Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - February 7, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Most Economists Say Fresh Government Shutdown Would Hurt U.S. Growth
Feb 7, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Harriet Torry
Economists say a fresh government shutdown would take a toll on U.S. economic growth as well as business and consumer sentiment, as a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding approaches next week. -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Recycling Alone Is Not Enough to Solve the Plastics Crisis'
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Ocean advocates are pushing back on a pro-industry approach to the global plastic pollution crisis. -
(ACC Mentioned) 10 Must reads for the CRE Industry
Feb 7, 2019 | National Real Estate Investor
“Economists say a fresh government shutdown would take a toll on U.S. economic growth as well as business and consumer sentiment, as a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding approaches next week Most of the private-sector economic forecasters, 58.9%, surveyed in recent days by The Wall Street Journal said another shutdown would have “somewhat” of an impact on economic growth, while 16.1% said it would have a significant impact. -
(ACC Mentioned) Biesterfeld Plastic Supports Global Operation Clean Sweep Initiative
Feb 7, 2019 | NetComposites
Biesterfeld Plastic supports the Worldwide Operation Clean Sweep Initiative. At the end of January, the Biesterfeld Group's Plastic business division signed up to this undertaking on behalf of all its subsidiaries. -
(ACC Mentioned) Turning the Tide on Plastic Pollution: 5 Green Innovators You Should Check out in 2019
Feb 7, 2019 | The Sociable
By Andrew Thomson
In December 2018, representatives from 200 countries reached a tentative agreement on how to implement the Paris Climate Accord, three years after it was signed. -
Rust-Oleum Says Pa. Man Who Died Using Its Paint Remover in a Bathroom Knew the Risks
Feb 7, 2019 | The Pennsylvania Record
By Charmaine Little
Rust-Oleum Corp., the creator of the product a man was using to remove paint in a bathtub when he died, is arguing that the deceased knew of the product's dangers when he used it. -
(ACC Mentioned) Comments in for US Draft Assessments of GenX and PFBS Chemicals
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Feedback on the US EPA’s draft hazard assessments of GenX and PFBS chemicals has revealed two opposing positions, with NGOs and some state governments saying the safe exposure levels should be lower and industry the opposite. -
US States Showing Trend Towards Regulating Chemicals by Class
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Individual US states are increasingly considering class-based chemical regulations, rather than regulating individual substances, according to a US-based NGO. -
Appeals Court to Revisit Chlorpyrifos Ban
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Federal appeals court judges have agreed to revisit a 2018 decision ordering EPA to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos. -
Invasive Weed Creep Spurs Concern Over Roundup Bans
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The threat to public lands posed by invasive plant species is increasing by about ten million acres each year, and conservationists fear they will lose their best tool to combat it. -
Alaska Considers Flame Retardant Bans at State, Municipal Level
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Two bills are under consideration in Alaska, on both the state and municipal level, to regulate flame retardant chemicals (FRs) in certain consumer products. -
Florida City Bans Oxybenzone, Octinoxate in Sunscreens
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The City Commission of Key West, Florida, has voted to ban the sale of sunscreen products containing oxybenzone or octinoxate. -
Echa Definition of Microplastics ‘Too Broad’ – Cefic
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Cefic has criticised the current definition of microplastics in Echa’s restriction proposal for being "too broad", which could leave "room for interpretation" making implementation and enforcement of restrictions "challenging". -
Echa's New Siloxanes Restriction Plan Faces Industry Opposition
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa's proposal for a restriction under REACH on siloxanes D4, D5 and D6 has met with strong resistance from industry, with a European trade body predicting "significant" impact on the production of silicone polymers such as sealants as well as "unintended consequences" for the environment. -
NGO Scrutinises REACH Substance Evaluation Failures
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Three quarters of the substances found to pose a serious risk to human health or environment under REACH are allowed on the European market without any regulatory action, according to a major NGO report. -
EU Notifies WTO of 4-Tert-Butylphenol SVHC Intention
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
The European Commission has notified the WTO of its intention to identify 4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP) as a substance of very high concern. -
Norway Finds Errors in One-Fifth of Inspected Chemical Labels
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
In checks on 861 consumer products containing hazardous chemicals the Norwegian Environment Agency found 20% had labelling defects. -
Sempra Energy Begins Startup Process for Cameron LNG
Feb 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
More than 8,000 people are working day and night to bring the Gulf Coast’s third liquefied natural gas complex into operation within the next few months as global demand for LNG grows and U.S. natural gas production surges. -
BLM Nets Record Revenue; Bernhardt Touts 'Energy Dominance'
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
Oil and natural gas lease sales on federal lands in 2018 set an all-time annual record for revenue, generating $1.1 billion and nearly tripling the previous record set a decade ago, the Interior Department announced yesterday. -
With a Democratic Majority in the House, Infrastructure Must Remain Key Priority
Feb 7, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Charlie Melancon
Although partisan politics are at a record high, it seems both Democrats and Republicans can set aside their differences and come together on at least one issue: infrastructure development. -
CSX Annual Report Yields New Details on Capital Spending
Feb 7, 2019 | Railway Track & Structures
By Paul Conley
CSX has filed its annual report with securities regulators, and the document contains some items of interest to railroad contractors and vendors. -
Democrats Unveil Green New Deal That Would Compel Government to Make Radical Changes
Feb 7, 2019 | Roll Call
By Elvina Nawaguna
A resolution outlining the goals of an ambitious progressive plan to overhaul the U.S. economy across all sectors, from finance to energy to social services, was rolled out Thursday with the aim of driving future legislation. -
Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Green New Deal to Reset Climate Policy
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) released a sweeping package of environmental measures Feb. 7 that has pitted progressives in the House Democratic caucus against moderates over how far to go in pursuit of resetting the climate change debate. -
The Battle over Public Opinion on Climate is Over
Feb 7, 2019 | Scientific American
By Matthew Nisbet
It is a moment of intense worry, elated excitement, and political doubt for so many of us who care desperately about making progress on climate change. -
Top EPA Climate, Clean Air Adviser Resigns After Two Years
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration’s top air and climate adviser at the EPA for the past two years is resigning effective today, according to a Feb. 7 resignation letter sent to the White House and obtained by Bloomberg Environment. -
Democrats Eye Long-Term 'Carbon Price' Effort Under 'Two-Track' Agenda
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
House Democrats are eyeing a long-term legislative strategy to develop a “carbon price solution” to climate change, part of a “two-track” approach to the issue that will initially focus on “low-hanging fruit” policies that have a better chance of garnering bipartisan support. -
EPA Plans to Issue Delayed SO2 NAAQS Decision in Late February
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to issue a final rule on whether to revise its sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in late February after the government shutdown caused the agency to miss a Jan. 28 consent decree deadline to release the rule, according to agency and environmentalist sources. -
Environmentalists Sue EPA over Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
Three environmental groups are suing EPA over the agency’s Nov. 7 final rule for implementation of the Obama EPA’s tightened 2015 federal ozone standard, in a suit that may test the Trump administration’s policy of easing states’ compliance with the standard by granting waivers for ozone of international origin, among other steps. -
EPA Compliance Plan Downgrades Initiative on Industrial Air Pollution
Feb 7, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A draft plan outlining EPA's national compliance and enforcement plans for fiscal years 2020 through 2023 would downgrade or modify federal oversight of key environmental issues while elevating two new areas of concern.
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) Most Economists Say Fresh Government Shutdown Would Hurt U.S. Growth
Feb 7, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Harriet Torry
Economists say a fresh government shutdown would take a toll on U.S. economic growth as well as business and consumer sentiment, as a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding approaches next week.
Most of the private-sector economic forecasters, 58.9%, surveyed in recent days by The Wall Street Journal said another shutdown would have “somewhat” of an impact on economic growth, while 16.1% said it would have a significant impact.
“A second shutdown would severely erode consumer and business confidence,” said Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, in remarks echoed by other forecasters.
The impact on confidence “would be much bigger than direct impact of government spending and services,” said economist Robert Fry of Robert Fry Economics LLC.
A quarter of respondents said another shutdown would have little impact on economic growth.
Economist Michael Cosgrove of the Econoclast Inc. said the recent snap of cold weather will have a much larger negative impact on gross domestic product than a further government shutdown.
Congress and the White House face a Feb. 15 deadline to reach an agreement on spending issues, including funding for the president’s long-promised wall along the border with Mexico.
President Trump, when he announced the temporary deal Jan. 25 to reopen government, said that if no deal is reached that included wall funds, he would either shut down part of the government a second time or declare a national emergency.
Federal employees last week returned to work after the 35-day partial shutdown, which economists previously estimated would shave 0.3 percentage point off first-quarter growth.
Lynn Reaser of Point Loma Nazarene University, a former chief economist at Bank of America Corp., expects a fresh shutdown would have little impact on economic growth and “it would likely be short as public outrage rises.”
Economists’ average probability of a recession in the next year was 25% in the February survey for the second month in a row, matching the highest level since October 2011.
In response to a separate question, most forecasters, 45.7%, said they expect the next recession to start in 2020, while 39.1% predicted it will start in 2021.
Survey respondents expect U.S. economic output will grow at a 2.0% clip in the first quarter of this year and a 2.5% rate in the second quarter. Economists expect the unemployment rate to tick back downto 3.7% in the second quarter and remain at that low level through the second quarter of 2020. The unemployment rate was 4% in January.
More than three-quarters of forecasters, 76.4%, said they saw a greater risk that the economy would grow more slowly than it would grow faster. While that was a drop from 83.9% in January, it remains a sign of pessimism about the outlook. This time a year ago, fewer than 30% of respondents saw the risk to their growth forecast as tilted to the downside.
Uncertainty surrounding U.S.-China trade relations is another factor economists are keeping a close eye on. When asked about the effects on the economy this year from Washington and Beijing’s trade spat, more than two-thirds of economists said they expect the impact to be somewhat detrimental to the economy. Some 14.2% expect the spat to cause significant detriment to the economy, while 17.9% of respondents said they expect no meaningful economic effect.
The Journal surveyed 62 business, financial and academic economists Feb 1-5. Not every forecaster answered every question.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/most-economists-say-fresh-government-shutdown-would-hurt-u-s-growth-11549551601
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Recycling Alone Is Not Enough to Solve the Plastics Crisis'
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Ocean advocates are pushing back on a pro-industry approach to the global plastic pollution crisis.
A corporate campaign by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste pledging huge investments to tackle the problem received a lukewarm response from environmental corners. The alliance, composed of over two dozen plastics and petrochemical companies, says it will spend $1.5 billion to help nations improve their solid waste collection and recycling systems.
But environmentalists criticized the emphasis on waste management and recycling, though insisting they don't oppose expanded recycling initiatives. Instead, the groups say they want to see the companies dramatically reduce their production of single-use plastic items and find alternatives to plastic packaging. Nongovernmental organizations promise to continue pressing for laws discouraging or outright banning plastic items used once and then thrown away.
"Recycling alone is not enough to solve the plastics crisis," warned officials at Oceana. "We must reduce the amount of single use plastic being produced at the source. We must demand that companies reduce the amount of plastic they are putting into the supply chain and find alternative ways to package and deliver their products."
The issue has also surfaced in Congress with legislation aimed at following up on the 2018 Save our Seas Act, dubbed "Save our Seas 2.0" (E&E News PM, Feb. 6).
The Alliance to End Plastic Waste launched in mid-January. The group consists of some of the world's largest oil, gas and petrochemical companies, including Chevron Phillips Chemical, Exxon Mobil Corp., LyondellBasell Industries NV, Formosa Plastics Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd. (Energywire, Jan. 24).
Julia Stein, an attorney with the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA, said the pending "Save our Seas 2.0" legislation may lean more toward solutions proposed by the industry-led alliance.
"The focus is going to be on waste management and recycling systems and the potential to strengthen those domestically, and maybe some funding associated with R&D to promote recycling," she said.
To counteract this, Stein and her colleagues have been making the rounds nationally and globally in a bid to get their opposing points across. Plastics recycling is "an emphasis of the American Chemistry Council and other plastic manufacturers," she said. "We view it as just one part of a broader solution to the problem, and maybe not even the most critical part."
Given that less than 10 percent of the world's plastic waste is recycled now, "restricting consumption is an important part of the solution, and thinking about ways that we can reduce our use of plastic items that are nonessential like straws, like very thin plastic bags," Stein said. That argument is laid out in detail in a new briefing paper for lawmakers distributed by UCLA's Emmett Institute, the Surfrider Foundation and PlasticBagLaws.org.Other reduction efforts
The push to emphasize lower consumption and production over recycling dovetails with other initiatives.
Late last year, the United Nations launched its #CleanSeas campaign, declaring war on plastic trash in the oceans.
U.N. Environment says the campaign is aimed at "urging governments to pass plastic reduction policies; targeting industry to minimize plastic packaging and redesign products; and calling on consumers to change their throwaway habits." The U.N. campaign will also promote plastic bag bans or fees and the elimination of microplastics used in personal care or hygiene products.
At a press event held in December to announce the new push, U.N. officials and ambassadors sported reusable water bottles and hailed the effectiveness of bans on single-use plastics (Greenwire, Dec. 5, 2018).
Some companies are also joining the reduction efforts. For example, a Chinese branch of Kentucky Fried Chicken, KFC Hong Kong, recently announced it was expanding initiatives to eliminate the use of straws and plastic lids from its restaurants.
Other corporate-led groups also jumped on the recycling push before the petrochemical-led alliance began in January. In October, the investment firm Circulate Capital announced funding for a recycling awareness and systems improvement campaign focused on South and Southeast Asia, winning assistance from the Coca-Cola Co., Procter & Gamble Co. and Unilever, among other brand names.
Studies show the bulk of ocean plastic waste emanates from Asia, in particular China, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Stein argued that experience shows those nations simply don't have the capacity to expand their plastics recycling, pointing to recent restrictions imposed on waste imports by China and Malaysia as their existing waste collection systems became overwhelmed by a flood of foreign plastic trash.
Bans and fees, however, work, she said.
"There's a lot of demonstrated evidence that applying this fee actually shifts consumer behavior pretty dramatically, so you see about a 70 to 80 percent drop in single-usage bags once the fee is applied and people start bringing their own reusable bag," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/07/stories/1060119921
-
(ACC Mentioned) 10 Must reads for the CRE Industry
Feb 7, 2019 | National Real Estate Investor
1. Most Economists Say Second Shutdown Would Hurt Growth “Economists say a fresh government shutdown would take a toll on U.S. economic growth as well as business and consumer sentiment, as a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding approaches next week Most of the private-sector economic forecasters, 58.9%, surveyed in recent days by The Wall Street Journal said another shutdown would have “somewhat” of an impact on economic growth, while 16.1% said it would have a significant impact. ‘A second shutdown would severely erode consumer and business confidence,’ said Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, in remarks echoed by other forecasters.” (Wall Street Journal, subscription required)
2. The Depressing Reason Rich People Are Now the Fastest Growing Segment of Renters “Even the rich gotta rent. The affluent are increasingly renting, according to multiple studies. Indeed, renters earning $150,000 or more per year were the fastest-growing group of renters, according to a recent study by apartment listing site RentCafe.com, which analyzed pricing and demographic data from the U.S. Census, real estate listing sites Redfin and PropertyShark, and apartment real estate research firm Yardi Matrix.” (MarketWatch)
3. Economist Give Jerome Power a Grade of B-Minus on His Performance “A year into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s term, private-sector economists say he isn’t performing quite as well as his two predecessors but is roughly on par with former central-bank chief Alan Greenspan. Asked to grade the performance of each of the past four Fed chairs, economists surveyed this month by The Wall Street Journal assigned an average score of B-minus to Mr. Powell. Previous chairs Janet Yellen (2014-18) and Ben Bernanke (2006-14) each received B-pluses. Mr. Greenspan (1987-2006) also earned a B-minus from the economists.” (Wall Street Journal, subscription required)
4. Downtown L.A. Developer Donated $50,000 Before Pivotal Vote Involving High-Rise Project, Records Show “A real estate company seeking to raze a portion of the former Los Angeles Times headquarters and replace it with two high-rise towers gave $50,000 to a campaign committee with ties to Councilman Jose Huizar two months before a crucial vote on the property, according to recently filed contribution records. Onni Contracting (California) Inc., part of the group of companies that bought the downtown property in 2016, made the donation to Families for a Better Los Angeles. The committee held at least two fundraisers featuring Huizar last year.” (Los Angeles Times)
5. 10 Commercial Real Estate Systems That Can Help Your Business “In recent years, new and evolving technologies have impacted the way nearly every industry operates. This is especially true of real estate, where tech has revolutionized everything from property listing databases to signing contracts. The members of Forbes Real Estate Council have seen a lot of disruptive commercial real estate solutions emerge during their careers, and many of them have leveraged these new products and methods to improve their business.” (Forbes)
6. International Investor Raises its Stake in Plane’s $3 Billion Legacy West “The institutional investor that has backed Plano's $3 billion Legacy West development has upped its stake in the project. Atlanta-based Invesco Real Estate since day one has been the lead equity player in the hugely successful mixed-use project in West Plano. Recently Invesco acquired a larger share in the ownership of the Legacy West project from developers Fehmi Karahan and Robert Shaw.” (Dallas Morning News)
7. Lehigh Valley Among Top Emerging Industrial Markets “With the national industrial market experiencing its longest growth mode ever—positive absorption for 35 consecutive quarters—a handful of rising stars have emerged, including Lehigh Valley. The market, located in northeast Pennsylvania, has taken a spot on Colliers International’s 10 emerging U.S. industrial markets to watch in 2019. Lehigh Valley’s designation as an emerging U.S. industrial market for the second year came as no surprise to the real estate services firm’s local experts.” (Commercial Property Executive)
8. ‘Marijuana War’ Pits Struggling City Against Wealthier Neighbors in San Gabriel Valley “It’s part of a larger debate going on in communities in California and other states that have legalized marijuana, where some struggling cities are trying to lure pot businesses to help increase jobs and boost sagging tax revenue. The conflict also has underscored the economic imbalance between El Monte, a perennially strapped city where the median household income is $43,500, and nearby cities like Arcadia and Temple City, where many households make twice that. El Monte must look to industries outside ‘the mainstream’ to bring investment and jobs, Quintero said, industries his city’s wealthier neighbors can afford to snub.” (Los Angeles Times)
9. Fourth Amazon Go Store Opens in Chicago “Amazon opened its fourth automated check-out store in Chicago on Tuesday. The new Amazon Go store is located at 111 E. Wacker Dr. at the Illinois Center in the city's Loop, the online retail giant said in a statement. The opening came a little over four months after Amazon debuted its first concept store in Chicago - which was also its first outside Seattle where the company is headquartered.” (NBC Chicago)
10. How Mobility Shifts Shape CRE “From ancient times, transportation has shaped urban areas. One of the common locations for a city is where a river meets the ocean or the most-inland navigable point on a major river. Or think of the car-centric suburbs that flourished after World War II. The next revolution along these lines is already underway, according to Cushman & Wakefield, which just released Mobility Shifts in Commercial Real Estate: Implications of Ridesharing, Autonomous Vehicles, Micro-Mobility and Electric Vehicles, the third part of its Tech Disruptor reports series.” (Commercial Property Executive)
https://www.nreionline.com/nrei-wire/10-must-reads-cre-industry-february-7-2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Biesterfeld Plastic Supports Global Operation Clean Sweep Initiative
Feb 7, 2019 | NetComposites
Biesterfeld Plastic supports the Worldwide Operation Clean Sweep Initiative. At the end of January, the Biesterfeld Group's Plastic business division signed up to this undertaking on behalf of all its subsidiaries.
"Our ethos as a company is to take on our share of responsibility for people and environment by operating fairly and sustainably. We can protect our environment by using resources in a careful and conscientious manner. That is why we are happy to give our wholehearted support to Operation Clean Sweep, because we believe this initiative will lead to a more responsible attitude in our sector," said Carsten Harms, Member of the Executive Board at Biesterfeld AG and Spokesman of the Management Board of Biesterfeld Plastic.
The international Operation Clean Sweep initiative was first set up by the American Chemistry Council in the US, then PlasticsEurope extended the license to the programme in Europe, with the aim of preventing plastic granules/pellets, flakes and powders from entering the marine environment. This can be achieved if every company in the plastics supply chain (producers, distributors, logistics companies and installers) undertake to adhere to strict (storage) site management and containment measures. For example, keeping floors and storage areas properly clean and tidy can help prevent excess plastic granules from being washed into groundwater and entering the surrounding environment. The raw materials gathered up by thorough cleaning processes can then be disposed of properly, or (even better) recycled.
"We are asking our international logistics partners to follow our example and to support this initiative," explained Jens Imbeck, Head of Logistics, Biesterfeld Plastic. "Operation Clean Sweep is a sensible strategy, which we are happy to support, in the hope that as many companies as possible in the plastics sector will join us and take their share of responsibility."
https://netcomposites.com/news/2019/february/12/biesterfeld-plastic-supports-global-operation-clean-sweep-initiative/
-
Feb 7, 2019 | The Sociable
By Andrew Thomson
In December 2018, representatives from 200 countries reached a tentative agreement on how to implement the Paris Climate Accord, three years after it was signed. Considering how challenging it is for organizations like the United Nations to bring world powers together to tackle global warming, one of the biggest threats facing human life today, it is sadly unsurprising that there has been even less action taken against the second biggest environmental threat facing us today: plastic pollution.
Forward-thinking governments like Chile and New Zealand have taken a positive step forward in banning the use of plastic bags. But with around 90% of the world’s plastic waste still ending up in the ocean, if we continue polluting as we are now, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050.
As such, it has been left to private organizations to take the first step in making real change. The Ocean Cleanup, which is backed by $30 million in funding from high profile sponsors including Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff and philanthropist Peter Thiel is probably the most well-known initiative. Last year, the project launched its cleanup system (“System 001”), a 100-kilometer floating barrier uses natural oceanic forces to catch and concentrate plastic, to target The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is estimated to contain as many as 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic.
However, while The Ocean Project deserves praise, there are a number of startups and innovators who are tackling the problem in different ways, who have received less attention for their important work.
So let’s take a look at 5 less well-known startups and innovators who have created amazing technology to tackle plastic pollution in our oceans, seas, and rivers:Maria-Luiza Pedrotti: Using bacteria to eat plastic
Thanks to a breakthrough discovery in 2016 of the first bacterium that has naturally evolved to eat plastic, scientists have identified and begun to engineer enzymes that can break down plastic drinks bottles. This has led researchers and organizations to investigate the idea of using bacteria to degrade plastics in the ocean.
It has also been proposed that plastic-eating bacteria may already be at work in the oceans, and identifying and harnessing these is another line of research. Oceanographer Maria-Luiza Pedrotti is investigating how microbes can thrive on waste plastic for energy. She is currently working on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and with a general lack of studies on plastic-associated microbial communities, her results are generating a lot of interest.
While identifying plastic-eating bacteria is potentially an exciting area of innovation, the complex relationships between plastics and marine ecosystems would need to be understood in more detail before these could be applied on a large scale to oceans.Renewology: Converting plastic into boat fuel
Converting plastic into fuel is becoming a popular method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The American Chemistry Council predicts this industry will see a $6.6 billion investment to build plastic to fuel facilities in the US.
Renewlogy, a Utah-based waste technology company, has come up with a Back-to-the-Future esque solution of converting non-recycled plastic waste into boat fuel. Powered by solar panels, the mobile Renewlogy system can turn waste collected at sea or from beach cleanups into low-sulfur fuel, with high energy payback and zero toxic emissions.
Renewlogy raised funds from Goldman Sachs, Melbourne based venture capital firm Trimantium Capital and the Australian government. Earlier this year, Renewlogy was also awarded a grant from the Arizona Commerce Authority to help set up a (land-based) plastic to waste facility in Phoenix.Clear Blue Sea: Creating autonomous trash collectors
Clear Blue Sea is a non-profit with a startup attitude of developing innovative, seafaring robotic technology that will allow autonomous ocean clean-up of harmful plastics from the ocean.
Unlike most seafaring vessels which run on fossil fuels, its Floating Robot for Eliminating Debris (FRED) is completely powered by solar and wind. FRED harvests a variety of plastic pollution using multisized forks for debris of different sizes. Their ongoing efforts are focused on developing technology to enable FRED to collect plastic particles down to the size of millimeters.
Clear Blue Sea has received support from the BlueTech Incubator (BTI), an incubator offering startups in water and ocean-based technologies a place to work, create, collaborate and innovate. Opened only last year, the incubator is managed by The Maritime Alliance and has helped six companies expand their businesses, receive mentorship and access to capital and other resources to support their ocean cleanup missions.The Seabin project: Developing floating rubbish bins
A few startups have built floating rubbish bin devices to free the oceans of plastic bags, bottles, styrofoam, and other debris, however, the Australian based Seabin Project is ahead of the game in terms of function and funding.
Seabin is a floating debris interception device designed to be installed in the water of marinas, yacht clubs, ports and any water body with a calm environment and services available. An estimated 1.5 KG of floating debris can be caught in each bin per and they even have the potential to intercept mismanaged waste such as macro and micro-plastic debris, and microfibers.
Since launching in 2015 as a crowdfunding initiative, the Seabin Project has now secured corporate sponsorship from partners including financial services company Butterfield. Today there are Seabins all over Australia and Europe and the startup has been awarded as a leading innovator in sustainability.
The organization has also recognized that the most powerful tool to combat ocean pollution may actually be education and has therefore created educational programs for schools to learn about the issues of marine litter and how to help.The Bubble Barrier: Cleaning up riverbeds with bubbles
A research paper from 2014 revealed that an alarming amount of our plastic waste is not found on the water surface – 70% of rubbish sinks to the ocean floor. Moreover, most plastic arrives by rivers or channels. Many of the latest tech innovations are therefore committed to locating the unseen floating plastic, even before it has entered the open ocean.
The Great Bubble Barrier is focusing on the source: our canals, rivers, and channels. The startup has created a bubble screen by pumping air through a tube with holes located on the bottom of the waterway. These bubble barriers act as a curtain from the bottom of the river or channel up to the surface, catching floating debris and bringing them to the surface of the water. The barriers are placed diagonally to guide the plastic to the riverside, making it accessible for collection. The system also has little effect on fish and actually increases oxygen levels, which stimulates the ecosystem.
Last year, The Great Bubble Barrier was accepted into EU accelerator program Climate KIC stage 1and again this year for stage 2. This support combined with a successful crowdfunding campaign where 55,584 euros was raised, allowed the company to execute their first full-scale pilot in the Ussel, one of the fastest flowing rivers in the Netherlands.
The Paris Treaty has shown global organizations like the UN have their hands tied in motivating large-scale environmental policies from governments around the world. As such, it is more important than ever public and private investors support private organizations, startups and innovators like those previously mentioned in this article, who are taking real positive steps towards reducing plastic pollution.
After all, we don’t have time to waste, waiting for politicians to take action. Plastic pollution is expected to more than double in the next 10 years.
https://sociable.co/technology/turning-the-tide-on-plastic-pollution-5-green-innovators-you-should-check-out-in-2019/
-
Rust-Oleum Says Pa. Man Who Died Using Its Paint Remover in a Bathroom Knew the Risks
Feb 7, 2019 | The Pennsylvania Record
By Charmaine Little
Rust-Oleum Corp., the creator of the product a man was using to remove paint in a bathtub when he died, is arguing that the deceased knew of the product's dangers when he used it.
Meanwhile, a public interest group is citing the death in a lawsuit in Vermont against the Environmental Protection Agency that warns of exposure to methylene chloride.
“The decedent, Joshua Paul Atkins, appreciated and understood risks associated with the use, if any, of the Aircraft Remover product,” Rust-Oleum wrote in an answer to the lawsuit brought by the man's mother, Lauren Atkins in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County.
“With such knowledge, Joshua Paul Atkins continued to use the product in such a manner as to continue to expose himself to any alleged risks. As a result of Joshua Paul Atkins’ own assumption of risk, plaintiff’s recovery, if any, should be limited or barred.”
On Feb. 12, 2018, Atkins wanted to strip the paint from the front fork of his bicycle and was using a one-quart container of Rust-Oleum Aircraft Remover, the lawsuit says.
Lauren Atkins says Rust-Oleum did not warn that there was a risk of a significant health effect unless there was prolonged exposure or "intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents."
Joshua Atkins was performing the task in a bathtub so he could avoid exposing the family dog to the product. He poured the aircraft remover in a small metal cup.
Lauren Atkins came home to find her son slumped over in the bathtub, the lawsuit says. There was blood coming from his mouth and nose.
Rust-Oleum Corp. claimed the deceased didn’t use the product properly, which the defendant says served as a contribution to, or even a reason for his death, along with his alleged negligence.
“The decedent failed to take reasonable, adequate and available precautions to protect himself while using the Aircraft Remover product,” the document stated.
In a related development, Lauren Atkins has teamed with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and Wendy Hartley, who lost her son after he was exposed to methylene chloride, to sue Andrew Wheeler, acting administrator of the EPA, and the EPA itself in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The action was filed on Jan. 11.
The plaintiffs hope to get the court to compel Wheeler and the EPA “to perform their mandatory duty under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act to address the serious and imminent threat to human health presented by Methylene Chloride,” the lawsuit stated.
“They invoke section 20(a)(2) of TSCA, which provides the United States District Courts with jurisdiction to direct EPA to take actions under the law that are non-discretionary, but which EPA has failed to carry out.”
The Pennsylvania Record previously reported on this story after Lauren Atkins first filed her lawsuit shortly after her son’s passing. She and the other plaintiffs have asked the court for relief such as issuing a rule that bans manufacturers and distributors from selling products that contain methylene chloride. They also asked for reasonable fees and costs such as attorneys’ fees.
https://pennrecord.com/stories/511750723-rust-oleum-says-pa-man-who-died-using-its-paint-remover-in-a-bathroom-knew-the-risks
-
(ACC Mentioned) Comments in for US Draft Assessments of GenX and PFBS Chemicals
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Feedback on the US EPA’s draft hazard assessments of GenX and PFBS chemicals has revealed two opposing positions, with NGOs and some state governments saying the safe exposure levels should be lower and industry the opposite.
However, while industry comments primarily address technical aspects of the assessments, others refer to the wider regulatory context. In particular, NGOs and state regulators say that the hundreds of chemicals in the class to which GenX and PFBS chemicals belong – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) – should be assessed together.
The comments were submitted in response to the public consultation on two draft hazard assessments,published last year. These were:on hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) dimer acid (Cas number 13252-13-6) and its ammonium salt (62037-80-3), which are also known as GenX chemicals; andon perfluorobutane sulfonic (PFBS) acid (375-73-5) and related compound potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate (CASRN 29420-49-3).
The consultation ended on 22 January and, as of today, the EPA has posted 37 comments to the docket at Regulations.gov.
The consultancy ToxStrategies and North Carolina State University professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology Damian Shea – providing analysis on behalf of chemical company Chemours – focus on the critical study used for derivation of the reference doses (RfDs).
The GenX hazard assessment narrows down a large and diverse dataset to an industry oral reproductive and developmental toxicity study that identified adverse effects in the liver. Professor Shea says that this is not the right study for derivation of the RfDs; one for chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity should serve instead. The changes, he suggests, would result in higher RfDs.
The American Chemistry Council also criticises the use of the oral reproductive and developmental toxicity study but supports the use of a 90-day oral toxicity study.
The comments from ToxStrategies focus on the mode of action of the GenX chemicals, saying that the liver 'necrosis' identified in the critical study is not a true adverse effect. The changes in the liver are apoptosis – cell death occurring as a normal part of liver function – rather than necrosis, the consultancy says.
In its comments on the assessment of PFBS chemicals, chemical company 3M says that the evidence does not support the identification of adverse thyroid effects. This is because the histology of the tissues in the studies was normal and the assessment incorrectly interprets measurements of thyroid hormone T4, it suggests.NGOs and state governments
Meanwhile, NGOs and some state governments say that the EPA is fundamentally taking the wrong approach in addressing GenX and PFBS chemicals independent of any consideration of PFASs as a class.
"The single-chemical-by-single-chemical approach to assessing toxicity and setting regulations is untenable for PFAS compounds," the Environmental Working Group says in its comments. Treating PFAS chemicals as a group will "more efficiently and effectively protect public health" and stop the chemical industry "transitioning from one concerning chemical to another without providing substantiating data".
'The single-chemical-by-single-chemical approach to assessing toxicity and setting regulations is untenable for PFAS compounds,' NGO the Environmental Working Group
Six other NGOs and the Pennsylvania government Departments of Environmental Protection and Health echo the criticism. "We recommend that US EPA prioritise PFAS efforts that address multiple PFAS compounds holistically," the Pennsylvania departments say in their comments.
"We recommend that US EPA consider focusing on groups of PFAS compounds, rather than one compound at a time."
The NGOs also provide technical criticisms, saying, in particular, that some of the uncertainty factors are too low to be sufficiently protective and that there should be more use of human data.
Wendy Heiger-Bernays, clinical professor of environmental health at Boston University, and the Pennsylvania government departments supported the comments.Data around the corner
A group of five NGOs and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection suggest that at least two studies– by Cope et al and Conley et al – in the final stages of completion could provide significant data.
According to the NGOs, the Cope et al study identifies puberty delays and effects on mammary glands in mice exposed to GenX chemicals. They say that more information is expected at the Society of Toxicology meeting in Baltimore on 10-14 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74147/comments-in-for-us-draft-assessments-of-genx-and-pfbs-chemicals
-
US States Showing Trend Towards Regulating Chemicals by Class
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Individual US states are increasingly considering class-based chemical regulations, rather than regulating individual substances, according to a US-based NGO.
Gretchen Salter, strategic director at Safer States, told Chemical Watch that states have continued to take the reins of chemical regulation. And among legislation being considered in 2019, she said there appears to be a growing consensus that tackling entire classes of chemicals is a more efficient approach.
"Looking at just one at a time is not a sustainable way to regulate," Ms Salter said. "And the science is telling us that chemicals in the same class share certain chemistries, which translate into shared environmental and health hazards."
Safer States is a network of environmental health coalitions and organisations that argues that "new state and national chemical policies will contribute to the formation of a cleaner, greener economy". It keeps track of, and advocates on, proposed chemical legislation throughout the US.
And, according to its analysis, so far 28 states have more than 100 bills on chemical regulation planned for 2019. Ingredient disclosure and restrictions on fluorinated chemicals and other chemicals of concern are especially prominent among the proposed legislation. Potential state legislation for this year includes:
at least eight states to consider bans or restrictions of the use of PFASs in food packaging, including Connecticut, Maine and Vermont. The state of Washington passed a bill to restrict the substance class in 2018;
at least ten states to consider bans on the use of PFASs in firefighting foam, including Alaska, California and Michigan. Washington state also set the stage for this action, having banned PFASs in firefighting foam last year. The US Congress has also directed the Federal Aviation Administration to rewrite its regulations to allow for PFAS-free foams in airport firefighting;
at least 16 states will consider policies that would ban the use of flame retardants in residential furniture, children’s products and mattresses, including Arizona, Indiana and New York. Several will also move to regulate their use in electronic products; and
at least 11 states will consider policies to identify or disclose chemicals of concern including Alaska, California, Mississippi, New York and Virginia. Laws are being proposed across sectors, including personal care products, fragrances, electronics and products for pregnant women or children.
Because states typically have short legislative cycles (around four months, ending in early spring), Ms Salter expects a flurry of activity in the coming weeks.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74132/us-states-showing-trend-towards-regulating-chemicals-by-class
-
Appeals Court to Revisit Chlorpyrifos Ban
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Federal appeals court judges have agreed to revisit a 2018 decision ordering EPA to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday granted the agency's request for rehearing before the full slate of active judges on the court.
A three-judge panel last August ordered EPA to revoke its approval of the farm chemical. In a 2-1 opinion, the court found the agency had failed to explain its 2017 decision to reject a proposed ban even after identifying health risks (Greenwire, Aug. 9, 2018).
The court's move is a setback to environmentalists and public health advocates who have been working for years to restrict chlorpyrifos, which is sprayed on many U.S. food crops and has been linked to neurological development problems in children.
"EPA's own scientists have said for more than two years that chlorpyrifos is harmful, particularly to children," said Patti Goldman, the Earthjustice managing attorney handling the case, said in a statement. "Any delay to ban this toxic chemical is a tragedy."
Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, accused EPA of protecting the chemical industry.
"The longer this toxic stuff is on our fruits and vegetables, the more kids are exposed to chemicals that can harm their brains," Sass said in a statement. "EPA's own research underscores the severity of this threat, yet the agency is relentless in its fight to keep it on the market."
The Trump administration last year urged the 9th Circuit to rethink its decision. The government argued that EPA's denial of the proposed chlorpyrifos ban was not within the court's jurisdiction and that the court order to ban the chemical was an overreach.
A coalition of agricultural groups warned the court-ordered pesticide ban would "wreak havoc" on American agriculture, threatening certain crops that rely on chlorpyrifos and don't have affordable and effective substitutes.
The 9th Circuit finally answered last night, agreeing to review the August decision en banc — before all the court's active judges, minus a few who are recused from the case. The rehearing is set for the week of March 25.
A spokesman for Corteva Agriscience, the agricultural division of DowDuPont Inc., said the company is pleased with the court's decision to revisit the ruling.
"Chlorpyrifos is a critical pest management tool used by growers around the world to manage a large number of pests that can destroy crops, and regulatory bodies in 79 countries have reviewed the science, carefully evaluated the product and its significant benefits and continued to approve its use," the spokesman said in a statement.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency is happy with the court's decision, noting that it will work closely with the Department of Justice in preparation for the rehearing.
"Federal chlorpyrifos tolerances and registrations will remain in place and use according to label instructions can continue, as permitted by state law, while the rehearing is conducted," she added.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/07/stories/1060119923
-
Invasive Weed Creep Spurs Concern Over Roundup Bans
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The threat to public lands posed by invasive plant species is increasing by about ten million acres each year, and conservationists fear they will lose their best tool to combat it.
That’s according to data from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which manages 245 million acres of public land—about one in every 10 U.S. acres.
As pressure from invasive plants grows, conservation groups and land managers worry that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, might soon be off limits or severely curtailed.
“As it stands, glyphosate is really the best tool we have for fighting invasive plants,” said Brendan Quirion, an invasive species specialist with The Nature Conservancy, the largest conservation advocacy group in the world.
The safety of glyphosate, developed by Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer AG, has been disputed by scientists and regulatory bodies.
Across the six-million-acre Adirondack Park in Upstate New York where Quirion is based, The Nature Conservancy has removed over 1,000 infestations of invasive plants such as phragmites and Japanese knotweed, he said.
According to one report, the annual cost of controlling Japanese knotweed in the U.K. alone costs their economy around $214 million.
Bans and RestrictionsFarmers have been spraying glyphosate on their fields for decades, thanks to its low cost and effectiveness. But it has been dogged by emerging fears that at sufficient exposure levels, it may cause cancer.
The European Union came close to banning glyphosate in 2018 but opted instead to grant a five-year extension for the use of the product. A number of European countries including France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have all passed their own restrictions.
In 2018, glyphosate was added to California’s official list of chemicals known to cause cancer. That move has since prompted dozens of local governments to ban glyphosate spraying in public school districts, parks, and gardens, and in some cases, private property.
California’s warning followed a similar one by the World Health Organization in 2015, which found that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Despite the more recent concerns, most of the world’s top regulatory agencies have found it to be among the safest herbicides on the market—a fact that Bayer officials continue to emphasize.
More Invasive WeedsIn recent years, California has been fighting a raging battle with non-native aquatic weeds, which now cover one-third of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the nexus of California’s statewide water system.
“Back in 2014-2015 we really had a crisis on our hands with water hyacinth,” said John Madsen, a California-based weed scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Madsen said water hyacinth—along with several other aquatic invasives—have been choking harbors, snarling boat propellers, and contributing to declines in fish populations in the delta.
“If we don’t have glyphosate available, we’ll either have to switch to newer herbicides that are much more expensive, which means less acres controlled, or we’ll have to go with chemicals that are more concerning from a toxicological standpoint,” he said.
Spurred on by a number of factors including increased global trade and climate change, invasive species have emerged as a growing threat to human livelihoods and biodiversity generally.
“In 2000 we inventoried the presence of invasive and noxious weeds on 35 million acres of BLM land,” said Gina Ramos, a senior weeds specialist with Bureau of Land Management.
“When we updated the inventory in 2014 the number went up to 79 million acres,” or more than double the acreage, she told Bloomberg Environment.
The bureau’s integrated pest management program employs a three-pronged approach to pesticide use, together with mechanical and biological methods of weed control, such as introducing species that feed on invasive plants.
But unlike other herbicides, Ramos said, glyphosate works well on almost any plant and has the added benefit of killing them at the root level, eliminating the need and cost of going back to apply more chemicals.
Divisions in Conservation CommunityThe public row over glyphosate also has brought out divisions within the conservation community between those who want to preserve access to the chemical for habitat restoration and preservation, and anti-GMO activists and pesticide protection groups.
“We know that glyphosate is a probably carcinogen and a chemical that harms soil health,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, a senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network.
In an emailed statement, Ishii-Eiteman pointed to new evidence of the emergence of glyphosate-resistant superweeds.
“Rather than relying on a harmful, likely carcinogenic, and increasingly ineffective herbicide that poses a serious threat to public and ecosystem health, we need to ground efforts to restore habitat and manage invasive plants firmly in an ecological approach to plant pest management,” she said.
But others maintain that the limited application of glyphosate to control invasive species on public lands has little connection with broader concerns such as its use in agriculture.
“I think we need to fully consider both the ecological and societal impacts of not having this tool,” said The Nature Conservancy’s Quirion. “And then compare the risks of using a small amount of herbicide, versus the much greater impacts of having invasive species spread across the landscape.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/invasive-weed-creep-spurs-concern-over-roundup-bans
-
Alaska Considers Flame Retardant Bans at State, Municipal Level
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Two bills are under consideration in Alaska, on both the state and municipal level, to regulate flame retardant chemicals (FRs) in certain consumer products.
Representative Geran Tarr (D-Anchorage) has pre-filed a measure in the state’s House of Representatives (HB 27) to restrict the use of certain flame retardant chemicals (FRs) in children’s products and furniture. This includes:organohalogenated, organophosphorous and organonitrogen flame retardants;nanoscale material-based flame retardants; andantimony.
Called the Toxic-Free Firefighters and Children Act, the bill seeks to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or distribute new consumer products containing these substances in Alaska. Covered products include mattresses, toys, children’s clothes, car seats and "other products used in the home primarily for or by a child or the parent or guardian of a child."
It would also require labels on products containing any other, still legal, FRs.
"Exposing firefighters to these cancer-causing chemicals puts them at undue risk, especially because there are now safer alternatives available for manufacturers to use that don’t risk people’s lives," Representative Tarr said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the municipality of Anchorage is also considering an ordinance – AO 2019-15 – to prohibit the manufacture or sale of juvenile products and upholstered furniture containing certain flame retardants above de minimis levels. This includes the substances referenced in HB 27, as well as PBDEs, decaBDE and some chemicals identified as high concern in other US states.
"We’re hoping that passage of the Anchorage ordinance will serve as a springboard for the passage of the state-wide regulation," said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, in the organisation’s recent webinar on the subject.
A public hearing on the proposal will take place on 12 February in Anchorage.
California, Maine and Rhode Island already prohibit certain FRs in a variety of products, as does the city of San Francisco. According to analysis by NGO Safer States, Alaska is among at least 15 other states considering bans on the substances during this legislative year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74131/alaska-considers-flame-retardant-bans-at-state-municipal-level
-
Florida City Bans Oxybenzone, Octinoxate in Sunscreens
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The City Commission of Key West, Florida, has voted to ban the sale of sunscreen products containing oxybenzone or octinoxate.
The ban, which will come into effect on 1 January 2021, is intended to protect the coral reefs off the coast of the beach destination, which has a population of 25,000.
It follows similar actions in Hawaii and Palau in recent months.
The ordinance says its intention is to preserve the marine ecosystem, amid concern that the substances have "significant harmful impacts on the marine environment and residing ecosystems around the water of Key West, including coral reefs that protect the shoreline".
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) and Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) both filed letters in opposition, citing a lack of scientific evidence that the ingredients are bleaching coral reefs.
"We fear this legislation will create confusion, put consumers’ health at risk and potentially discourage the use of sunscreens – an important part of a safe sun regimen," the PCPC wrote.
But support came from a variety of residents, NGOs, academics and manufacturers of sunscreens with alternative ingredients, many of whom said other products are available to the consumer.
The ordinance was agreed by a 6-1 margin.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74169/florida-city-bans-oxybenzone-octinoxate-in-sunscreens
-
Echa Definition of Microplastics ‘Too Broad’ – Cefic
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Cefic has criticised the current definition of microplastics in Echa’s restriction proposal for being "too broad", which could leave "room for interpretation" making implementation and enforcement of restrictions "challenging".
On 30 January, Echa outlined its restriction proposal for intentionally added microplastics in all consumer and professional use products, following a European Commission request under its plastics strategy.
Echa’s proposal defines microplastics as materials consisting of solid polymer-containing particles less than 5mm in diameter, to which additives or other substances may have been added.
In its comments to Chemical Watch Cefic insisted on the need for scientific evidence on the hazards and risks associated with intentionally added microplastics to justify the restriction proposal.
According to the association, it should focus on those areas where "unacceptable risks" have been clearly identified, as required under REACH. But this has not yet happened and "available scientific evidence is still under development", Cefic added.
Additionally, the impact of microplastics on water or soil needs to be "further examined and then regulated", it said, citing the Science Advice for Policy by European Academies' recent report.
Prepared by a scientific working group advising the Commission and published last January, this says "little is known" about the ecological and human health risks from microplastics. And while "significant, negative effects" have been shown under laboratory conditions, there is not scientific evidence proving that the same happens in nature.
However, it points out that if they continue to be emitted without any restriction, "there could be widespread future risks in most locations".
Cefic is currently working on a project ‘ECO49’, which aims to develop methodologies for assessing environmental risks from microplastics in order to "close the scientific gap".
The project is part of the Long-range Research Initiative (LRI) and will run for the next three years, beginning in Q1 2019. Cefic will collaborate with the International Council of Chemicals Associations (Icca) and European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (Ecetoc) on the work.Cosmetics sector
Echa’s restriction proposal will have an impact on several sectors, including cosmetics, detergents, medical devices and oil and gas.
Trade association Cosmetics Europe agreed with Cefic’s criticism of the definition. Under its terms non-plastic substances used in cosmetics might "fall under the scope of any future restriction", it told Chemical Watch.
"It should be remembered that all plastics are polymers but not all polymers are plastics," and the proposal should focus only on the issue "to be addressed", which is plastic, it added.
The scope is "too broad", the trade body said, and could lead to "very high socio-economic and consumer impacts". In particular, this may cause "disproportionate" impact on key products, such as leave-on cosmetics.
These products are estimated to contribute to 2% of the overall emissions of intentionally added microplastics. But, it added, the proposal says "79.3% of the costs of the overall restriction will be borne by leave-on cosmetics products".
Furthermore, it does not take into account that there are "no known alternatives for many critical functions", it said. Neither does it recognise the possible impact on SMEs and "makes assumptions about consumer preferences".
Cosmetics Europe called on Echa to ensure that any measure put in place for cosmetic products is "truly proportionate" and "does not restrict the ability of the European industry to innovate".Questions about oil
Nik Robinson, secretary of the European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association (Eosca), said he welcomes the proposal "as a starting point". But he is concerned that there are some "data errors" in the report, which he hopes to discuss with Echa "and seek amendments where necessary".
The proposal provides a derogation for industrial sites, but will require monitoring, reporting and review, "all of which already occur as part of the Ospar Harmonised Mandatory Control System (HMCS) for the use and discharge of offshore chemicals (Decision 2000/2)," Mr Robinson added.
While the proposal details need further consideration, "it would seem that Echa has recognised that there are already stringent systems in place for the selection, permitting and reporting of use and discharge of substances in oil field applications", he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74140/echa-definition-of-microplastics-too-broad-cefic
-
Echa's New Siloxanes Restriction Plan Faces Industry Opposition
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa's proposal for a restriction under REACH on siloxanes D4, D5 and D6 has met with strong resistance from industry, with a European trade body predicting "significant" impact on the production of silicone polymers such as sealants as well as "unintended consequences" for the environment.
Echa submitted its restriction proposal on the three substances – octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) – in mid-January at the request of the European Commission.
An existing restriction covers D4 and D5 in wash-off cosmetics. The proposal is to extend this to leave-on cosmetics and other consumer and professional products for all three siloxanes above concentrations of 0.1%.
The substances are used as ingredients in cosmetics and as monomers in the manufacture of silicone polymers. They are therefore present as impurities in silicone polymer sealants, which represent a major industry in Europe, supplying key downstream sectors, such as construction materials and medical devices.
In a statement, CES-Silicones Europe said a 0.1% limit across sectors would hit downstream users and that it was "concerned about the potential impacts on the use of silicone polymers in existing sustainable solutions and future technologies".
The proposed restriction may also have a "net negative result" for the environment, it said, considering that "the use of silicone polymers reduces the carbon footprint of countless other sectors."
Cosmetics Europe also criticised the restriction. The Association of the European Adhesive & Sealant Industry (Feica), meanwhile, said the levels of by-product siloxanes are "already low" in silicone products and further reduced by the addition of other chemicals to the final formulation.'Inadvertent' impact
Echa said polymers are exempt from the registration and evaluation elements of REACH, but they can be regulated under other aspects of the legislation where this is necessary, such as restriction.
While the restriction proposal does not specifically target silicone polymers, it added, it could "inadvertently" affect them in certain applications such as sealants.
Since the wash-off cosmetics restriction, which applies from 31 January 2020, the identified uses of the siloxanes have been revised and there is now a need to address the risks associated with those uses, the agency said.
The restriction proposal argues that mixtures containing silicone polymers used as medical devices and as sealants used in the construction and transport sectors may have "relatively high concentrations" of D4, D5 and D6 as impurities and these contribute to emissions.
The proposal offers some derogations, however, and Echa has left the door open for more. It will invite affected stakeholders to provide further information "to allow an appropriate concentration limit to be established," it said. The public consultation is expected to start in March.
In July, Echa decided to add the substances to the candidate list due to their persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties.
For D4, D5 and D6, therefore, both of the major risk management processes provided by REACH, the authorisation and restriction processes, are currently active.
Asked about the efficiency of this situation, Echa told Chemical Watch that the two should be used "in a complementary manner" to ensure proper control of risk and provide an incentive to develop alternatives.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74170/echas-new-siloxanes-restriction-plan-faces-industry-opposition
-
NGO Scrutinises REACH Substance Evaluation Failures
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Three quarters of the substances found to pose a serious risk to human health or environment under REACH are allowed on the European market without any regulatory action, according to a major NGO report.
Reviewing data from community rolling action plan (Corap) on substance evaluation, the report by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) says concerns have been "demonstrated" for 34 substances on the list "but no actual regulatory follow-up has been initiated to control the risks".
In ten years of REACH, further risk management measures have been initiated for just 12 substances on the list, the EEB says. These include:one restriction;one SVHC identification; andten proposals for harmonised classification and labelling.
REACH substance evaluation is performed by member states and the Corap list currently features 352 chemicals they have prioritised for evaluation.
Once a substance is added to the list, however, it takes many years to conclude whether the risks are sufficiently controlled with existing measures or if further regulatory action is necessary, such as restriction or SVHC identification.
Evaluations have been completed for only 94 chemicals on the list, the EEB says, and for 46 of those the risks have been found not adequately controlled.
The report's other findings include:67 substances are still awaiting evaluation decision;126 out of 196 substances under evaluation (64%) lack the information needed to demonstrate safety; and102 substances for which evaluation has started are awaiting further information and follow-up evaluation.
The results also demonstrate the need to improve the interface between evaluation and follow-up risk management, the EEB adds.
Hélène Loonen, the report's main author, urged officials to "raise their game" on chemicals of concern. Protection, not assessment alone, is the main goal of REACH, she said, and "if a chemical substance is found to be unsafe, governments should act without delay".Long process
The report also queries the long delays in the evaluation process, which leave potential concerns unresolved for many years.
It takes up to between seven and nine years, and sometimes even more, before a suspected concern is clarified under Corap, the EEB says. Add to that the development and implementation of risk management measures, and "it may take 12 to 16 years to regulate chemicals of concern".
Half of all scheduled evaluations were postponed over the last few years, and substances sometimes linger on the list for many years before evaluation can even begin, the report says. It makes several recommendations to accelerate the process, including:
avoid delays in Corap. Consider how to implement an integrated approach to accelerate evaluation and how Echa's proposal can be developed to integrate compliance check and substance evaluation;
respect legal timeframes stipulated by REACH. Ensure preparation of draft decision or conclusion of evaluation is completed within 12 months of publication of Corap. Start follow-up evaluation if requested information is not provided by legal deadline;
avoid delays in reaching conclusions due to requests for further testing. Ensure that all available information is used. It is important to use all weight of evidence and apply the precautionary principle; and
optimise the interplay between expert groups and the Member State Committee (MSC). Organise a workshop to align principles and optimise use of expert groups on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and endocrine effects.
Improvement to evaluation procedures is one of the actions the European Commission has set out in its second REACH review.
The EEB report also reviews dossier evaluation under REACH, after Echa revealed last year that 70% of dossiers checked in the past ten years were non-compliant. The NGO calls for improved transparency on dossier registrations and decisions, and an increase in Echa's compliance check rate, which is currently set at 5%.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74137/ngo-scrutinises-reach-substance-evaluation-failures
-
EU Notifies WTO of 4-Tert-Butylphenol SVHC Intention
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
The European Commission has notified the WTO of its intention to identify 4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP) as a substance of very high concern.
The draft implementing decision states this is because of its endocrine disrupting properties and the probable serious effects of the substance to the environment.
According to the Commission, "effects observed in fish are irreversible and may be relevant for wildlife populations".
The draft decision aims to include the substance on the REACH candidate list.
The final date for comments is 60 days from notification, while the initial proposed date of adoption and entry into force was 30 June 2018.
In July 2016, Echa added the substance to its SVHC Registry of Intentions. That year, Germany proposed it should be identified as an SVHC and the Member State Committee agreed.
The following year, Echa updated its public activities coordination tool (PACT) with a risk management option analysis (RMOA) and hazard assessments on 4-tert-butylphenol, which concluded that it should be proposed for the candidate list.
Norway has added the substance to its national list of priority chemicals, following recommendations from the national Environment Agency.
But the UK has opposed SVHC status for the substance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74163/eu-notifies-wto-of-4-tert-butylphenol-svhc-intention
-
Norway Finds Errors in One-Fifth of Inspected Chemical Labels
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
In checks on 861 consumer products containing hazardous chemicals the Norwegian Environment Agency found 20% had labelling defects.
The checks were conducted in 49 stores in Oslo and its surroundings, Stavanger, Bergen, Trondheim and Tromsø during May 2018.
The most common error was that the label was not in Norwegian – about one-third of all non-compliances. The second most common problem was a lack of pictograms warning users of hazards.
The main objectives of the inspections were to see if all hazardous chemicals sold to individuals were properly labelled and whether those products requiring child-resistant closings had them.
Inspectors also checked whether biocides were approved by the Norwegian Environment Agency or whether the active substances were approved by the EU.
Twelve inspectors and four professors from the department of chemicals and biocides participated in the action. The controls were carried out by teams of two people.Other findings
Inspectors found five products lacking child-resistant closings, while 15 did not have tactile warning labels. One product was found to be illegal to sell to consumers due to the presence of a known carcinogen.
Twenty-nine products contained labeling that was out of date. Sellers received verbal warnings that the products must be removed from sale, but can be resold once the correct CLP information has been provided by the supplier.
In comparison, in 2015 the Environment Agency carried out CLP controls in stores and found about 30% of 500 products checked were non-compliant. The most common errors were the size of the pictogram and hazard label (17%) and errors with the ingredients (14%).
And in 2017, inspectors found that 5% of the chemicals (> 8,500 pieces) were labeled according to old regulations.
Elsewhere in Europe, in 2018 the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) found 11% of 24,000 consumer products containing hazardous chemicals had defects in labelling or packaging.
And across the EU, compliance with REACH and CLP Regulations showed slight improvement between 2007 and 2014, the European Commission said in its first report on a new EU-wide enforcement indicator.
The report, released at the end of November, also showed that duty-holder compliance fluctuated from 80-85% for REACH obligations and 83-88% for CLP over the period.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74154/norway-finds-errors-in-one-fifth-of-inspected-chemical-labels
-
Sempra Energy Begins Startup Process for Cameron LNG
Feb 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
More than 8,000 people are working day and night to bring the Gulf Coast’s third liquefied natural gas complex into operation within the next few months as global demand for LNG grows and U.S. natural gas production surges.
Sempra Energy of San Diego recently received clearance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to begin the process of starting up its Cameron LNG project along the Calcasieu River Ship Channel here. Sempra officials won’t provide an exact estimate of how long the process could take. But if all goes well, the first of three production units that super-cool natural gas into a liquid could be up an running in as soon as a matter of weeks, with the first shipment to foreign customers to follow soon after.
The goal is to have all three production units in service by the end of the year and LNG on the way to destinations around the globe where it will be used for power plants, industrial customers and homes. The project is being developed as a joint venture between Sempra and four companies from Japan and France
“It’s an important project for Sempra Energy, it’s an important project for the nation and it’s an important project for the world,” Sempra Energy Strategic Initiatives Officer Lisa Glatch said.
Cameron LNG is the latest milestone in the Gulf Coast’s emergence as global hub of LNG exports. Cheniere Energy has exported LNG from its Sabine Pass complex in Louisiana since 2016 and last year began shipping from a second complex near Corpus Christi. Meanwhile, several other projects stretching from Louisiana to Brownsville are advancing.
On Tuesday, Exxon Mobil and Qatar Petroleum, the state-owned oil company of the Middle East nation, said they would move ahead with the $10 billion Golden Pass LNG export terminal near Port Arthur.
Cameron LNG’s three production units, which are known in the industry as trains, would produce nearly 12 million metric tons of LNG per year - enough natural gas to power around 10 million U.S. homes for a day. Originally developed as a $900 million LNG import terminal that began commercial operations in July 2009, Sempra decided to take advantage of record natural gas production from U.S. shale basins to get into the export game.
“As you well know, the world has changed we, some through Mother Nature and American technology and ingenuity, have a tremendous supply of natural gas,” Glatch said. “It’s clean burning and in high demand around the world especially from allies in Asia and Europe. Sempra is in a very natural place to step up and take a leadership role.”
Sempra entered into a joint venture with Japanese energy trading firm Mitsui & Co., French refining company Total, Japanese conglomerate and heavy equipment manufacturer Mitsubishi and Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha to develop the export terminal. nearly three years to obtain a federal permit for the project
The LNG export terminal will receive natural gas from Sempra’s Cameron Interstate Pipeline and TransCanada’s Columbia Gulf Transmission Pipeline. So far, crews have installed 1 million feet of pipe, about 7.5 million feet of cable and a quarter million cubic yards of concrete. Before construction on the plant could begin, crews raised the soil at the site 12 to 15 feet above sea level and brought in additional power lines and a substation to deliver 100 megawatts of electricity.
“It’s a huge civil engineering, construction, logistics and procurement effort,” Cameron LNG CEO Farhad Ahrabi said. “It requires a lot of patience, a lot of dollars and a lot of know-how.”
The export terminal is just one of three facilities planned by Sempra as part of a two-coast approach to more export 45 million metric tons of LNG per year by the mid-2020s. In addition to Cameron LNG, the copmany is also developing the Energia Costa Azul LNG facility in Baja California, Mexico and seeking to develop another Gulf Coast LNG terminal Near Port Arthur.
As more nations switch from coal-fired power plants to natural gas, Glatch said demand for LNG is robust.
“In the mid-2020s, there’s expected to high demand and limited supply, that’s a good place to be for projects like ours,” Glatch said. “We’re ahead of the pack.”
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Sempra-Energy-begins-startup-process-for-Cameron-13595972.php
-
BLM Nets Record Revenue; Bernhardt Touts 'Energy Dominance'
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
Oil and natural gas lease sales on federal lands in 2018 set an all-time annual record for revenue, generating $1.1 billion and nearly tripling the previous record set a decade ago, the Interior Department announced yesterday.
The record revenue generated by 28 quarterly lease sales overseen by the Bureau of Land Management included 1,412 parcels covering nearly 1.5 million acres of federal land, Interior announced in a press release proclaiming the record as evidence of an "Energy Revolution Unleashed" — a paraphrase of President Trump's description of his energy policies during this week's State of the Union address.
The previous annual record for lease sale revenue was $408 million in 2008.
Nearly all of the $1.15 billion generated last year came from a two-day sale last fall in New Mexico that resulted in $972 million in total bids — more than doubling the previous 2008 record for an entire sales year. The results of that lease sale prompted then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to rip critics, whom he said "are eating their words" as "once again President Trump's policies are bearing fruit for the American people" (Greenwire, Sept. 7, 2018).
Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who visited Hobbs, N.M., yesterday to promote energy development on public land, struck a more modest tone.
Bernhardt, whom Trump has picked to replace Zinke as secretary, credited the president's commitment to responsible "production of domestic energy." And he praised Trump's "visionary" State of the Union address that "set the stage for this administration's second act on American energy dominance."
Trump boasted in his speech that his administration's policies have "unleashed an American energy revolution" (E&E Daily, Feb. 6).
"With a bold, new approach to energy development, and a President who recognizes that conventional wisdom is meant to be challenged, we are starting to see what a great America looks like," Bernhardt said in a statement.Greens: 'Important resources are suffering'
But not everyone likes what they see.
The Trump administration's "American Energy Dominance" campaign has sparked backlash from conservation groups and some congressional Democrats who argue the administration is simply giving away public lands to the industry. Oil and gas leases are for 10 years, during which time other uses of the lands are restricted.
There are also concerns about the impacts of drilling activity to air and water quality, as well as sensitive wildlife habitat for species like the greater sage grouse.
Nada Culver, senior counsel and director of the Wilderness Society's BLM Action Center, said she wished Interior's enthusiasm in announcing the record lease sale revenues extended to the agency's "actual mission to manage our public lands for all Americans, which includes protecting national monuments, national parks, wilderness, wildlife, clean air and clean water."
Culver added, "All of these equally important resources are suffering at the hands of this single-minded focus on turning over lands to oil and gas companies."
The perception that Interior is giving away public lands to the industry was bolstered by a Sept. 11 lease sale covering 295,174 acres in Nevada that drew zero bids but plenty of criticism from environmental groups that accused the administration of ignoring market demand and blindly pursing its energy dominance campaign (Energywire, Sept. 21, 2018).
There are also concerns about the impacts of increased drilling on cultural resources, with proposed lease sales near the Chaco Culture National Historical Park in northwest New Mexico drawing national attention.
On that score, New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall (D) yesterday issued a statement asking Bernhardt to commit to a 10-mile buffer around Chaco during his visit to the Land of Enchantment.
Udall and fellow New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich (D) last year introduced legislation — the "Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act" — that proposed withdrawing 316,000 acres of federal land surrounding the park from future energy or mineral development, and establishing a 909,000-acre buffer zone around the park (E&E News PM, May 22, 2018).
"I hope he will take the opportunity to listen to public voices and the voices of Tribes who consider Chaco sacred, and maintain the 10-mile buffer around Chaco for the immediate future," Udall's statement said.
Udall said that as Bernhardt "auditions to take over the Interior Department on a permanent basis," he could "go a long way toward building credibility by stopping lease sales within a 10-mile radius of Chaco, and pursuing a real joint management plan that takes into account Tribal and public concerns."A 'historic year'
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has insisted on keeping a consistent quarterly lease sale schedule on available public lands that have undergone environmental review and public comment.
That's not expected to change. Interior said in its press release announcing the record revenue that it is committed to holding another 28 lease sales in 2019.
BLM has attempted to streamline some "regulatory burdens" on the industry, mostly through internal policy instruction memorandums issued to the bureau's field offices.
Some of these policies have run into legal resistance, including a court blocking BLM instructions for a shorter public comment period for proposed lease parcels in sage grouse planning or management areas (Energywire, Sept. 24, 2018). As a result, BLM removed hundreds of thousands of acres of parcels in grouse habitat from several December lease sales.
These regulatory measures, while controversial to some, helped contribute to the 2018 record lease sale revenues, said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance. "When Interior moves forward with responsible leasing and development on appropriate non-park, non-wilderness lands, we return billions of dollars in lease and royalty revenue to the American people," Sgamma said.
"The leasing policy changes in early 2018 coupled with the political will to move forward provide a stark contrast to the obstruction from the prior administration," she added, taking a familiar swipe at Obama administration policies that the industry has long maintained slow energy development.
Nearly half of lease sale revenue goes to the state where the sale took place, while the rest goes to the U.S. Treasury. The individual states also receive half the revenue from royalties if oil and gas is actually developed on the lease.
Brian Steed, BLM's deputy director for policy and programs, noted that the $1.1 billion in lease sale revenues is nearly equal to the bureau's entire fiscal 2018 budget.
"This was a historic year for oil and gas, and clearly illustrates what is possible when public lands are put to work using innovation, best science, and best practices," Steed said in a statement. "Our sound energy policy continues to ensure reliable, safe, abundant, and affordable energy for all Americans, without putting unnecessary burdens on industry."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/07/stories/1060119933
-
With a Democratic Majority in the House, Infrastructure Must Remain Key Priority
Feb 7, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Charlie Melancon
Although partisan politics are at a record high, it seems both Democrats and Republicans can set aside their differences and come together on at least one issue: infrastructure development. Infrastructure has continued to make headlines in recent weeks, with calls from across the aisle echoing the need for a comprehensive plan in 2019. Newly elected Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently told reporters she has discussed “building infrastructure” with President Trump and aims to “create jobs from sea to shining sea.”
Fourteen million Americans have jobs directly related to infrastructure. From construction workers to air traffic controllers, these jobs make up nearly 11 percent of our nation’s workforce. With the passage of a strong infrastructure bill, opportunities in the field are only expected to multiply. Economic growth goes hand-in-hand with infrastructure development.ADVERTISEMENT
But economic stimulus is not the only factor driving calls for infrastructure development – the physical need is evident. Nearly 9 percent of our highway bridges were considered “structurally deficient” in 2017. The EPA recently announced more than $470 billion is needed to maintain and improve the nation’s drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years. And in the oil fields of Texas’ booming Permian Basin, pipeline bottlenecks have become so severe that drillers have resorted to flaring record amounts of natural gas. Not good!
It’s clear that infrastructure development must be a priority in 2019. Yet, that’s not what we have seen in the bayous of Louisiana or the plains of the Dakotas. For example, energy infrastructure projects have been plagued with fringe activists and anti-energy protesters who continue to escalate tactics, often times breaking the law and endangering themselves and innocent bystanders in the process. Some have taken to chaining themselves to construction equipment and creating aerial blockades in the trees. In Pennsylvania, one vigilante protester started a fire near equipment and spread spoiled food near a construction site to bother workers and attract wild animals.
At a time when both parties are working to come together in Washington, these risky demonstrations and polarizing attempts are further contributing to the collapse of public discourse around this important issue. There is a time and place for civil debate on these projects, but dangerous stunts and risking the public’s wellbeing by preventing the completion of much-needed infrastructure is not the answer.
Some groups have even gone as far as to demand banks refuse to do business or associate with the energy companies building projects to better serve American consumers across the country. We must come together to support these critical projects and work to ensure they’re done in the most environmentally sensitive way possible.
The U.S. faces complex infrastructure deficiencies that are undoubtedly multi-faceted and will take some time to improve. These matters will not be solved overnight; or within the next year, for that matter. But a long-term solution starts with a strong infrastructure plan with bipartisan support in 2019. Through the integration of effective public-private partnerships and a clear vision, lawmakers can hit the ground running and develop a plan to grow our nation’s infrastructure.
Charlie Melancon is a former Democratic member of Congress from Louisiana and former Louisiana Secretary of Wildlife and Fisheries. He now works with the pro-infrastructure group Grow America’s Infrastructure Now (GAIN) Coalition.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/428951-with-a-democratic-majority-in-the-house-infrastructure-must
-
CSX Annual Report Yields New Details on Capital Spending
Feb 7, 2019 | Railway Track & Structures
By Paul Conley
CSX has filed its annual report with securities regulators, and the document contains some items of interest to railroad contractors and vendors.
According to the document, known as a 10-K, the Class 1 railroad’s spent some $771 million on track last year, well above the $733 million in 2017. By contrast, spending in the “Bridges, Signals and Others” category plummeted to $491 million from 2017’s $570 million.
Total capital spending last year by CSX reached $1.75 billion, in keeping with the numbers released when the railroad reported earning last month. More than half of the capex spend will be used “to sustain the core infrastructure,” according to the 10-K.
Roughly $100 million of the total capex in 2019 will go toward implementing positive train control. CSX estimates it has already spent $2.2 billion on PTC. CSX currently estimates that the total multi-year cost of PTC implementation will be approximately $2.4 billion for the company, according to the 10-K, which can be downloaded here.
Another interesting item from the 10-K offers details on how CSX accounts for both removing and installing track material. “Through analysis of CSXT’s track replacement process, CSX determined that approximately 20% of labor costs associated with track material installation is related to the deconstruction of old track, which is expensed, and 80% is associated with the installation of new track, which is capitalized.”
The document also provides an update on the size and scope of the railroad. At December 2018 , CSX had a total of 36,557 track miles in its system, consisting of:
Mainline track: 26,286 trackmiles (TM)
Terminals and switching yards: 9,350 TM
Passing sidings and turnouts: 921 TM
https://www.rtands.com/freight/class-1/csx-annual-report-capital-spending/
-
Democrats Unveil Green New Deal That Would Compel Government to Make Radical Changes
Feb 7, 2019 | Roll Call
By Elvina Nawaguna
A resolution outlining the goals of an ambitious progressive plan to overhaul the U.S. economy across all sectors, from finance to energy to social services, was rolled out Thursday with the aim of driving future legislation.
The Green New Deal resolution sponsored in the House by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and in the Senate by Massachusetts Democrat Edward J. Markey cites urgent warnings in two recent major climate reports to compel the federal government to act urgently on the radical changes they say would make the U.S. resilient and sustainable across all sectors.
In an October report, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that unless urgent and drastic action is taken, global temperatures could rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) between 2030 and 2052, which could have catastrophic repercussions for the economy, the environment, humans and wildlife.
That report was followed in November by the multi-agency Fourth National Climate Assessment report that issued similarly urgent warnings about the potential for damage across all sectors of the U.S. economy because of incidents exacerbated by climate change.
The resolution would force lawmakers in the House and the Senate to take a position on the Green New Deal and its ambitious goals of significantly remaking the U.S. economy within a decade of when the plan starts. It calls for a move to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “through a fair and just transition” for all communities and workers; to invest in sustainable infrastructure and industry; to ensure everyone has access to clean air and water and healthy food; to ensure communities are resilient to the impacts of climate change; and to guarantee jobs with family-sustaining wages.
It would also direct the government to take steps to stop and prevent the oppression of, and promote justice and equity for, the so-called frontline and vulnerable communities, including indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, the poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
To get to those goals, the government would have to embark on a “Green New Deal mobilization,” a 10-year project that involves significant overhauls of the country’s infrastructure, transitioning to 100 percent renewable and zero-emission energy, and changes in sectors of the economy, from transportation to farming.
Estimates on what it would cost to implement the ideas of the Green New Deal vary widely, but those who have dared a guess say it would be at least in the trillions of dollars. A Stanford University study estimates that it would require an upfront capital investment of $13.4 trillion to transition to a 100 percent renewable energy system of wind, water and solar by 2050.
The Green New Deal is not a new concept, although it was recently popularized by Ocasio-Cortez, the outspoken progressive lawmaker, who together with other newly elected progressive Democrats has helped galvanize young environmental activists around the country. Groups like Sunrise Movement and 360.org have coaxed more lawmakers to support the plan and are demanding the same commitment from 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Some candidates in the 2020 presidential race, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee have declared their support for the plan.
The Green New Deal evokes President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s “New Deal” stimulus package aimed at kick-starting the economy and creating jobs during the Great Depression. But Ocasio-Cortez and other backers of the agenda say that while the government’s reforms during that period created the greatest middle class in the U.S, they excluded low-income, poor and racial minority communities, and they want to correct that.
The resolution says it would usher in “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era,” and that it presents an opportunity to create “millions” of good, high-wage jobs, counter systemic injustice and create prosperity and economic security for everyone in the country.
The ambitious and unambiguously progressive goals would require years of work across several congressional committees before any legislation is completed. More importantly, they stand very little chance of becoming law while Republicans, who assert that the agenda is radically counter to mainstream economic thinking in the U.S., remain in control of the Senate. Nor does the agenda have unanimous support among Democrats, especially those representing fossil-fuel-dependent regions.
“It would be very expensive for all families, it will drive up energy costs terribly high and it’s just not practical,” GOP Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said even before the resolution was released.
And on the first day of climate change hearings in two House panels on Wednesday, Republicans shot down the idea.
“We should be open to the fact that wealth transfer schemes suggested in the radical policies like the Green New Deal may not be the best path to community prosperity and preparedness,” House Energy and Commerce’s Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee ranking member John Shimkus of Illinois said at a hearing.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/democrats-offer-green-new-deal-resolution-for-economic-overhaul
-
Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Green New Deal to Reset Climate Policy
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) released a sweeping package of environmental measures Feb. 7 that has pitted progressives in the House Democratic caucus against moderates over how far to go in pursuit of resetting the climate change debate.
The proposals, which have come to be known as the Green New Deal, were crafted in conjunction with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Their plan envisions shifting away from fossil fuels and other sources of global warming causing emissions within 10 years.
It also calls for moving away from nuclear power, according to a fact sheet on the plan distributed by Ocasio-Cortez’s office—some climate activists favor nuclear as a carbon-free energy source.
“Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us, our country, our world,” Ocasio-Cortez said on NPR’s Morning Edition, which posted a link to the resolution on its website. “No one has actually scoped out what that larger solution would entail. And so that’s really what we’re trying to accomplish with the Green New Deal.”
The plan has already gathered 60 co-sponsors in the House and has prompted strong opposition from Republicans and industry leaders who say it’s technologically impossible and will costs tens of trillions of dollars.
It has also received a tepid response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). When asked for her response to the plan, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill pointed to remarks she made in an interview with Politico published Feb. 7.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”
Advocacy of stronger environmental laws has been an important part of the agenda of Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives in the new Congress. Hundreds of young activists stormed Pelosi’s office after Democrats won the House in November and were briefly joined by Ocasio-Cortez in a live-streamed protest to demand passage of a radical plan to fight climate change.
The proposal has no chance of gaining support in the Republican-controlled Senate, let along being signed into law by President Donald Trump, and has revealed some rifts within the environmental movement. But has become a rallying cry among some liberals.
The plan, in the form of a non-binding resolution, weaves together what had been a hodgepodge of progressive proposals and aspirations into a single initiative. It sets a goal of shifting the nation to 100 percent “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources,” within 10 years “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.”
While the plan doesn’t explicitly call for a ban on fossil fuels, as some early backers had hoped, Ocasio-Cortez’s office has made it clear that the plan doesn’t leave a path forward for the fuel source, which a fact sheet on the plan said would make “new fossil fuel infrastructure or industries obsolete.”
But that wasn’t enough to stave off criticism from environmental groups like Friends of the Earth. While the group’s president, Erich Pica, praising the resolution as “a good first step,” but said it was incomplete. “By failing to expressly call for an end of the fossil fuel era, the resolution misses an opportunity to define the scope of the challenge,” Pica said.
The fact sheet also makes explicitly clear there is “no space” for nuclear power in the plan amid a goal of eventually achieving 100 percent renewable energy.
“This means that the Green New Deal will not include investing in new nuclear power plants and will transition away from nuclear to renewable power sources only,” according to the document, which also raised the prospect of decommissioning existing nuclear plants in favor of renewable energy sources.
That provision drew a response from a nuclear trade group.
“Any approach to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions requires all clean energy technologies, including nuclear, to work together to address that urgent problem,” Maria Korsnick, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute said in a statement. The group, which includes Westinghouse Electric Co. and Exelon Corp, said nuclear energy generates more than half the nation’s carbon-free electricity.
Supporters say the resolution’s measures are needed to avert a coming climate catastrophe already being presaged by devastating storms, raging wildfires and intense heat waves.
Among its provisions:A dramatic expansion of renewable energy, and energy and water efficiency upgrades for all existing U.S. buildings;An overhaul of the country’s transportation system to eliminate pollution and emissions from the sector “as much as technologically feasible,” with a nod to investment in zero-emission vehicles, public transit, and high-speed rail;Efforts to promote clean manufacturing free of pollution byproducts and greenhouse gas emissions “as much as technologically feasible";Steps to lessen the effects of climate change, build a smart grid, clean up hazardous waste sites and restore threatened lands; andA goal of health care and guaranteed jobs for all.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ocasio-cortez-unveils-green-new-deal-to-reset-climate-policy-1
-
The Battle over Public Opinion on Climate is Over
Feb 7, 2019 | Scientific American
By Matthew Nisbet
It is a moment of intense worry, elated excitement, and political doubt for so many of us who care desperately about making progress on climate change.
Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and globally are once again estimated to be on the rise following several years of decline, and new scientific studies indicate that the effects of global warming may be occurring at a faster pace than previously thought.
The uptick in emissions occurs even as United Nations scientists warned last year that emissions need to be cut 50 percent by 2030 and entirely by mid-century in order to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts from rising seas, drought and extreme weather.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to move forward with plans to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations climate treaty and to roll back regulations intended to cut emissions from power plants and cars.
The details of a proposed Green New Deal, announced this week by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, is sure to elevate the political agenda status of climate change and be celebrated by political progressives. But we should be wary about what the Green New Deal will do to the already contentious political debate over climate change.
As confounding as the current political situation might seem, however, there is a glimmer of hope. The decades-long struggle by scientists and environmentalists to build broad-based public support for cutting greenhouse emissions is finally over. Science has won.
According to a December 2018 survey conducted by Yale University, 62 percent of Americans now say that global warming is human-caused, and 72 percent say that global warming is either personally very important or somewhat important to them. When asked, a similar proportion (69 percent) answer that they are at least “somewhat worried” about global warming, and about three in 10 (29 percent) are “very worried” about it, the highest level since the question was first asked in 2008.
At least 60 percent of Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans say they support a variety of emissions-reducing and clean energy policies such as a carbon tax, restricting coal power plant emissions, and government investment in energy innovation. At the local level, in all but a few congressional districts, analysis by Yale indicates that a majority of constituents back similar measures.
Grassroots activism is also ascendant. Not since the first Earth Day in 1970 has the country witnessed a similar scale and intensity of environmental activism.
Tens of thousands of Americans have participated in protests against new oil and gas projects and in marches demanding policy action.
At the start of this year, dozens of young people helped Rep. Ocasio-Cortez catapult her proposed Green New Deal into national focus by organizing a sit-in outside of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices, urging her to support the proposal.
Few Americans have yet to hear much about the Green New Deal, and their opinions are likely to change once political leaders start talking about the proposal. But when told about the details of the plan in the December 2018 Yale survey, more than 90 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of moderate Republicans said that they would be inclined to support such a bill.
Remarkably, even 57 percent of conservative Republicans responded favorably when asked about the package of proposals, which the survey question defined as generating 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable energy, upgrading the energy grid, buildings, transportation and infrastructure, investing in clean energy research and development, and providing job training for a new “green economy.”
But a galvanized public is not sufficient. History suggests that shifts in polling and the rise of mass movements are at best only able to create windows of opportunity for policy change to happen.
Once those moments arrive, it is behind-the-scenes negotiation, coalition building and the careful crafting of policy that enables legislative passage.
If the U.S. is going to achieve a carbon-free economy by 2050, a pivot towards policy pragmatism will be needed that at first will likely be more incremental, than transformative.
A TIME FOR POLICY REALISM
Three broad principles should guide the pivot to policy pragmatism.
First, divided party control of government and intense hyper-partisanship are likely to endure for many years to come. Even if following the 2020 elections, Democrats recapture the White House and Senate, history suggests that their victory will be temporary. Since 1968, Democrats have controlled the executive and legislative branches for a total of eight years out of 50.
To survive swings in party control, any climate and energy policy must be able to unify support from progressives and centrists and also win backing from at least some conservatives.
If we apply this principle to the Green New Deal, we can start to see that despite current excitement, the Green New Deal is likely to have deeply challenging consequences for how we think and talk about climate and energy policy moving forward, turning policy action into a contentious, litmus test for political leaders.
The Ocasio-Markey plan pairs the goal of zeroing out greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity and transportations sectors with longstanding progressive causes that include creating a government job program, increasing unionization, providing universal health insurance, reducing income inequality, and combating gender and racial discrimination (goals that were not mentioned in the December 2018 Yale survey).
With this new re-framing, actions to address climate change not only mean fully transitioning away from a fossil-fuel dependent society in a matter of decades, already a tough sell for conservatives and many centrists, but this historically unprecedented transition is now only achievable by shape shifting the U.S. into a social democracy.
Second, given the sizable lobbying advantage of the fossil fuel industry and its allies, successful legislation will not only need the backing of Republicans but also support from at least a few major industry members.
In the cases of health care reform and tobacco regulation, after decades of effort, historic bills passed because a pragmatic coalition of leaders granted concessions to long-standing industry opponents. A similar strategy is likely to apply to future climate change legislation.
Third, to have a chance of rapidly decarbonizing the U.S. economy, future legislation must also target innovation, cost reduction and deployment across a broad range of low-carbon technologies, not just wind, solar and batteries.
Congress should follow the leaders of California, Massachusetts and New York who have adopted or proposed a zero-carbon electricity grid that combines wind and solar with nuclear energy, hydropower and carbon capture. A technology-neutral strategy will also be crucial to decarbonizing the transportation, agricultural, and manufacturing sectors.
Once a range of low-carbon innovations are available across sectors that make moving off of fossil fuels cheaper and easier, much of the political motivation to distort science or exaggerate costs as a means to forestall action is likely to subside.
Successfully applying these principles, which enable Democrats and Republicans to support action for different reasons, is not a pipe dream. They were proven to work during the first two years of the Trump presidency.
Little-noticed victories included bipartisan bills, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Trump, that provided tax credits for renewable energy and carbon capture and storage as part of the 2018 Federal budget bill, and that created regulatory and research support for advanced nuclear energy to move forward to market.
The bipartisan sponsors of these measures included Democratic lawmakers wanting to see action on climate change and their Republican colleagues mainly concerned about keeping the U.S. at the forefront of energy innovation at an affordable cost.
Some of these Republicans likely also recognized that ignoring the calls by scientists to act on climate change is no longer a politically viable response.
Divided party control of government is not likely to go away any time soon, and each year we get closer to running out the clock on our ability to manage the threats posed by global warming.
Shifting public sentiment, rising activism and election campaigns will continue to pressure lawmakers to act.
Yet political success in Washington ultimately depends on crafting policies that appeal to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers but for different reasons.
The battle for public opinion is over. The time is now to pivot to policy pragmatism.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-battle-over-public-opinion-on-climate-is-over/
-
Top EPA Climate, Clean Air Adviser Resigns After Two Years
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration’s top air and climate adviser at the EPA for the past two years is resigning effective today, according to a Feb. 7 resignation letter sent to the White House and obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
Mandy Gunasekara said in her resignation letter to President Donald Trump that she planned to launch a new organization to support “the many energy, regulatory and economic successes” of his energy and environmental agenda, which is likely to come under intense scrutiny by emboldened Democrats who won control of the House last November.
She arrived at the Environmental Protection Agency in March 2017 as a senior policy adviser to Trump’s first EPA administrator, former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who resigned in July 2018 amid a series of alleged ethical lapses.
Exaggerated ClaimGunasekara is perhaps best known for a bit of Washington winter theater in February 2015, when she brought a snowball into the Senate chamber for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who used it as a prop to argue that scientists and climate advocates were exaggerating global warming.
President Trump is seeking to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, although the earliest the U.S. can formally leave is one day after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election.
At the EPA, Gunasekara also worked to roll back Obama regulations that set limits on power plant carbon emissions and pushed for more streamlining of environmental permitting.
Gunasekara was elevated to principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation in November 2017. Prior to coming to the EPA, she served as majority counsel for Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
She arrived at the EPA in 2017 along with a cadre of Republican Senate aides who previously worked for Inhofe (R-Okla.), a former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who has long disputed that the world is warming and whether humans are largely responsible for climate change.
Among those Inhofe connections still at the agency: Wheeler, who in January was tapped by Trump for Senate confirmation as the next EPA administrator.
Wheeler worked for about a dozen years as a Republican aide to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, including stints as majority staff director, minority staff director, and chief counsel.
The Senate environment panel advanced Wheeler’s nomination Feb. 5 with an 11-10 party-line vote. The Senate has yet to schedule a floor confirmation vote.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/top-epa-climate-clean-air-adviser-resigns-after-two-years
-
Democrats Eye Long-Term 'Carbon Price' Effort Under 'Two-Track' Agenda
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
House Democrats are eyeing a long-term legislative strategy to develop a “carbon price solution” to climate change, part of a “two-track” approach to the issue that will initially focus on “low-hanging fruit” policies that have a better chance of garnering bipartisan support.
House Energy & Commerce environment subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) outlined the approach to reporters following Democrats' Feb. 6 hearing on climate change -- the panel's first session on the topic in nearly 10 years -- an event in which Republicans offered general rhetorical support for addressing climate change even as the two parties continued to sharply diverge on policy responses.
While Democrats used the hearing to highlight calls for urgent action to cut greenhouse gases that cause climate change, GOP lawmakers appeared to road-test approaches for running against a “Green New Deal” proposal that includes aggressive renewable power mandates.
“Today's hearing on climate change is long overdue. We are feeling its effects now, and the influence of unchecked climate change is becoming more obvious every year,” said full committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) in his opening remarks. Pallone called for a focus on solutions rather than continuing to debate climate science.
In a similar fashion, Tonko called a series of recent extreme weather events -- Hurricanes Sandy and Harvey and the recent devastating Camp fire in California -- “a new generation's Sputnik moment,” adding that “how we respond to this threat . . . will indeed shape American life for generations.”
Subcommittee ranking member John Shimkus (R-IL) set the tone for the Republican response, acknowledging risk from extreme weather and climate change in general terms but expressing reservations about specific climate policies.
“We all agree these risks should be addressed, “ Shimkus said, but responses should not include “command-and- control” policies that artificially raise the cost of energy or “radical” approaches like the Green New Deal that would result in “wealth transfer schemes,” he added.
Tonko in his post-hearing remarks to reporters said witnesses at the panel were in “great agreement” that there is an urgent need to address global warming. Major legislation would “take a while,” he added, noting it would mostly likely occur under a “two-track system that tackles areas where short-term bipartisan success is more likely.”
The first track -- which is already underway -- will harvest “low-hanging fruit” areas such as “energy efficiency, conservation, weatherization, research, grid modernization, [and electric vehicle] recharging stations that are made more accessible and more effective.”
Alongside that effort will be “work on developing a carbon price solution” to cutting GHGs.
Tonko's remarks are the latest sign that carbon pricing is slowly becoming a more acceptable discussion item on Capitol Hill almost 10 years after failure of House cap-and-trade legislation, even as some on the left are still wary of the policy out of fear that it could preclude even more aggressive measures to cut emissions.
'Better Part of a Year'
Tonko accordingly struck a guarded tone on timetables for the carbon pricing effort, stressing the need to collect information on policy options. “We are probably looking at the better part of a year to gather this information,” he said, suggesting that an eventual outcome is “hybrid” legislation that combines several ideas.
“It gets very technical,” Tonko added, citing various specific policy options such as “cap-and-trade and cap-and-dividend.”
Tonko has been studying the issue for over a year already, writing a January 2018 letter to scores of interested parties saying that he was “launching this effort to develop new federal climate legislation that builds on everything that has happened since the [2009 House cap-and-trade bill] was introduced and that incorporates lessons learned from the development of the Clean Power Plan and through the numerous actions taken by states.”
After the recent hearing, he noted that there would likely be a “number of things that people will bring in, institutional types and businesses will bring to our attention,” as the effort unfolds. “That will really require a lot of sound and thorough review.”
But the lawmaker added that “we don't want to just clamor away on the issue,” adding that early efforts to enact smaller-bore climate and energy policy are a path to “solid results.”
In response to a query on the status of outreach to Senate Republicans on short-term legislation, Tonko said such efforts are ongoing, but “what I hope to do is search out to partners of both houses. Both parties that have shown interest” in acting on the issue.
During the hearing, Pallone and other Democrats sought to tease out witness support for incorporating climate concerns into infrastructure legislation, including provisions that could upgrade the grid and address leaks in natural gas pipelines.
“Those systems are old, leaky and dangerous. Repairing them should be an absolute priority,” said Michael Williams of the BlueGreen Alliance, in reference to the pipelines.
'Climate is Changing'
But much of the proceeding was a delicate dance between Democratic calls for speeding action on climate change and Republicans' general acknowledgment of climate risks combined with implicit or explicit rebuttals to a Green New Deal that would turn away from fossil fuels.
“Impossible,” said United States Energy Association's Barry Worthington, in response to a Shimkus query about “some climate change advocates” who want to end reliance on fossil fuels.
Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) Brenda Ekwurzel, who was invited by majority Democrats, called the next decade a “make or break decade” for action. She cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent report concluding that an unprecedented and rapid transition of energy, land and other systems by 2030 is needed to prevent temperature increases that would have damaging impacts, including total destruction of coral reefs this century.
A frequent go-to witness for Republicans was Rich Powell of the conservative clean energy group ClearPath. He repeatedly emphasized the role of nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage -- options opposed by some progressive climate groups -- and who also noted that China's coal power generation has nearly quadrupled since 2000.
Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) on that latter point displayed a slide with similar Chinese emissions trends to argue against U.S. action to curb GHGs before other developing nations, adding that he would prefer a “carrot” rather than a “hammer” approach.
“Most Democrats and Republicans agree that the climate is changing. We strongly disagree [on solutions],” McKinley said. “Most of the Democrats want to use a hammer approach, more regulation and cap-and-trade.”
But Republicans' general agreement that climate change is occurring prompted Democrats to alternately praise it as an evolution the GOP while castigating the response as insufficient.
“I would like to observe how reasonable Republicans are today on the issue of climate change,” said Rep Jerry McNerney (D-CA). “There must have been a conversion on the road to Damascus recently.”
He added that Republicans, “instead of just sounding reasonable, . . . need to work with us to find solutions that are sufficient to the threat.”
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), chairman of the committee's oversight panel, asked all of the witnesses if climate change is real, drawing affirmative responses. She also asked whether it needs to be addressed to boost resilience, the economy and jobs; and whether driving innovation in clean energy is essential -- in an apparent effort to lay the groundwork for lawmakers to embrace action or face criticism.
“All of this agreement makes me really hopeful that bipartisan cooperation on climate change can be attainable,” she said.
But the questioning by Democrats also appeared to quietly embrace -- in line with some GOP arguments and against rhetoric from hard-left environmentalists -- that any climate solution cannot depend solely on renewable power.
At one point, for example, McNerney queried UCS's Ekwurzel on necessary steps to keep climate change to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, prompting her to note that “carbon storage” would have to be part of that, including both land and mechanical sequestration.
That fact is commonly assumed by most policy experts but is often in tension with advocates' calls for focusing on 100 percent renewables.
Tonko in his opening remarks appeared to steer clear of such tensions by touting the need for ramping up “clean” technologies.
And in his subsequent remarks to reporters, he acknowledged that the Green New Deal and broader climate agenda are still evolving but called the goals “laudable, I would hope that everybody could agree with them.”
He praised freshmen lawmakers who have “made climate change a priority in their campaigns. I thank them for the passion they bring to the issue and for the consciousness they have struck among Americans across the country.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-eye-long-term-carbon-price-effort-under-two-track-agenda
-
EPA Plans to Issue Delayed SO2 NAAQS Decision in Late February
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to issue a final rule on whether to revise its sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in late February after the government shutdown caused the agency to miss a Jan. 28 consent decree deadline to release the rule, according to agency and environmentalist sources.
“As a result of the lapse in EPA appropriations, the date by which the final decision in the primary SO2 NAAQS review will be signed has been extended. In accordance with the court order governing the schedule for this NAAQS review, the deadline for signature on the final decision is automatically extended by one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations. We intend to meet revised deadline,” an EPA source says.
This suggests a signature date for the rule in late February, given the 28 days that EPA’s appropriations lapsed. The agency last year proposed to leave the current limit in place, but the content of the final rule is unclear.
An environmentalist source involved in the original lawsuit to force issuance of the SO2 NAAQS rule also says EPA appears “on track as far as I know” to issue the rule on the revised schedule required by the shutdown. This assumes, however, that the agency will not shut down again this month if appropriations lapse once more.
EPA has yet to send the final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for pre-publication review, a process that typically takes 90 days but can take much more or less time depending on the rule.
The agency in a May 25 proposed rule suggested leaving the current SO2 NAAQS unchanged, citing no evidence of additional harm to public health that would warrant a tougher standard.
Under a consent decree reached with environmentalists, EPA was under a Jan. 28 deadline to issue the new NAAQS, but the decree allows for delay in the event of a shutdown. The agency proposed May 25 to leave the standard unchanged at 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour, the level set by the Obama administration in 2010.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must review its six NAAQS every five years, but the agency often misses the five-year window. Environmentalists sued EPA to force a court-issued date for the overdue NAAQS rule.
Environmentalists want EPA to tighten the limit to as low as 50 ppb in order to better protect public health, while a major oil industry group is pushing for a weaker standard of 150 ppb, and other industry groups are advocating for leaving the current 75 ppb limit in place.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-plans-issue-delayed-so2-naaqs-decision-late-february
-
Environmentalists Sue EPA over Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
Three environmental groups are suing EPA over the agency’s Nov. 7 final rule for implementation of the Obama EPA’s tightened 2015 federal ozone standard, in a suit that may test the Trump administration’s policy of easing states’ compliance with the standard by granting waivers for ozone of international origin, among other steps.
Downwinders At Risk, Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association filed their suit Feb. 4 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, without listing issues to be raised. The groups may challenge the international emissions provisions, but also other measures that environmentalists have previously objected to, such as “inter-precursor trading” of ozone precursor chemicals. The agency’s granting of flexibility for states to choose “baseline years” from which to measure “reasonable further progress” toward NAAQS attainment may also feature.
The agency is reviewing the 2015 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone, which the Obama EPA tightened down to 70 parts per billion (ppb) from the prior level of 75 ppb set by the George W. Bush EPA in 2008. EPA aims to complete the review and issue a rule either retaining or revising the NAAQS by October 2020.
In the meantime, the agency is pressing forward with implementation of the Obama limit. In its Nov. 7 rule, the agency outlined how states should craft state implementation plan (SIP) emissions reduction strategies for attaining the standard -- vital information states need to develop SIPs and send them to EPA for approval.
In the final rule, the agency eased implementation of the ozone standard for states by loosening conditions allowing them to exclude air monitoring readings showing NAAQS violations from compliance demonstrations, if they can show the violations stem from foreign emissions. The Obama proposal limited the exclusions to border areas experiencing pollution from Mexico or Canada, but the final rule lifts this restriction, among a raft of other measures designed to help states craft plans to implement the new NAAQS.
The rule omits, however, proposed provisions on how the agency should revoke the weaker 2008 standard. When the agency revokes an old standard, it must impose “anti-backsliding” measures to prevent any deterioration in air quality, even where the new NAAQS is tougher. Environmentalists in a series of earlier lawsuit have challenged EPA on this issue, arguing that the agency should not revoke older limits and must impose tougher anti-backsliding measures.
The courts have largely agreed with environmentalists, most recently in the D.C. Circuit’s complex February 2018 ruling in South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. v. EPA. In its November final rule, EPA said it would address the anti-backsliding issues contested in South Coast in a future rulemaking.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-sue-epa-over-ozone-naaqs-implementation-rule
-
EPA Compliance Plan Downgrades Initiative on Industrial Air Pollution
Feb 7, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A draft plan outlining EPA's national compliance and enforcement plans for fiscal years 2020 through 2023 would downgrade or modify federal oversight of key environmental issues while elevating two new areas of concern.
The plan, to be published in Friday's Federal Register, would drop a current initiative aimed at cutting air pollution from large sources like power plants and other industrial sources. Success over the past 20 years of curbing pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide means EPA believes the initiative "no longer presents a significant opportunity to affect nonattainment areas or vulnerable populations nationwide." The agency would return this area to the so-called "core" enforcement program, in which states typically take the lead.
It would similarly downgrade an initiative to prevent raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of waterways.
EPA also wants to change an existing initiative focused on the natural gas sector's compliance to "focus on significant public health and environmental problems without regard to sector." EPA specifically says it wants to target volatile organic compounds (according to EPA's website, the oil and gas industry is the biggest industrial source of VOCs).
The proposal introduced two new compliance initiatives, one ensuring community water systems meet drinking water standards and another targeting childhood exposure to lead from all sources.
EPA said it also plans to continue initiatives focused on curbing hazardous air pollutants, reducing toxic air emissions from waste facilities and preventing accidental chemical releases.
WHAT’S NEXT: The proposal will be open for public comment for 30 days.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
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