominance, Touts Trade Sanctions
Feb 6, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
President Trump delivered a one-hour State of the Union address Tuesday night that focused on a litany of priorities, but there were scant remarks about the tremendous gains in the U.S. oil and gas industry.
Still, the comments, few as they were, drew wild applause from most of the congressional audience, including the Republicans in the audience and notably Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, whose state has been part of the unconventional revolution to unlock natural gas and liquids reserves.
In the last two years, the president said, the administration “has moved with an urgency and historic speed to confront problems neglected by leaders of both parties over many decades. In just over two years since the election, we have launched an unprecedented economic boom, a boom that has rarely been seen before. There has been nothing like it.”
Trump set up his comments about U.S. energy dominance by noting that the administration had “cut more regulations in a short period of time than any other administration during its entire tenure. Companies are coming back to our country in large numbers, thanks to our historic reductions in taxes and regulations…
“And we have unleashed a revolution in American energy. The United States is now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world,” he said. The country has been considered the world’s largest producer since 2012.
“And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy,” Trump said. Cheniere Energy Inc. actually began exporting natural gas from its Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana in early 2016, nearly a year before Trump took office. Since his election, other Lower 48 gas export projects have ramped up, with more are on the way.
The president did not mention coal once, a topic in which he has previously invested political capital. Coal use and output has continued to decline during his tenure.
There had been hints preceding the address that the president would make a push to build more infrastructure, and in particular for oil and gas. However, there was no specific mention of energy pipelines or midstream operations during his speech.
“Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America’s crumbling infrastructure,” Trump said. “I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill -- and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.”
The president drew partisan cheers when he touted his replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement, aka NAFTA, with the United States-Mexico-Agreement. However, the revamped trilateral agreement has yet to be approved by Congress, and Democrats and Republicans have said it will not be approved without significant changes.
Trump said the trade war he launched last year, which imposed $250 billion of tariffs on Chinese goods, has resulted in “billions and billions of dollars” to date into the U.S. Treasury. Tariffs also have been imposed on imported steel and aluminum from around the world.
In total, revenue from customs duties, including tariffs, is estimated to have increased by $13 billion year/year during 3Q2018, according to the Commerce Department.
The United States has made it clear to China that it will no longer steal jobs or intellectual property from U.S. companies, Trump told the audience. Trade negotiations continue, and the two countries are attempting to reach a trade deal by early March.
Industry Pushing For Infrastructure
Following the address, oil and gas industry associations offered praise and pushed for more attention to infrastructure.
“We are encouraged that the president continues to prioritize development of critical infrastructure,” said CEO Don Santa of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “Expanding natural gas infrastructure is essential to improving our environment and growing our economy, and serves as the indispensable link between a clean-burning, affordable domestic energy source and the needs of consumers and job creators.
“Nonetheless, over the past few weeks we’ve seen natural gas utilities make announcements about the possible curtailment of new natural gas hook-ups in some areas of the country that are driven by decisions made at the state level.”
The impact of these decisions “is real and entirely avoidable,” Santa said. “Homeowners that want to switch to clean-burning natural gas and businesses that are seeking to expand can’t because of a lack of energy infrastructure.”
Santa also said streamlining the permitting process to allow private capital to be deployed in an efficient manner “will significantly spur job creation and allow for continued economic growth, without compromising on environmental protection.” The alternative, he said, would be more liquefied natural gas shipments from Russia to supply U.S. Northeast markets in time of need.
“INGAA applauds the administration’s commitment to developing commonsense, bipartisan solutions that allow for a practical, timely and predictable review and approval process for proposed infrastructure projects and urges Congress to move forward with legislation that will expand access to clean-burning, affordable natural gas. Our economic and environmental health demands it,” Santa said.
“I want to commend President Trump and his administration on their efforts to curb unnecessary regulations and to streamline the permit process for the midstream industry,” said GPA Midstream Association CEO Mark Sutton. “These efforts have helped the midstream industry build out our operations and get our infrastructure projects underway in a more timely and efficient manner. GPA Midstream and its member companies stand with the president to help continue to build out our nation’s energy infrastructure, which is crucial to all Americans.”
American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle said the president “reminded us that the state of American energy is strong. America's economy is booming, creating a thriving environment for innovation and energy development. Producers and consumers alike should be proud of America’s energy progress in 2018.
“The enormous resource wealth of the United States is finally being unlocked, lowering prices and improving Americans’ economic well-being. These wins didn’t occur in a vacuum. They happened because America’s energy producers had the know-how, and the Trump administration had the resolve to do away with self-inflicted federal red tape that hampered ingenuity and technological progress.”
Pyle said a “key priority” of the Trump administration’s agenda this year “must be to address the lack of pipeline capacity that is stranding energy resources in several key locations across the United States. We also look forward to finalizing important regulatory reforms in the year ahead.”
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117317-trump-praises-us-oil-gas-dominance-touts-trade-sanctions
-
Top Dem Previews Subcommittee Agenda
Feb 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The new head Democrat of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy offered a preview today of how the panel will look to advance clean energy technologies over the next two years.
The strategy, heavily focused on funding research and development as well as expanding the use of the national laboratories, appears to be an emerging trend in the short term for the Democrats in charge of overseeing the Department of Energy.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said during a panel organized by Politico that he envisions focusing on pushing research and development activities across the national laboratories as well as enforcing clean energy standards like energy efficiency regulations in limbo at DOE.
"I think we better invest in clean energy research and development. That's absolutely key," Rush said. "I'm excited about the national labs. The national labs have been such an understated, under-recognized, underfunded, underutilized asset that we have got to embrace."
He added, "I think they can help us as we head into the future."
That approach appears to align with how Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), chairwoman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, plans to approach her position in funding DOE for fiscal 2020. In remarks last month, Kaptur said she wanted to expand the role of the national labs (Energywire, Jan. 18).
Congress funded DOE's Office of Science, including the labs, at $6.6 billion, $325 million above the 2018 enacted level and $1.2 billion above the president's request for fiscal 2019.
It also funded the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at $2.4 billion, $57 million above the 2018 enacted level and $1.7 billion above the request.
"We think we ought to have a very robust, innovative approach to research and development, but also we ought to keep a keen eye on the job creation aspect of our energy sector," Rush said. "We have to make sure standards are understood. They are consistent, and that they are mutually agreed upon."
At the forefront of those considerations, Rush and fellow Democrats plan to push DOE on why a series of energy efficiency regulations — 16 appliance energy efficiency standards and a choice to not publish Final Energy Conservation Standards — have not gone forward under the Trump administration. A hearing is set for next week.
Democrats will also scrutinize clean energy grants. A report from the Natural Resources Defense Council found some $600 million in clean energy grants were not moving out of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy despite congressional appropriations (Greenwire, Dec. 10, 2018).
EERE Assistant Secretary Daniel Simmons said at the same event the department will continue to work to drive down clean energy costs while also honoring the intent of Congress and the appropriation process.
"We are working to move money expeditiously and in ways that is consistent with congressional direction ... and we will have some upcoming announcements," Simmons said.
Rush said the subcommittee had room for bipartisanship when it comes to energy policy. "We need to move away in some respects from the partisanship that has kind of epitomized the way we have been doing it when it comes to energy," he said.
"I do believe in a bipartisan approach that's meaningful ... that's well understood ... that will allow us to move on some things that divide us in terms of energy sector."
That work could include some type of legislation for grid modernization, although Rush was mum on what shape a proposal would take without first consulting with fellow Energy Subcommittee members.
Energy and Commerce spent much of the past two years looking at ways to bolster the grid. The result of those hearings has been a series of bipartisan proposals to better prepare the federal government's and private sector's cybersecurity planning, among other areas.
The grid modernization efforts may also offer a chance for energy policy to get involved with Congress' broader infrastructure push.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/06/stories/1060119821
-
Everglades Oil Well Must Be Permitted, Florida Court Says
Feb 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
Florida regulators must permit an exploratory oil well in the Everglades, a state appellate court ordered after a four-year legal dispute over the project.
If the project goes forward, it would be the first permit for oil drilling inside the Everglades in decades, although a Texas oil explorer has drilled in nearby Collier County within the last five years.
The state previously rejected the 2015 permit application by local real estate investment group Kanter Real Estate LLC—even after an administrative law judge found the permit should be granted. The state’s appellate court in Tallahassee agreed with the administrative judge in a Feb. 5 order, instructing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to grant the permit.
The planned drilling site is part of the “Pocket,” a section of the Everglades that is environmentally degraded and overgrown with cattails, according to the appellate court summary of the prior administrative judge’s findings.
The proposed drilling site is near or on the Sunniland Oil Trend, which stretches from Fort Myers to Miami, Fla., passing through the Big Cypress National Preserve—a site of previous disputes over oil exploration.
New AdministrationThe court’s order comes just a few weeks into the new administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who has vowed to focus closely on environmental issues while proposing to spend $2.5 billion over the next four years on water quality and Everglades restoration.
Kanter is seeking to drill a test well on a five-acre piece of its 20,000-acre property in Broward County, Fla. The company argued its plans called for strong environmental protections at the drilling site.
Nevertheless, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection argued it hasn’t issued a drilling permit in the Everglades since the 1960s, even before the state enacted legislation to protect and restore the Everglades in 1991.
In considering the permit request, state regulators also should have considered Kanter’s evidence of the relatively good likelihood of finding oil at the site, the court said.
His expert estimated a 23 percent chance of striking oil, which he said was considered good for oil exploration, and the potential for the well to generate between 180,000 and 10 million barrels of oil.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/everglades-oil-well-must-be-permitted-florida-court-says
-
Ruling Allows Exploratory Well in Everglades
Feb 6, 2019 | Tampa Bay Times (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Samantha J. Gross
An appeals court in Tallahassee, Fla., yesterday cleared the way for a Miami real estate family to drill an exploratory oil well in the Everglades.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection had denied a 2015 permit application from Kanter Real Estate, leading the company to head to administrative court. That court ruled for the Kanter family company, but the DEP still wouldn't grant the drilling permit, in part because the land was "environmentally sensitive."
That was incorrect, the appeals court ruled.
"It was an abuse of discretion to reject, modify, or substitute the [administrative judge's] factual findings," Chief Judge Brad Thomas wrote.
The land where Kanter wants to drill, part of the Sunniland Trend between Miami and Fort Myers, sits inside a South Florida Water Management District conservation area.
According to yesterday's ruling, the land is already "environmentally degraded" and full of cattails.
DEP Secretary Noah Valenstein "improperly recast factual findings to reach a desired outcome, contrary to law," the judges found.
Kanter applauded the ruling.
"Our focus has always been to conduct this project in a manner that would be highly protective of the environment," the company said yesterday. "We believe in our legal system, and this outcome validates our trust in the process. We are grateful that our rights as landowners have been upheld."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/06/stories/1060119795
-
Oil & Gas Industry Fights Opposition to Brownsville LNG Projects with Online Petition
Feb 6, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
The oil and natural gas industry is fighting opposition to three proposed liquefied natural gas export terminals at the Port of Brownsville with an online petition to support the projects.
Texans For Natural Gas, an industry funded group, has launched an online petition to counter opposition from a coalition of environmentalists, shrimpers, fishermen and community groups working under the banner Save RGV From LNG.
"Unfortunately, anti-LNG activists are trying to deny a transformational opportunity for families and workers in the Rio Grande Valley," petition organizer Steve Everley told the Houston Chronicle.
Houston-based NextDecade, Houston-based Texas LNG and Chicago-based Exelon are all seeking to build LNG export terminals at the deep South Texas waterway.
State and federal permit applications for the three projects have received hundreds of comments of opposition from Save RGV From LNG members compared to dozens of letters of support from politicians and business leaders.
Seeking to boost support for the projects from ordinary citizens, Texans For Natural Gas launched the petition less than a week after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Save RGV From LNG legal status to challenge the Texas LNG project.
Originally launched as North Texans For Natural Gas in 2014, the group reorganized in Feb. 2017 to address statewide issues.
Boasting more than 300,000 supporters and financial sponsorship from EOG Resources, EnerVest and ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy, Texans For Natural Gas has launched 15 petitions to support industry issues over the years.
Some 120 people have signed the group's Port of Brownsville LNG petition as of Wednesday morning.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Oil-gas-industry-fights-opposition-to-13593766.php
-
NTSB Releases List of Transportation Safety Improvements
Feb 6, 2019 | Transportation Today
By Melina Druga
The National Transportation Safety Board released its 2019–2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements Monday at a National Press Club event.
The annual list highlights areas the agency believes could be improved to prevent injuries, save lives, and reduce property damage resulting from transportation accidents.
This year’s list includes eliminating distractions, ending alcohol and other drug impairment, ensuring the safe shipment of hazardous materials, fully implementing positive train control, implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce speeding-related crashes, and improving the safety of part 135 aircraft flight operations. It also includes increasing implementation of collision avoidance systems in all new highway vehicles, reducing fatigue-related accidents, requiring screening for and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, and strengthening occupant protection.
“We at the NTSB can speak on these issues,” NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said. “We board members can testify by invitation to legislatures and to Congress, but we have no power of our own to act. We are counting on industry, advocates, and government to act on our recommendations. We are counting on the help of the broader safety community to implement these recommendations.”
The agency has 267 open safety recommendations associated with the list items. Two-thirds of the recommendations do not require regulations to improve safety.
https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/11781-ntsb-releases-list-of-transportation-safety-improvements/
-
Climate Change Returns to Limelight
Feb 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
House Democrats this morning brought climate change back to the political forefront for the first time in nearly a decade and were met with a Republican tone shift far from the skeptical attitude the GOP has taken to the issue for years.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change and the full Natural Resources Committee met simultaneously to discuss the need to act on climate change and the costs of inaction.
Democrats, unsurprisingly, talked about the issue in broad strokes, at times comparing it to the moon landing and the nation's other great scientific and technological challenges.
"In the 1960s, our government and our nation's best rose to the Sputnik challenge by sending a person to the moon. Today, our course remains unclear," said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chairman of the E&C subcommittee. "How our committee responds at this inflection point will define our nation for the next half century and beyond."
But more notable was the response from Republicans on both committees. Instead of the denial and skepticism of science that has defined their stance on climate change for a decade or more, Republicans largely acknowledged the planet is warming and focused instead on industry efforts to meet emissions goals and technological advancement.
The tone shift wasn't universal, but it was surprising, even though the party still overwhelmingly opposes carbon pricing and other more ambitious solutions proposed by climate advocates.
Republicans also honed in on the "Green New Deal," an interesting point of focus, since even Tonko and full Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) have expressed skepticism about the progressive policy platform.
Subcommittee ranking member John Shimkus (R-Ill.) lamented that climate activists often push for "top-down" solutions to climate change and ignore the importance of nuclear power. He noted that U.S. Energy Information Administration projections suggest fossil and nuclear energy will remain dominant in the power sector until at least 2040.
Full Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) similarly acknowledged that climate change is "real" but asked for a "longer conversation about the Democrats' Green New Deal."
"We have heard about general tenets of the plan for the U.S., such as all renewable electricity generation by 2030, all zero emission passenger vehicles in just 11 years, a federal job guarantee and a living wage guarantee," Walden said. "We have serious concerns about the potential adverse economic and employment impacts of these types of measures."
To put a finer point on the rhetorical shift, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) at one point asked every witness before the subcommittee if they believe climate change is happening and primarily driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Every witness — brought by both Republicans and Democrats — answered "yes."
"That in itself is a revolutionary step for this committee," DeGette said.
On the Natural Resources panel, meanwhile, Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) pushed to go beyond the "innovation" rhetoric that was so common this morning among GOP members.
"Today we turn the page on this committee from climate change denial to climate action," Grijalva said in his opening remarks. "We need more than innovation. We need good policies."
Ranking member Rob Bishop (R-Utah) didn't touch much on climate science but said he would rather tackle public lands issues more directly in the committee's jurisdiction.
Grijalva has dubbed February climate month for the committee, but Bishop questioned whether Democrats are really trying to craft bipartisan legislation on issues such as carbon capture and sequestration or if the hearings are simply for the reporters in the back of the room "so that they can write cute stories."
"I know you have made February as climate change month," Bishop said. "I appreciate the fact you picked the shortest month of the year to do that."
'They're delusional'
The Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee will do much of the work in developing climate legislation in the coming years, but questions this morning from lawmakers were scattershot, with members focusing on issues that affect their districts or specific areas of interest.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) questioned ClearPath Executive Director Rich Powell on the benefits of hydropower, which she called a "clean, reliable, affordable" source of energy. Walden directed his questions about forest management and wildfires, a perennial problem in his district, to Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
On the Democratic side, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) probed Michael Williams, deputy director of the BlueGreen Alliance, on the best way to craft a carbon pricing bill, while Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) questioned the Rev. Leo Woodberry about environmental justice issues.
Pallone focused his questions on addressing climate change in an infrastructure bill, likely the first opportunity Democrats will have this Congress to press the issue in bipartisan legislation.
Putting climate provisions in a major infrastructure package would be the thing "we can most likely do on a bipartisan basis and get Trump to sign," Pallone said.
The Natural Resources Committee, too, touched on a massive range of issues without much depth, including energy storage, solar, deepwater wind and offshore drilling.
Both parties touched on the need for resilient infrastructure in a discussion with Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D).
While it's clear there could be areas of bipartisan cooperation on climate in the coming months, Republicans are still resisting any broad legislation to cut carbon emissions, particularly if it incorporates ideas from the "Green New Deal."
For the GOP, solutions should be market-based or focused on research and development.
As Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) put it, "we all agree" that climate change is largely driven by greenhouse gas emissions, but "where we disagree is on solutions."
"If anyone thinks that decarbonizing America is going to save the planet, whether that's 10 years or 20 years from now, they're delusional," McKinley said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/06/stories/1060119827
-
This Climate Solution Is an Economic Opportunity Staring Congress in the Face
Feb 6, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jason Hartke
Roughly 100 new members of Congress have recently been sworn in. Together with returning lawmakers, they will be looking at answering the question of how to tackle the threat of climate change while strengthening the U.S. economy.
It’s actually quite doable.
We can’t understate the challenge ahead. Just last November, the Trump administration released the 4th National Climate Assessment, a report from 13 federal agencies that said our climate is changing faster than ever before in modern civilization, with impacts projected to intensify. It was yet another brutal warning, bringing renewed attention to the urgency of reducing carbon pollution.
We also confirmed recently that we’re far from being on track to reducing emissions. In January, another report said carbon dioxide emissions in the United States actually increased by 3.4 percent in 2018. We’re trending in the wrong direction.
But what feels like a problem is really a remarkable opportunity. And it starts with saving energy. Today, energy waste is all around us – old-fashioned light bulbs releasing most of their energy as heat, not light; poorly-insulated buildings letting the heated or air-conditioned air right out into nature; or old or inefficient appliances using many times the electricity as new ones to accomplish the same task.
Right now, we have proven, cost-effective solutions and technologies to significantly reduce wasted energy while also boosting the economy. And on the carbon front, according to the International Energy Agency, improving energy efficiency alone could account for more than 40 percent of the emissions reductions needed to meet global carbon emissions targets. And the kicker is that every time we’re saving energy we’re also saving consumers, businesses, or taxpayers money while stimulating job growth.
Members of Congress in both parties looking to address climate change have a host of upcoming chances to tackle this problem by advancing energy efficiency. A few examples:
First, Congress should ensure that our tax policies are incentivizing efficient energy use. For decades, the government has encouraged nearly every mainstream form of energy generation with tax incentives. Why aren’t we using this critical policy tool to also encourage less energy use?
What about incentivizing homeowners to make efficiency improvements, or encouraging developers to build high-efficiency buildings? We had incentives to do just this, but Congress let them lapse. They should be updated and reinstated promptly. A tax credit encouraging consumers to buy electric vehicles should also be updated to ensure the growth of electric vehicle markets, driving down the costs of vehicle production and accelerating their benefits for consumers and society.
Second, Congress and the administration should work together to update our aging infrastructure – and do it in a way that incorporates innovation in energy efficiency. We should make sure our public facilities – think airports, water treatment centers, military facilities and other public buildings – are built to use less energy. This won’t just cut down on needless pollution but will reduce government spending on operations costs for decades to come. And while we’re breaking ground on roads and bridges, we should modernize our freight and transit systems and deepen our network of electric vehicle charging stations.
Lastly, Congress should invest in federal programs for energy efficiency R&D, home weatherization, setting energy standards for appliances, and initiatives that help manufacturers and institutions save money through efficiency improvements. These efforts are a bargain because they stimulate far more economic activity and savings than they cost.
The U.S. has come a long way in using energy more efficiently in recent decades, but we have a long way to go. For lawmakers looking for bipartisan solutions to address climate change, there’s a bounty of opportunity. Now’s the time to seize it.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/428588-this-climate-solution-is-an-economic-opportunity
-
Climate Change Was the Subtext of the State of the Union. It Should’ve Been the Headline.
Feb 6, 2019 | Vox
By Umair Irfan
In his Tuesday State of the Union speech, President Trump focused on five main issues: immigration, workers, infrastructure, health care and prescription drugs, and national security.
And he squeezed in a boast about the surge in fossil fuel development in the United States. “We have unleashed a revolution in American energy — the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world,” Trump said. “And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.”
Nobody expected him to mention the consequence of those fossil fuels, climate change. But if he were truly taking on the biggest challenge and opportunity facing America, climate change would be right up there.
Rising average temperatures have proved to be a serious threat during Trump’s time in office. In 2017 and 2018, the US experienced immense, deadly billion-dollar disasters worsened by rising sea levels and higher air and ocean temperatures. Hurricanes, fires, floods, and droughts all racked up a massive human and economic toll. Thousands died. Thousands remain homeless. Taxpayers are on the hook for billions in relief aid.
The recent bankruptcy of PG&E, California’s largest utility, is a case in point. The company is facing upward of $30 billion in liabilities since its equipment was blamed for starting some of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California history. That the state became such a tinderbox is due in part to ongoing changes in the climate.
Trump’s own officials say the risks are growing. Last year’s National Climate Assessment produced by 13 federal agencies concluded that no part of the country is immune to the health and economic hazards of climate change. The Worldwide Threat Assessment from top intelligence personnel released last month warned that climate change poses a security risk.
“The United States will probably have to manage the impact of global human security challenges, such as threats to public health, historic levels of human displacement, assaults on religious freedom, and the negative effects of environmental degradation and climate change,” according to the report.
Even closer to home, a few blocks away from the Capitol building, the Navy is considering building a 14-foot, $20 million flood wall around Washington Navy Yard to handle sea level rise induced by the changing climate.
For an issue of such major national importance, the State of the Union would’ve been a great time to acknowledge the pain and suffering Americans have already felt from climate change, and to chalk out a bold plan to deal with it.
And there are lots of reasons to do so that align with Trump’s politics. A recent report from the Brookings Institution showed that some of the largest economic impacts of climate change in the United States fall to states that voted for the president in the last election. Adapting to climate change would literally protect his base.
Meanwhile, the boom in renewable energy jobs and the ongoing implosion of the coal industry is a sign that ramping up clean energy even further could drive unemployment even lower.
While a drumbeat is mounting on the left for a Green New Deal, Republicans are building their own momentum for an innovation-led, market-based approach to cutting greenhouse gases. Some have even introduced legislation for a carbon tax.
That means there are plenty of good ways for Trump to take a leadership position on climate change. Will he? Given his mocking of global warming, his appointments of fossil fuelindustry lobbyists to key environmental positions in his Cabinet, and his dismissal of his own intelligence chiefs’ read of the issue, it’s pretty clear why he has nothing to say during his address and likely won’t do much throughout the rest of his term.
However, several lawmakers sent a message with their guests in the House chamber. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) invited University of Washington climate scientist Lisa J. Graumlich to be her guest. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) brought former Interior Department climate researcher and whistleblower Joel Clement. And Sen. Ed. Markey (D-MA) brought Varshini Prakash, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, a group pushing for a Green New Deal.
So while climate change was neglected at the lectern of the House chamber, some in the audience tried to signal to Americans watching at home that it deserves time in the national spotlight.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/5/18207337/state-of-the-union-2019-climate-change
-
Green Buildings Must Do More to Fix Our Climate Emergency
Feb 6, 2019 | The Star
By Meg Holden and Rebecca Holt
After more than three decades of talk about the potential of building green, we’ve still failed to change the way we design and construct buildings so that the built environment stops being a dominant contributor to runaway climate change.
The Earth has already warmed about 1℃ since the 19th century and it’s on track to rise another degree. This second degree would push stable civilization to the very brink. In its recent report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for “urgent and unprecedented changes” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) so that we avoid reaching 2℃. While 1℃ may sound incremental, the action required to stop it is not.
C40, an urban climate action advocacy organization, was founded on the idea that cities are ideally positioned to stop the GHG juggernaut. And cities are starting to increase their formal policy commitments. In January, Vancouver joined other cities in declaring a state of climate emergency, a signal that urgent action is required.
Urbanists, engineers, architects, designers and developers — the built environment industries — know this. The industry created “green building” more than 30 years ago to prove that buildings can use less energy, store energy and even generate their own energy on-site. We know it can be done, but it needs policy, regulation and incentives in order for it to become business as usual.
Zero won’t happen voluntarily
Buildings are responsible for 40 per cent of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide. The Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction reports that global building sector CO2 emissions are up three per cent since 2010.
Architects have seen buildings as a possible solution to the climate crisis. Rather than being a major contributor to GHG emissions by relying on fossil fuels, buildings could not only greatly reduce their demand for energy, but could generate clean, renewable energy. The built environment must be carbon-neutral by 2050, if we are to limit warming to below 2℃.
To move ideas like this forward, Architecture2030.org, a U.S.-based non-governmental organization, recently introduced the first national and international “Zero Code” building standard for new construction. It focuses on designing buildings with high energy efficiency that use no fossil fuels in their operation. The organization is working in California and China to put the policy into practice.
Although the game plan exists, adoption is slow. Existing moves to reduce GHG emissions are voluntary and there is no penalty for falling short on performance. It’s hard to call this a plan for transformation.
Settling for mediocrity
In North America, most green buildings are judged by a family of certification systems called LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). But LEED’s actual impact on GHG emissions is uncertain.
We found only one peer-reviewed study showing that LEED projects reduce GHG emissions. In contrast, dozens of articles conclude LEED is primarily a “public relations tool” that offers the lure of “measurable publicity” and administrative convenience.
The most recent version of LEED (v4) evaluates a new building’s energy performance afterconstruction is completed. (Otherwise, the energy performance of a building is evaluated on a predictive model based on the building’s design.) This is a move in the right direction: energy performance should be measured in operating buildings.
But there’s a catch. For new construction, it’s optional. If professors gave students an A at the beginning of the semester, with an option to have their performance evaluated at the end of the semester, how many would stick with the A? What effect would this have on learning?
The performance of LEED-certified buildings (and those that are not yet certified) are evaluated against a proprietary dataset and given an “Arc score.” This process anchors our progress to a baseline number, not towards constructing unprecedented sustainable buildings.
This streamlining can leave us to falter in our ambitions. When there are no consequences for failure, we set ourselves up for mediocrity, not progress. If we do not know how LEED buildings contribute to GHG emissions reductions, we cannot expect them to be a solution to the climate emergency.
Bold leadership, not baby steps
Canada has said it will have “net-zero energy-ready” building codes in place by 2030. Here “ready” means that buildings may continue to use fossil fuels, but will be equipped with infrastructure to switch to on-site renewables. British Columbia is already piloting a subsidy program for the construction of 15 to 20 of these buildings.
The approach is comparable to the production of hybrid electric vehicles before plug-in electric vehicles as a more palatable, marketable and incremental path to change. In B.C., where hydroelectricity is abundant, a hybrid vehicle produces 53 times more emissions than a fully electric one.
GHG emissions from our buildings, worldwide, need to be 80 to 90 per cent lower in 2050 than they are today. The incrementalism is understandable, but the numbers do not work out.
We have the capacity to reduce energy-related C02 emissions from buildings to zero — or close to it. But we’re still far from being able back up the C40 claim that cities “are taking bold climate action, leading the way towards a healthier and more sustainable future.”
Big Oil is now being increasingly being hit with “climate liability lawsuits.” If we settle for baby steps in terms of GHG emissions, the built environment industries will be no different.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/02/06/green-buildings-must-do-more-to-fix-our-climate-emergency.html
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested