Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 2/13/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers: Straws by Request, Ban on Styrofoam-Like Polystyrene Containers, Plates, Cups
Feb 12, 2019 | Newsday
By David M. Schwartz
Suffolk restaurants could only give out straws on request and would be banned from using Styrofoam-like plastic foam containers, plates and cups under bills being introduced Wednesday in the County Legislature. -
(ACC Mentioned) JPL Launches NYC Operation
Feb 12, 2019 | Media Post Communications
By Larissa Faw
Integrated marketing agency JPL is expanding its paid media and analytics services with a new office in New York City. -
Judge Dismisses Suit over EPA's Controversial Science Advisor Policy
Feb 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A federal judge has found that environmentalists have standing to challenge the Trump administration's controversial policy barring EPA grant recipients from serving on its scientific advisory committees though he dismissed the suit on the merits, raising the bar for any appeal. -
(ACC Mentioned) To the EPA, ‘Forever Chemicals’ Are a Big Problem Now
Feb 13, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Tiffany Kary
What do you do about lab-made chemicals that are in 99 percent of people in the U.S. and have been linked to immune system problems and cancer? -
Guest Column: Mercedes Ortuño on Her Decade at ECHA's Boa
Feb 12, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Mercedes Ortuño
When I started at Echa’s Board of Appeal, nearly ten years ago, REACH was still a terra incognita for the chemicals industry and EU citizens. T -
US Crude Oil Production Expected to Hit Records This Year and Next
Feb 12, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
U.S. oil production is anticipated to break records in the next two years — and prices are primed to increase slightly, according to an energy study released Tuesday. -
In the LOOP: Narrowing Dubai/LOOP Spread Dampens US Sour Crude Exports
Feb 13, 2019 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
Narrower price spreads between US crudes and Dubai-based crudes have limited arbitrage opportunities to export US crude to Asia recently, S&P Global Platts data shows... -
Trump Raises Fracking, Abortion in Meeting with Cuomo
Feb 12, 2019 | The Hill
By Brett Samuels
President Trump on Tuesday suggested that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) open the state up to fracking to improve its economy, and he also raised concerns about the state's recent legislation that expanded access to abortion. -
Germany, U.S. Seek to Set Aside Spat over Supplies
Feb 13, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
By Frank Jordans
Germany's economy minister said yesterday he's confident the country will soon have two terminals capable of receiving shipments of U.S. liquefied natural gas, something Washington has been pressing for in its bid to increase exports to Europe. -
EPA Undecided on Splitting Permitting Changes From Power Rule
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA is still weighing whether to keep changes to a major air permitting program linked with its rewrite of Obama-era carbon controls for existing power plants, the agency’s top air official said Feb. 12. -
BLM Holds Last Hearing Today on Refuge Leasing
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Bureau of Land Management will hold its last public meeting today on a proposal to allow oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. -
Va. Dems Unified against Trump Plan
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
Virginia Democrats in Congress want no part of the Trump administration's plan to allow more oil and gas exploration off their state's coast. -
Dominion Plans to Cut Its Methane Gas Leaks in Half by 2030
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
Dominion Energy Inc. plans to reduce leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane from its vast natural gas pipeline and distribution network by 50 percent over the next decade. -
Minnesota Governor Keeps Line 3 Appeal Alive
Feb 12, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
Minnesota will continue to fight the proposed Line 3 pipeline replacement project, Gov. Tim Walz announced today in the latest legal drama to befall Alberta's oil patch. -
Report Blasts Plan to House Migrant Kids at Polluted Base
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E News PM
The Air Force base that the Trump administration proposed to host unaccompanied children detained after illegally crossing the Mexico-U.S. border is riddled with pollutants, according to a report from Earthjustice. -
Fatal Rail Accident 'Eerily Similar' to Lac-Mégantic Oil Train Disaster
Feb 12, 2019 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
The only way to have a rail accident that is “eerily similar” to the Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster that killed 47 people and wiped out the small Quebec downtown is if a massive regulatory failure did not address the causes of that 2013 tragedy. -
CEQ Prepares to Ease NEPA Rules as Hill Struggles on Infrastructure
Feb 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Industry and other sources are lowering their expectations that Congress will enact major infrastructure legislation because lawmakers have made little progress toward a deal on new project funding, though the White House is pressing ahead on eased rules... -
Emissions Held Steady in First Year of Trump Admin — EPA
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
U.S. emissions held about even in the first year of the Trump administration, a draft EPA report finds. -
How to Cut U.S. Emissions Faster? Do What These Countries Are Doing.
Feb 13, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer and Blacki Migliozzi
The United States is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions far too slowly to help avert the worst effects of global warming. -
McConnell Plans Vote on Green New Deal as GOP Criticizes Measure
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Arit John
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Feb. 12 he plans to put the Democrats’ Green New Deal to a vote so “everyone can go on record and see how they feel about” the legislation designed to fight climate change. -
Race Is on to Define 'Green New Deal'
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring up the "Green New Deal" for a Senate vote is prompting a rush to define the terms of progressive Democrats' ambitious proposal to tackle climate change. -
Now in Minority on Science Panel, GOP Sidelines Skepticism
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
For the first time in years, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hear from a full slate of researchers who accept climate science. -
Third Midwestern Democratic Governor Joins Climate Alliance
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) became the third Midwest governor this year to join the U.S. Climate Alliance Feb. 12, adding to the ranks of Democratic leaders in the region committing to addressing climate change in the face of Trump administration inaction on the issue. -
California, Environmentalists Defend Suit over Scrapped ‘Once in’ Air Policy
Feb 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
California and environmentalists are seeking to preserve their lawsuit challenging EPA’s memo scrapping a longstanding policy that held air toxics sources cannot escape strict Clean Air Act regulation as “major sources,” arguing that the memo... -
A Grieving Mother Wants to Put a Face on Air Pollution
Feb 13, 2019 | New York Times
By Beth Gardiner
Dirty air kills millions of people around the world every year, but it can be hard to put a face on a danger so vast. Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is fighting to do just that. The face she has in mind is her daughter’s. -
Carbon Removal Technologies to Help Tackle Climate Change? Here’s What It’ll Take.
Feb 12, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nat Keohane
A wave of destructive hurricanes, heat spells and wildfires has ravaged communities across the United States over the past year – bringing new urgency to the need for climate action, as both scientists and citizens are able to connect these extreme events to a warming Earth.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Feb 12, 2019 | Newsday
By David M. Schwartz
Suffolk restaurants could only give out straws on request and would be banned from using Styrofoam-like plastic foam containers, plates and cups under bills being introduced Wednesday in the County Legislature.
The goal, lawmakers say, would be to reduce plastic litter.
Plastic straws would be prohibited at restaurants except for customers with a disability or medical condition. Single-use straws instead would have to be made out of biodegradable material, like paper. Restaurants that break the straw law would be hit with fines starting at $100 for a first offense.
Plastic straws and polystyrene containers litter beaches and roadways, bill sponsor Legis. Kara Hahn (D-Setauket) said.
"Plastics don’t go away when it rains. They’re there for hundreds of years until someone picks them up," said Hahn, the majority leader and chair of the environment committee. "We need to reduce our use of plastics, and certainly Suffolk County should be leading the way on this."
Alternatives to plastic straws and polystyrene containers are more expensive for restaurants than the plastic alternatives, according to New York State Restaurant Association government affairs director Kevin Dugan. Plus, there's a shortage of biodegradable straws as municipalities across the country push plastic straw bans.
Still, Dugan said he expects some bans in New York to pass and the group isn't opposed to the legislation.
"We understand the need for the legislation, the environment," Dugan said. "I hope there's recognition this is another burden on restaurants, and not quite as easy as it seems."
Andrew Fasoli, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, defended polystyrene foam packaging. Alternative packaging is heavier and could lead to more solid waste and energy use.
“Polystyrene foam packaging and containers provide restaurant owners and consumers a safe, durable and cost-effective package," he said in a statement.
Hahn plans to introduce four bills Wednesday that came out of a task force to reduce single-use plastics. The restaurant ban on polystyrene also would prohibit the sale of the foam peanut packaging material; another bill would prohibit future county concessionaires from distributing single-use cups and utensils made from non-biodegradable substances; and require the county to install water fountains designed to allow bottle filling at most of its facilities.
The anti-straw legislation would prevent servers from automatically putting straws on the table or asking if customers wanted them. Hahn said that would lead to restaurants needing to buy fewer straws.
"You don't remember it unless you need it," she said.
Paper straws cost about 2.5 cents each, compared with a half-cent for a plastic straw, distributors told Newsday in August.
Hahn said restaurants will be allowed to "keep a stash" of plastic straws for people with disabilities, some of whom depend on straws to drink.
The ban would not apply to fast-food restaurants and other establishments with drive-through windows, Hahn said. If it passes, it would take effect Jan. 1.
The polystyrene ban exempts items used to store uncooked eggs, raw meat, pork, fish, seafood and poultry. A ban on polystyrene would go into effect three months after it passes. It could pass in March at the earliest.
Suffolk would be the latest municipality to take on straws. Municipalities, including Malibu, California, Miami Beach, Florida, and Portland, Oregon, have partly or fully outlawed plastic stirrers, straws and other items too small to be recycled properly.
Chains such as Starbucks, McDonald's, Dunkin' Donuts, Marriott International and Hyatt Hotels have said they will phase out plastic straws.
Judith Enck, a former regional administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and visiting professor at Bennington College, praised the legislation being introduced. She said plastics are getting into the ocean through litter on beaches and streets, and also rely on fossil fuels to manufacture.
Bills being introduced in Suffolk are "appropriate and smart. We desperately need them," said Enck, who was not involved in drafting the legislation. She said Suffolk legislation, if successful, could lead to state legislation.
Suffolk Republican legislators said they would consider the bills, though they wanted to see the details.
Legis. Tom Cilmi (R-Bay Shore), the minority leader, said he hasn’t seen the legislation, but worries, "At some point we have to ask ourselves where we draw the line when it comes to banning everyday conveniences like straws."
Legis. Kevin McCaffrey (R-Lindenhurst) said he wants to protect the environment. But, "I don't want Suffolk County to join the race . . . to see who can pass the most progressive legislation without looking at the impacts," he said.
Colleen Henn, the Surfrider Foundation eastern Long Island chapter coordinator who sat on the county task force, said the group had a beach cleanup in Hampton Bays this past weekend and in three hours collected 1,300 pounds of plastic trash.
She said the laws would lead to cleaner beaches.
"We’re hoping through all the laws, at the local level and county level, we'll see a reduction of plastic seen at beach cleanups," Henn said.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/straw-styrofoam-bans-suffolk-1.27241742
-
(ACC Mentioned) JPL Launches NYC Operation
Feb 12, 2019 | Media Post Communications
By Larissa Faw
Integrated marketing agency JPL is expanding its paid media and analytics services with a new office in New York City. This move is part of a strategic growth plan for JPL, which is focused on building business with existing clients and pursuing new opportunities, especially in the healthcare and higher education verticals.
Brian Aitken will return to NYC to lead the new office as managing director after joining the agency's Harrisburg's office a year ago. He will report to Bill Kobel, vice president, strategy and integrated communications.
Former General Motors’ analyst Jon Elordi, who has been with JPL since last summer, will join Aitken in NYC as digital marketing data analyst.
Talent acquisition is a priority for the agency, with plans to make a half-dozen hires to work in paid media and analytics this year in both New York and Harrisburg.
The agency was founded in 1989 as a production company to work with brands like long-time client, Hershey, and has grown into a full-service 100-person agency with clients including Quest Diagnostics, Rite Aid and the American Chemistry Council.
In 2017, JPL formed a partnership with Paskill Stapleton & Lord a Philadelphia-area specialist in higher education enrollment marketing. It also owns d’Vinci Interactive, a Maryland-based provider of learning solutions that it acquired in 2013.
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/331855/jpl-launches-nyc-operation.html
-
Judge Dismisses Suit over EPA's Controversial Science Advisor Policy
Feb 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A federal judge has found that environmentalists have standing to challenge the Trump administration's controversial policy barring EPA grant recipients from serving on its scientific advisory committees though he dismissed the suit on the merits, raising the bar for any appeal.
“The Directive is a reasonable exercise of the Administrator’s broad appointment discretion, and EPA’s explanation that it sought to 'ensur[e] integrity and confidence in [its] [advisory committees],' . . . fits comfortably within the zone of reasonableness,” writes Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a Feb. 12 opinion in Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al. v. Wheeler.
“Ultimately, a reviewing court may not set aside an agency action that is rational, based on consideration of the relevant factors and under the authority delegated to the agency by the statute,” McFadden adds, citing the Supreme Court's 1983 precedent in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
McFadden's decision is appealable, as he notes in an accompanying Feb. 12 order that granted EPA's motion to dismiss.
But the ruling is likely a bad sign for environmentalists who have filed similar suits in federal courts in Boston and Manhattan, where they are awaiting rulings from judges who also heard arguments last September over EPA's motions to dismiss those suits as well.
At issue is former Administrator Scott Pruitt's policy directive “Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees,” that bars scientists that receive EPA grants from serving on agency advisory committees. Once issued, the directive forced several advisers to choose between receiving agency grants or giving up their advisory slots.
Its application also prevented many advisers who have received grants from serving second terms on key panels, a change from long-running agency practice.
Pruitt and his supporters justified the move, saying it was intended to end conflicts of interest posed by those who receive agency grants, who they charge are biased in favor of regulations.
But the directive drew widespread concerns and criticisms from agency staff, congressional Democrats and others.
In the wake of the policy, Pruitt and his successor, Andrew Wheeler, have appointed several deregulatory advocatesto the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and other top panels, though Wheeler recently allowed some Obama-era appointees to SAB to serve a second term, a change from his predecessor's policy that limited such re-appointments.
Nevertheless, environmentalists, former advisors and others challenged the policy in several courts, arguing, among other things, that the directive is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it violates Office of Government Ethics (OGE) rules and implementing statutes that impose uniform federal ethics rules on government employees, including agency advisers who are considered special government employees.
They add that Pruitt's directive is procedurally flawed because it was issued without an opportunity for public comment. And they say it violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as well as environmental statutes governing creation of advisory committees, saying they generally require “fair balance” in panel memberships.
But EPA sought to dismiss the suit, arguing the plaintiffs lack standing, that it was not ripe and that it failed on the merits.
'Ethical Floor'
McFadden finds the suit ripe for review, and concludes that at least two of the plaintiffs who were forced out as a result of the directive -- Robyn Wilson, a former member of EPA's Science Advisory Board and the International Society for Children’s Health and the Environment (ISCHE), have standing to sue. McFadden concludes that ISCHE has standing through its member Rob McConnell, who served on an ad hoc EPA advisory committee on particulate matter.
McFadden does not address the other plaintiffs' claims of standing, explaining that “having established Dr. Wilson’s and ISCHE’s standing, the Court need not consider the other Plaintiffs’ standing independently.”
But the finding could be further bad news for one of the other two cases. The suit in Manhattan may be in a different posture on standing because it does not name as a plaintiff any current science advisors, or individuals who were removed from science advisory boards.
McFadden rejected the plaintiffs' arguments on the merits. For example, he found that the OGE rules and statute set a floor, not a ceiling. “While EPA clearly cannot appoint someone to an advisory committee that [federal conflict of interest statute found in 18 U.S. Code] Section 208 prohibits, Section 208 does not require EPA to appoint anyone not otherwise excluded under the statute. . . . The conflict of interest statute and OGE regulations establish only a uniform ethical floor that agency heads may not dip below. They do not, however, constrain an agency’s ability to appoint and retain individuals under a higher ethical standard.”
While the plaintiffs argued that the OGE regulations set a uniform standard of conduct for the executive branch, McFadden finds that Pruitt's “Directive is different in scope and means from the authorities that Physicians claim are in conflict. . . . Directive is better understood as an appointment policy promulgated under the Administrator’s broad appointment discretion. While this policy is guided by ethics concerns, it is distinct from the conflict of interest statute and OGE regulations.”
McFadden also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the directive violates FACA and environmental statutes that require “fair balance” in panel memberships. He found that FACA does not provide “a meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of its discretion.”
“Suppose that the Court could divine committee members’ scientific and policy views and sought to balance membership between members who represent Physicians’ views with members who represent opposing views. How would the Court determine whether the views of a particular committee member are close enough to those of Physicians’ to find them representative?” McFadden asks.
And McFadden calls plaintiffs' argument that the policy increases the possibility for undue influence on the advisory committees by EPA or special interests, “similarly unavailing.” He notes that in FACA, “Congress did not define 'inappropriately influenced' or 'special interest.' . . . And Physicians have not articulated how the Directive would frustrate the agency’s procedures for preventing “inappropriate influence.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/judge-dismisses-suit-over-epas-controversial-science-advisor-policy
-
(ACC Mentioned) To the EPA, ‘Forever Chemicals’ Are a Big Problem Now
Feb 13, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Tiffany Kary
What do you do about lab-made chemicals that are in 99 percent of people in the U.S. and have been linked to immune system problems and cancer? Whose bonds are so stable that they’re often called “forever chemicals”? Meet PFAS, a class of chemicals that some scientists call the next PCB or DDT. For consumers, they are best known in products like Scotchgard and Teflon. For businesses, PFAS are a puzzle that has already created billions of dollars worth of liabilities. But 70 years of unchecked proliferation may be ending as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it’s on the verge of announcing a plan to deal with them.
1. What are PFAS?
They are used to make hundreds of everyday products, from stents to firefighting foams, and turn up in the supply chain of the textile, paper and electronics industries. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS (“PEE-fas”), previously called PFCs, FCs or fluorocarbons, come in 5,000 or more varieties. Some have been made since the 1950s by companies like 3M Co. and DuPont (now DowDuPont’s spinoff Chemours Co.). They’re characterized by bonds between carbon and fluorine that are among the strongest in organic chemistry. Consumers may be more familiar with the names of two of the most studied forms, PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), once used in Scotchgard; and PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid), also sometimes called C-8, once used to make Teflon. PFAS are also found in high levels in the water of some U.S. communities.
2. What are they in?
Their consumer-friendly abilities were discovered by accident -- in 1938 when a DuPont scientist was experimenting with refrigerants, and in 1952 when a 3M researcher splashed an experimental mixture on shoes, which then became stainproof -- giving rise to 3M’s Scotchgard. Now, they’re in many types of outdoor clothing, camping gear, shoes, textiles, coated papers for fast-food takeout, firefighting foams and surfactants for electronics manufacturing, for a start. Chemours’ Teflon manufacturing also relies on them. The medical equipment and construction industries depend on them too. Private labs have warned of cross-contamination from PFAS in blue chemical ice packs, sunscreens and Post-It Notes. Some varieties surprised grocer Whole Foods Market and suppliers of its takeout containers. And because the chemicals also get around on their own, they pop up in polar bears, newborn babies, and kale.
3. Are they dangerous?
It depends who you ask. A scientific panel that monitored the blood and health of about 70,000 people in West Virginia and Ohio from 2005 to 2013 who lived near a DuPont Teflon plant found a “probable link” between cases of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol and pre-eclampsia and PFOA. Animal studies have shown PFOS affects the ability of cells to communicate with each other -- potentially hampering the immune system’s ability to destroy viruses and the rogue cells that cause cancer. In Minnesota, near a 3M plant, there’s been a debate over whether they’re linked to problems like lowered fertility and childhood cancer.
4. Is there a big difference between varieties?
That’s not clear. Manufacturers distinguish between what are known as long-chain and short-chain varieties. Long-chain PFAS have more than eight fluorine-carbon bonds. Around 2000, manufacturers began switching to short-chain PFAS, some of which have been shown to spend less time in the body. The FluoroCouncil, which represents some manufacturers, says PFAS are “diverse” and that as a whole, PFAS “meet relevant standards for the protection of human health and the environment.” It also says current PFAS used are all “short-chain” types, which “do not meet criteria for chemicals of concern based on their environmental fate and potential for adverse health effects.” Chemours, in an emailed statement, said Teflon nonstick coatings meet “regulatory standards and are safe for their intended use.” 3M said that studies haven’t found Scotchgard ingredient PFBS at quantifiable levels in the general U.S. population. “We are committed to responsible environmental stewardship and take significant steps to ensure our products are safe,” the company said in a statement.
5. Do people agree with that?
Many scientists do not. Some signed a “Helsingor Statement” in 2014 and a “Madrid Statement” in 2015, saying industries should consider avoiding all PFAS. They caution that even if short-chain PFAS accumulate less in living tissue, they persist in the environment, where their carbon and fluorine bonds can recombine to create other varieties of PFAS. Companies also may use more of them to get the same effects that long-chain versions provided. While the American Chemistry Council questioned a recent draft EPA analysis that raised concerns about immunotoxicity, environmental and health advocates said the agency didn’t consider the mix of PFAS any one person is exposed to. They said the data suggest that some short-chain PFAS -- -- including those currently used in Scotchgard spray and Teflon manufacturing -- may be as harmful to the liver, thyroid and kidney as the long-chain versions they replaced. Chemours, in its own January responseto the EPA analysis, took issue with some of the liver findings.
6. Who’s been affected?
Around 110 million Americans have drinking water with traces of PFAS, according to the Environmental Working Group’s map data. And that’s just water -- indoor dust and food are also said to expose people. There are also reports of pollution in Belgium, Germany, Japan, Australia and the Netherlands, and contamination through agricultural use of biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, and landfills where chemical-laden products were disposed of.
7. What kind of action has there been on PFAS?
The Environmental Protection Agency has been considering setting nationwide limits. Currently, it has no enforceable rules on their hazards or levels in drinking water. In recent years, many states have loweredguidelines for acceptable levels in water, putting pressure on polluters and municipalities, which have had to install water filters. Lawsuits have also spurred action: A settlement forced DuPont and its Chemours spinoff to pay $671 million to people in West Virginia and Ohio after the science panel found the “probable links” to the six diseases. And in 2018, Minnesota gotan $850 million settlement from 3M to spend on filtration and cleanup. Many suits have merged into a “mega” case. One on behalf of a firefighter seeks to become a class action for anyone in the U.S. with the chemical in their blood.
8. What’s this mean for businesses who made or used PFAS?
Many makers of the chemicals face lawsuits, while DowDuPont has been partly distanced from liability because of the Chemours spinoff. Companies that use PFAS or may unwittingly have it in their supply chains face potential for new regulations, backlash from consumers and costs to reformulate. Some, like Patagonia Inc. and Columbia Sportswear Co., seek to phase the chemicals out, with Columbia even boasting PFAS-free products. Others, like Procter & Gamble Co., have responded to legal claims by saying they didn’t use the chemicals. And still others have made changes in response to pressure from advocates, including Whole Foods and its supplier Cascades Sonoco Inc., which recently moved away from the chemicals.
9. Can I do anything to limit my risk?
Those who suspect high levels should try and get tested by a physician. Some studies suggest blood-drawing, or phlebotomy, might reduce PFAS in blood, but research is preliminary. Childbearing can decrease levels, though unfortunately that’s by passing them on to the child. When it comes to avoiding exposure, you can:
· Check to see if PFAS are in your area on the EWG map, check if your municipality filters for them or get an in-home filter.
· Some groups say to ditch non-stick cookware -- from pie pans to rice cookers -- especially if they’re scratched. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has a guide.
· Dr. Philip Landrigan, a children’s health advocate, has recommended not using Scotchgard “even as we wait for more definitive information” about the current formulation.
· Articles abound that identify PFAS or PFAS-free cosmetics, stain-proof fabrics and outdoor gear.
The Reference Shelf
· Bloomberg News deep dive story into 3M’s history with PFAS.
· The Devil We Know, a 2018 documentary from filmmakers Stephanie Soechtig and Jeremy Seifert.
· Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof, and Lethal: The Hidden Dangers of C8, a book.
· Bloomberg News story about Chemours and pollution in Cape Fear.
— With assistance by Christopher Cannon
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/to-the-epa-forever-chemicals-are-a-big-problem-now-quicktake
-
Guest Column: Mercedes Ortuño on Her Decade at ECHA's Boa
Feb 12, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Mercedes Ortuño
When I started at Echa’s Board of Appeal, nearly ten years ago, REACH was still a terra incognita for the chemicals industry and EU citizens. The BoA was not high in people’s consciousness and not considered the important body that it is now.
Before assuming my post in 2009, I met the former commissioners for environment and enterprise, Stavros Dimas and and Günter Verheugen, in Brussels; they asked me if there was enough 'meat' to sustain an Echa board of appeal? I suggested that, as REACH was a most complex and lengthy piece of EU legislation, it would certainly create many problems of interpretation, disputes and litigation.
After ten years at the BoA, I have to say that I was right. REACH is a complex regulation requiring careful implementation and has many grey areas, open to different interpretations. The novel and difficult situations that stakeholders are faced with to comply with REACH and the problems Echa found when implementing the various processes it is responsible for, are numerous. The BoA has ensured that there is a remedy for specific problems and provided a coherent, legally and scientifically sound interpretation of the most important aspects of the law.
The BoA evolution
After presiding over more than 100 appeal proceedings in my role as chair, and now close to the end of my term of office, it is time to stop, look back and reflect on the part I have played in the BoA’s evolution; and maybe enlighten the following chair on how to improve it in the future.
Setting up the BoA from scratch was not an easy task. There are no bodies in the EU administration that are the same or even similar. There are boards of appeal in other EU agencies, but wide differences in the subject matter under adjudication, underlying administrative processes, and their composition. This makes them all too different from the Echa BoA to serve as practical benchmarks.
For example, the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has five boards of appeal to decide on trademark-related disputes. Their legal framework is very different from ours, and they do not deal with scientific assessments or human health or the breadth of legal issues that Echa's BoA considers.
As regards composition, the Echa BoA brings together three permanent (full time) – one scientific and two legal – members with ad hoc alternate members, called upon for individual cases when needed. Other BoAs, by contrast, are composed only of permanent members (EUIPO) or only of ad hoc members appointed when necessary for a case. (All other EU bodies function with non-full time members.)
A pivotal role
For the chair, the different status of the BoA members, bringing together permanent members (Echa staff) with alternates (who are external practitioners and professionals with other activities as a main occupation), poses a challenge.
The chair has a pivotal role in keeping the alternate members updated on appeals and ensuring that they are well prepared when they are called upon to work on a case, which can be at any moment. These members have been crucial in ensuring that the Echa BoA can operate when permanent members are unavailable due to sickness, long absences or conflicts of interest.
A second, important challenge for the chair was to achieve the functional independence of the BoA within a larger organisation. I am referring specifically to the ‘battle’ to manage its own administrative support unit, the Registry and small team of lawyers assisting with the appeals.
From 2009 until 2016, this administrative unit was directly dependent on the Echa executive director. In 2016, the management of the Registry was transferred to the BoA chair, by means of a Commission implementing Regulation reviewing the BoA’s rules of procedure. It should be mentioned in this respect that Echa's management board, and in particular the BoA working group, provided unstinting and effective support with this demand for genuine functional autonomy from Echa’s secretariat.
What looks obvious today, and is reflected in the reviewed rules of procedure, was the result of many discussions and endless negotiations to correct a legal anomaly, imposed de facto by the executive director in 2009, which finally the European Commission decided to fix.
Unlike other parts of Echa, the BoA attained maturity and cruising speed on decision making without any significant growth in staff or budget.
Key challenges
This is closely linked with the BoA chair's most important challenge: how to motivate a small number of selected lawyers and legal assistants to maintain high quality work, which is constantly exposed to public opinion and has a big impact on Echa processes. While this is a daunting challenge, the excellent team under the direction of the experienced registrar made this rewarding and interesting work for me, the chair. Listening to and considering all legal opinions as well as holding open discussions on how to improve our working methods, has turned out to be the best medicine for combating the stress and frustration that sometimes we all suffered when dealing with many cases at once.
Among more than 100 decisions, the BoA has had the opportunity to check the pulse of REACH actors, remedy the problems detected and improve the health of the system by appeal decisions that reflect high legal and scientific standards.
It has provided clarity on how Echa should manage the different REACH processes under its competence, always bearing in mind the aims of this piece of legislation. For example, the BoA insisted that the dossier completeness check is not a mere box-ticking exercise; it has to be a process which serves, as a first step, the purpose of gathering meaningful information on a substance.
BoA decisions also provided consistent findings on how Echa should request information on a substance, under both the compliance check and the substance evaluation procedures, respecting the legal principles of proportionality and good administration. They have also set clear guidelines for Echa that the registrant has to be properly heard before any decision that imposes measures is adopted.
When dealing with these and other difficult issues, it has been a rewarding experience to see how different backgrounds and legal traditions interact and complement each other. For my own part, the principles of Spanish administrative law – which are similar to, but not always identical to those of the other member states – have been a guiding light in many a dark place.
Today, nobody questions whether there is enough work to warrant a board of appeal. Nobody questions its legal and scientific authority when it decides an appeal, even if the result is unwelcome. And nobody doubts that it is an effective method of legal redress, normally quicker and cheaper than taking a judicial action before the EU courts.
It has been my privilege to chair the BoA in the first ten years of its life. It has been my privilege to work with some of the most talented and dedicated people that you will find anywhere; many of whom have worked so far beyond what can reasonably be expected that no words can do them justice. I am extremely proud of the body of work that is of the very highest quality and which has, I believe, made a massive contribution to the interpretation of REACH and its effective implementation by Echa.
Other arenas are calling me, and other people can and will carry the torch in the appeals world. I will support them as best I can. And when it seems compelling, I will make my voice heard.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74272/guest-column-mercedes-ortuno-on-her-decade-at-echas-boa
-
US Crude Oil Production Expected to Hit Records This Year and Next
Feb 12, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
U.S. oil production is anticipated to break records in the next two years — and prices are primed to increase slightly, according to an energy study released Tuesday.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Tuesday that crude oil production is expected to rise to an average of 12.4 million barrels a day in 2019 and 13.2 million barrels per day in 2020. That’s up from January’s average of 12 million barrels a day, an increase of 90,000 barrels a day from December.
The expected increases will come from the Permian region of Texas and New Mexico, according to EIA.
The U.S. last September surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the top crude oil producer.
The report additionally found that the oil prices are expected to increase from January’s average of $59 per barrel to an average of $61 a barrel in 2019 and $62 a barrel in 2020.
This January’s oil prices had increased $2 a barrel from the previous month but were still $10 a barrel less than last January’s average.
The Trump administration has hailed U.S. crude oil production as a necessary component of America’s fight for energy independence. In his State of The Union address last week, he said the U.S. had “unleashed a revolution in American energy,” that has led to historic energy export highs and economic growth.
The focus has increasingly been on oil and natural gas production as coal and nuclear plants in the U.S. continue to shutter at a rapid pace.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429679-us-crude-oil-production-expected-to-hit-records-in-2019-and-2020
-
In the LOOP: Narrowing Dubai/LOOP Spread Dampens US Sour Crude Exports
Feb 13, 2019 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
Narrower price spreads between US crudes and Dubai-based crudes have limited arbitrage opportunities to export US crude to Asia recently, S&P Global Platts data shows. However, some deals continue to get done as US crude delivered to Asia remains at a slight discount to competing grades.
In the first 29 trading days of 2019, the spread between LOOP Sour and Dubai has averaged about $2.60/b. That is compared with an average spread of $2.75/b during the same period a year ago.
As Dubai’s premium over LOOP decreases, US-based sour crudes become less competitive with comparable Dubai-based grades in export markets. The Dubai/LOOP Sour spread reached its widest point of the year so far on January 11 at $5.11/b. Its narrowest point of the year came January 25 at 90 cents/b.
The LOOP Sour-Dubai spread has been mostly narrowing since the fall as US Gulf Coast sour crude differentials have soared in recent weeks. US crudes, particularly sour grades, have jumped on concerns over the supply of medium and heavy sour crudes due to OPEC production cuts and uncertainty arising from US sanctions on Venezuela.
The 10-day moving average between LOOP Sour and Dubai was $2.40/b on Monday compared with $3.60/b one month ago and $4.40/b two months ago. One US-based crude buyer for an Indian refinery said that US crude differentials are too expensive at the moment to make export deals work.
“Prices are too high,” the crude trader said. “The arb is closed.” While the window of opportunity to move US crude is limited, some deals continue to get done, likely because values for delivered US crude to Asia remain at a discount to competing grades.
On Monday, S&P Global Platts assessed LOOP Sour CFR North Asia at $62.13/b. It is still at a small discount to comparable values for competing grades as Dubai was assessed at $63.10/b, and Basrah Light at $62.80/b.
Buyers in Asia may be looking to alternatives to expensive VLCCs in order to move crude from the US. ATMI on Friday was heard to have fixed the Suezmax Sonangol for a US Gulf Coast to West Coast India voyage in February. Oxy also arranged for a VLCC to carry US crude to China in March. No US-to-East fixtures were heard done Monday.
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/02/12/narrowing-dubai-loop-spread-dampens-us-crude-exports/
-
Trump Raises Fracking, Abortion in Meeting with Cuomo
Feb 12, 2019 | The Hill
By Brett Samuels
President Trump on Tuesday suggested that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) open the state up to fracking to improve its economy, and he also raised concerns about the state's recent legislation that expanded access to abortion.
The two New Yorkers spoke at the White House after Cuomo requested a meeting to discuss a provision in the Republicans' 2017 tax-cut law that caps the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000.
The meeting largely focused on economic issues, though Trump brought up abortion as well, the White House said.
Deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in a statement that Trump listened to Cuomo's concerns about SALT, and "reiterated the negative impact that high taxes in states like New York have on hardworking families and job creators."
"The President discussed economic growth opportunities for the State of New York, including helping lower energy prices throughout the entire Northeast by allowing low-cost, American energy to thrive with fracking and pipeline systems," Deere said. "The two also discussed the need to update America’s outdated infrastructure system."
Cuomo signed a ban on fracking in New York roughly four years ago, citing health risks. The practice involves injecting water and chemicals underground in order to fracture rocks and release natural gas.
The governor has faced criticism for the stagnating economy in parts of upstate New York, where fracking could provide a boost.
Trump earlier this month suggested that those in upstate New York struggling to find prosperity should "go to another state where they can get a great job."
Tuesday's meeting came after Cuomo earlier this month said that personal income tax receipts declined in the state in December and January. He attributed that decline to the cap on the SALT deduction.
Cuomo has argued that the rule disproportionately harms residents of New York and other high-tax states like California and New Jersey.
Trump last week indicated that he is open to revisiting the cap on the deduction. However, a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the panel wouldn't revisit the deduction cap this year.
In addition to the economic discussion, Trump "raised his concerns to Governor Cuomo about Democrats’ support of late term abortions," Deere said.
New York lawmakers last month passed legislation expanding women’s access to abortions. The bill allows women to get abortions after 24 weeks if their life or health is threatened by the pregnancy, or if the fetus is not viable.
Trump has seized on the bill, as well as another proposal in Virginia that would allow third-trimester abortions in certain cases, to hammer Democrats and call on Congress to pass legislation outlawing late-term abortions.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429698-trump-raises-fracking-abortion-in-meeting-with-cuomo
-
Germany, U.S. Seek to Set Aside Spat over Supplies
Feb 13, 2019 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
By Frank Jordans
Germany's economy minister said yesterday he's confident the country will soon have two terminals capable of receiving shipments of U.S. liquefied natural gas, something Washington has been pressing for in its bid to increase exports to Europe.
Peter Altmaier told a high-level meeting of German and American officials that Germany is prepared to provide substantial subsidies to the consortia building the terminals, but declined to name a figure.
Altmaier, a close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, stressed that Berlin wants to resolve its differences with the United States over plans for an undersea gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Washington has strongly objected to the project, warning it will increase Russia's strategic clout in Europe and harm U.S. allies such as Poland and Ukraine.
"The fact that we are friends means in my eyes that we should try as good as we can to overcome tensions," Altmaier told U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette during his opening statement at the conference in Berlin.
Brouillette welcomed an agreement between Germany and France last week that will see E.U. regulations applied to gas pipelines such as the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 project.
He declined to say whether threatened sanctions against the companies involved were off the table, saying that was a matter for the U.S. Treasury and State Department to decide.
While Washington would be closely watching implementation of last week's agreement, Brouillette said that "on balance, we are encouraged by this."
Both he and Altmaier insisted there had been no deal for the U.S. to set aside its concerns about Nord Stream 2 in exchange for German support for the building of terminals for liquefied natural gas, or LNG.
Germany, Europe's biggest economy, is an interesting market for gas exporters. The country plans to phase out its use of coal and nuclear power in the coming decades. Altmaier said this is "good news" for natural gas suppliers such as the United States, as Germany will need a reliable supply of the fossil fuel to complement renewable energy sources — at least until hydrogen becomes a realistic option.
But he insisted that Germany will shop around for its gas and is already in talks with Qatar, Egypt and Israel.
Asked whether Germany considers the United States a reliable partner following the Trump administration's withdrawal from key international accords, Altmaier said: "As far as energy supplies are concerned, Europe isn't and mustn't allow itself to be blackmailed by anybody, whether they are friends or foes."
"We are prepared to be a transparent, competitive and reliable supplier of LNG," said Brouillette, adding that the price of American gas exports is likely to drop soon as more shipment terminals go online in the U.S.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/13/stories/1060120365
-
EPA Undecided on Splitting Permitting Changes From Power Rule
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA is still weighing whether to keep changes to a major air permitting program linked with its rewrite of Obama-era carbon controls for existing power plants, the agency’s top air official said Feb. 12.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to change the way power plants calculate any emissions increases that determine whether it triggers an air pollution permitting program.
That program, known as new source review, requires power plants and other industrial facilities to install additional pollution controls if they expand or add new units that increase emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.
The EPA tucked the proposed permitting changes into a broader August 2018 proposal to rewrite Obama-era carbon limits for existing power plants.
But it also included an option to sever the permitting changes from the broader plan, and the EPA’s top air official said the jury is still out on whether the EPA will keep the two efforts together in its final rule, which it hopes to release later this year.
“We haven’t made a final decision as to whether to split them apart or keep them together, but we wanted to have that flexibility,” Bill Wehrum, the EPA’s air chief, told reporters on the sidelines of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter policy meeting in Washington, D.C.
“I want to get all of this done as quickly as possible,” he said. “And we wanted to give ourselves the flexibility that if, for whatever reason one piece of the package slowed down, we’d be able to split them apart and do them in pieces rather than one big clump.”
‘Not Nearly As Well’
The EPA’s proposal would replace the Obama administration’s rule with much narrower carbon standards based just on the efficiency improvements coal-fired power plants can achieve. Efficiencies can be improved by optimizing the heat rate of a power plant, which results in burning less carbon and emitting fewer pollutants for the same power output.
The Obama EPA rule also had looked at emissions reductions power plants could achieve by switching generation to lower-carbon natural gas and renewable energy.
Environmental groups and several states have sharply criticized the proposed new source review changes, arguing they will lead to air pollution increases. But utilities and other industry groups have largely backed the permitting provisions as necessary changes for them to be able to fully take advantage of the efficiency upgrades the EPA proposal encourages.
Wehrum echoed that viewpoint.
“The Affordable Clean Energy rule would work without the [new source review] reform, but not nearly as well,” he said, adding the permitting program would impose additional costs on efficiency projects that could make some of the most effective projects no longer viable.
More broadly, Wehrum said the recent partial government shutdown hasn’t delayed release of the EPA’s power plant proposal that much.
“It obviously was not ideal, but we’ve hit the ground running after the shutdown and don’t feel like we’ve lost a lot of time,” he said. “It’s a top priority, if not the top priority for me, and I’d like to push it through as quickly as we can.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-undecided-on-splitting-permitting-changes-from-power-rule
-
BLM Holds Last Hearing Today on Refuge Leasing
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Bureau of Land Management will hold its last public meeting today on a proposal to allow oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The session in Washington will focus on BLM's draft environmental impact statement for drilling on the refuge's 1.6-million-acre coastal plain. The agency has already held seven hearings in Alaska communities (Energywire, Jan. 31).
Today's meeting comes as Interior Department officials are being accused of sending mixed messages about whether high-tech 3D seismic testing will be conducted this winter on the coastal plain, also known as the 1002 area.
No seismic data have been collected in the region since the 1980s. Based on that 2D data, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 1998 that the coastal plain is likely to contain between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Since then, USGS has contracted to reprocess the existing 2D data. But thus far, top Interior officials haven't signed off on a new oil assessment based on the reprocessed 1980 data.
Without more advanced seismic studies, oil companies may have second thoughts about bidding for the coastal plain leases that BLM hopes to auction off late this year.
However, Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, noted that even USGS's 20-year-old assessment of the coastal plain's oil potential is likely to attract oil companies to bid on 1002 area leases.
"It's not ideal if an updated full 3D seismic program is not going to occur" before a lease sale, Moriarty said. "But again it's still a massive play. There is no other onshore play on federal lands that comes anywhere close to what we think the potential is in the coastal plain. It's generations of oil.
"What updated seismic would do is give you a better sense of where to shoot your exploration wells," she noted. "I don't know if that would help convince you to take part in a lease sale."
Congress opened the door to oil and gas development on the coastal plain through the 2017 tax bill.
Last summer, SAExploration and two Alaska Native corporations filed an application to conduct 3D seismic surveys in the coastal plain. The companies anticipated assessing the entire 2,602-square-mile coastal plain this winter and, if necessary, during the 2019-2020 winter ice road season.
At the time, Interior officials confidently predicted those seismic testing permits would be released in a matter of weeks.
But at a Feb. 4 public meeting in Kaktovik, Alaska, Steve Wackowski, Interior senior adviser for Alaska affairs, said seismic testing wouldn't begin on the coastal plain during this winter's ice road construction season, which is likely to end in late April or early May.
On Friday, BLM press officers backed up Wackowski's comments, explaining that SAExploration had agreed to change its seismic application to indicate that the testing program wouldn't begin until December 2019.
Meanwhile, SAExploration Chairman Jeff Hastings told the Anchorage Daily News on Friday that he was working with Interior to outline a more limited seismic plan that could be conducted before the tundra thaws this year.
And on Monday, Joe Balash, Interior's assistant secretary for land and minerals management, conceded that limited seismic studies are still possible this winter. "Is there something that might be salvaged here at the end of the season? Perhaps," Balash said at a press conference reported by Alaska Public Media.
This debate over new seismic studies in the 1002 area comes as House Democrats have introduced legislation to reverse the 2017 tax provision that allows oil exploration in the region.
In announcing that legislation, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said that in addition to his stand-alone bill to scrap the tax bill language, he will consider adding repeal language into future must-pass congressional bills, such as appropriations legislation (E&E News PM, Feb. 11).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/13/stories/1060120399
-
Va. Dems Unified against Trump Plan
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
Virginia Democrats in Congress want no part of the Trump administration's plan to allow more oil and gas exploration off their state's coast.
In a letter signed by all nine Democrats in the state's congressional delegation, the lawmakers yesterday urged Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to stop the plan.
"The potential toll from an oil spill — in terms of damages, injuries, deaths and other harms — is incalculable," said Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), who led the letter. "I urge the administration to listen to Virginians, who have expressed vehement opposition to all forms of oil and gas exploration off Virginia's coast."
Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke last year announced a plan that would open more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf to oil and gas development. It has yet to be approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
The Democrats asked the Trump team to remove the Virginia coast from the plan and not to allow any seismic air gun testing.
In addition, the group said NOAA should revoke permits the agency approved in November that would allow for the "incidental harassment" of marine life in connection with energy exploration.
Diane Hoskins, offshore drilling campaign director for the environmental group Oceana, said the letter calls on the Trump administration "to do the right thing and protect Virginia from the harms associated with offshore drilling."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/13/stories/1060120417
-
Dominion Plans to Cut Its Methane Gas Leaks in Half by 2030
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
Dominion Energy Inc. plans to reduce leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane from its vast natural gas pipeline and distribution network by 50 percent over the next decade.
The utility is targeting a 430,000 metric ton cut in methane leaks by 2030, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road, Richmond,-Virginia-based Dominion said in a Feb. 12 statement.
The company will seek to recover the cost of the initiative from ratepayers, though it has yet to calculate the expense, Aaron Ruby, a Dominion spokesman, said in an email.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, absorbs more energy than carbon dioxide, making it as much as 36 times more potent a greenhouse gas, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Dominion’s biggest methane leaks occur from venting of pipelines and compressor stations during routine maintenance.
The company said it can reduce or eliminate the leaks by capturing and recycling methane before work begins. Dominion also plans to replace aging equipment and expand leak detection efforts using infrared cameras.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dominion-plans-to-cut-its-methane-gas-leaks-in-half-by-2030
-
Minnesota Governor Keeps Line 3 Appeal Alive
Feb 12, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
Minnesota will continue to fight the proposed Line 3 pipeline replacement project, Gov. Tim Walz announced today in the latest legal drama to befall Alberta's oil patch.
Walz's decision to have his Commerce Department file a petition for reconsideration at the state's Public Utilities Commission provides a path to continue appealing the project. The commission has conditionally approved Line 3, which has been viewed as Canada's best chance for near-term additional pipeline capacity amid the Keystone XL project's myriad legal problems.
Walz's administration had to decide its position on the project after a court last week threw out appeals by his predecessor, Mark Dayton, and other groups on the grounds that they were premature, Minnesota Public Radio reported. If the PUC rejects the petition, the Commerce Department can refile its appeal with the court.
Enbridge, the pipeline owner, still needs a handful of state and federal permits to move forward with construction. Meanwhile, Canadian oil interests are expecting the pipeline to be operational by the end of the year. A delay in creating that additional market access for Alberta crude could further worsen the industry's problems there, particularly depressed prices for their product.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Report Blasts Plan to House Migrant Kids at Polluted Base
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E News PM
The Air Force base that the Trump administration proposed to host unaccompanied children detained after illegally crossing the Mexico-U.S. border is riddled with pollutants, according to a report from Earthjustice.
The report said, "The Trump administration plans to build the detention center on top of a former landfill, in an area filled with major potential health risks, particularly for children."
The Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, is the site the administration suggested for housing thousands of children.
Through a review of publicly available environmental records, Earthjustice found lead, arsenic, benzene, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and other chemicals contaminating the area. The documents were written by the Air Force during Superfund investigations.
"If these plans go forward, approximately 7,500 migrant children will be detained in an area contaminated with lead, arsenic, benzene, PFAS, and myriad other harmful chemicals associated with increased risk of cancer and permanent neurodevelopmental damage," the report said.
Lead was previously recorded in the area at levels 27 times higher than EPA standards for soil in play areas for children.
The report argued it may be necessary for the contaminated soil to be removed.
"This is outrageous," Lisa Evans, Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. "We urge the government to immediately turn over all documents related to this immoral plan so the public can get to the bottom of this."
Earthjustice sued the Trump administration recently for records on potential environmental hazards that could harm children at the base.
The Goodfellow Air Force Base, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department did not respond to requests for comments on the report.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/02/12/stories/1060120379
-
Fatal Rail Accident 'Eerily Similar' to Lac-Mégantic Oil Train Disaster
Feb 12, 2019 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
The only way to have a rail accident that is “eerily similar” to the Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster that killed 47 people and wiped out the small Quebec downtown is if a massive regulatory failure did not address the causes of that 2013 tragedy.
Which is exactly what has happened. And is why a fatal train accident on February 4 in Field, British Columbia, was dubbed “eerily similar” to the one in Lac-Mégantic by Garland Chow, a professor and transportation expert at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.
As documented on DeSmog, the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster has been described as a “corporate crime scene.” The parked oil train that caught fire, ran away, and exploded was the result of corporate cost-cutting and failed regulatory oversight. While a combination of decisions led to that exact chain of events, it was an easily preventable accident. It never should have happened.
Yet more than five years later, almost an identical situation resulted in the death of three rail employees. Like at Lac-Mégantic, this recent accident near Field involved a train with known mechanical issues, parked at the top of a steep downgrade without being properly secured, and, due to mechanical failures, ended up as a runaway train.
In July 2018, I wrote about three reasons the deadly Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster could happen again. And after oil-by-rail traffic has been declining for years, it has now come roaring back in 2019, further increasing the odds of another oil train disaster.
While the details of these rail accidents are important to understand, the root of the problem was summed up by Brian Stevens, National Rail Director for Canadian Union Unifor, at a 2016 conference focused on lessons for preventing another Lac-Mégantic disaster.
“Nothing has changed,” Stevens said. “The railway barons are still there. And stronger than ever.”
These accidents are preventable. The industry, largely self-regulated, does not take the steps to prevent them and federal regulators in the U.S. and Canada, which closely coordinate their rail systems, allow them to get away with it.Runaway Trains in the 21st Century
With the technology available today, runaway trains should not be a problem in the 21st century. And yet since the runaway oil train in Lac-Mégantic in 2013, the problem has only gotten worse.
In 2016 a passenger train in New Jersey crashed into a train station at high speed. Much of the news coverage noted that the train did not have in place a safety technology known as “Positive Train Control,” which is designed to prevent dangerous train movements by automatically stopping or slowing a train when the train operator has failed to do so.
Positive train control (PTC) was first recommended for rail safety in 1970. The rail industry has fought it ever since. In 2008 the U.S. Congress finally mandated that the rail industry install PTC by 2015. The rail industry refused to do so and threatened to shut down all rail traffic in the U.S. if companies were required to install PTC. Congress caved and gave them a three year extension.
That date has since passed. Now the rail industry says the end of 2020 is the new goal.
However, in 2015 Gerald Gauthier, then the acting president of the industry group the Railway Association of Canada, referred to Positive Train Control as “costly, unproven technology” — almost 50 years after the National Transportation Safety Board first recommended it.
ositive train control is designed to stop runaway trains. The day of the fatal British Columbia train accident, the National Transportation Safety Board highlighted the top safety issues it says need addressing, including Positive Train Control.
No doubt that PTC would help.
But there are much simpler ways to prevent runaway trains. First, don’t leave them parked at the top of large hills on a downward sloping grade. But that is perfectly legal, and so — just as in Lac-Mégantic — the recent accident in Field started with a train parked at the top of a hill when the operating crew had to stop due to fatigue limits.
Another low-tech solution for preventing runaway trains is using “additional physical defenses” to secure a parked train. As I wrote in 2018, this refers to ramps or locks placed in front of a train to prevent it from running away in the event something else goes wrong. But these defenses are not required, and were not used in this latest accident.
Why? Well, these devices take time to install and uninstall, and time is money in the rail industry.
Of course, applying physical hand brakes on all trains also would secure a train even if the air braking system fails. Some hand brakes were applied to the oil train that devastated Lac-Mégantic, but not enough to secure the train. No hand brakes were applied in the Field disaster because regulations allow trains to be parked for up to two hours without hand brakes. That applies even during crew changes that can leave these trains parked at the top of a hill.
But, again, implementing these hand brakes takes time.
Time that might have saved lives instead of dollars.
One more similarity to the Lac-Mégantic disaster is that both trains had locomotive issues before being parked for the last time. Yet both rail companies still parked these malfunctioning trains on hills without proper securement.
In Lac-Mégantic, the engineer was told to ignore a smoking engine, which eventually led to the fire that resulted in the brakes failing and the train running away.
In this latest accident, an employee of Canadian Pacific Railway, the company which operated the train that crashed in Field, reported of the train's crew: “They couldn’t control the speed of the train, it wouldn’t maintain the speed it should have.”
That means the company knew the 112-car train had issues with speed control prior to parking it, unsecured, on a dramatic hill above a town.Regulatory Failure and a Second Oil Train BoomBruce Campbell, author of the book The Lac-Mégantic Rail Disaster: Public Betrayal, Justice Denied, has called out both this recent tragedy's parallels to Lac-Mégantic and the ongoing lack of regulation that enabled it.
“There’s a lot of risk issues that haven’t been addressed. I’ve been worried the window is still open for history to repeat,” Campbell told The Calgary Herald. “There’s a conflict between economics and safety.”
Powerful industries are choosing higher profit margins over investing in safety measures. Three more people just paid the ultimate price for those decisions.
How powerful? The one real safety regulation that came out of the Lac-Mégantic disaster required modern braking systems known as electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes. However, the rail industry convinced the Trump administration to roll it back.
Braking issues were at the center of both of these tragedies.
Canada's current record levels of oil moving by rail have led to concerns about the country's rail system pushing train crew fatigue to its limits, while trying to move more tar sands oil alongside the already-crowded existing rail traffic. In December 2018, the Canadian transport minister ordered rail companies to update their fatigue policies, which the government then will need to approve.
Once again, the rail industry is setting its own safety rules.
While communities across North America are expressing growing concerns over the large increase in dangerous oil trains on the tracks, the head of the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada made it clear she didn’t agree at the end of last October.
The TSB removed transportation of flammable liquids by rail from its “watchlist” of safety issues.
That means the same conditions remain in place which caused the disaster at Lac-Mégantic, and the rail industry, along with the U.S. and Canadian governments, have all failed to address the clear safety issues.
What could possibly change that? If 47 dead Canadians and a massive environmental disaster didn’t spur a change, then regrettably three more dead railroad employees seem unlikely to either. After all, in November, two railway employees in Wyoming were killed in a runaway train incident when the brakes failed, and nothing changed in its wake.
Canadian Pacific did announce it will now require using hand brakes when trains are parked on hills. However, this is a voluntary measure and appears on its face more of a public relations move than true change of heart. The company's announcement followed one by Transport Canada announcing a requirement that all railroads use hand brakes in situations like the one in Field as a “precaution” that would stay in place as long as needed.
When oil trains were exploding on a regular basis in the U.S., top rail company BNSF said it was going to invest in 5,000 new, safer tank cars to prevent these explosions. The announcement received a lot of press at the time.
But it never happened.
In an early statement after the February 4 crash, TSB was very clear that the crew was not to blame: “It was not anything the crew did.”
Exactly. This looks like another corporate crime scene, with blood once again on the hands of the regulators, politicians, and rail executives who made it possible.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/12/fatal-accident-canadian-pacific-railway-eerily-similar-lac-megantic-oil-train
-
CEQ Prepares to Ease NEPA Rules as Hill Struggles on Infrastructure
Feb 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Industry and other sources are lowering their expectations that Congress will enact major infrastructure legislation because lawmakers have made little progress toward a deal on new project funding, though the White House is pressing ahead on eased rules for environment and climate reviews that many infrastructure projects must undertake.
While both President Donald Trump and top Democrats say the issue remains a top priority for bipartisan agreement, supporters were deflated when Trump’s Feb. 5 State of the Union (SOTU) address only devoted a few fleeting moments to the topic and unveiled no new details.
“It was a major disappointment,” says attorney Fred Wagner, a former top lawyer for the Federal Highway Administration who is now in private practice. “I think there was some hope, because it is one of the areas where opportunity for collaboration would be. But there needed to some signals at least as to how something could move forward . . . and there was nothing. So, I think many advocates . . . have expressed very bitter disappointment there was not more to hang their hat on.”
At the same time, infrastructure supporters and environmentalists are closely tracking the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) forthcoming proposed rewrite of implementing rules for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as a revised guidance for how agencies should consider climate change in NEPA reviews.
CEQ took comment last year on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for streamlining its NEPA rules across agencies, and a proposal could be released this month.
In addition, the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on Feb. 6 began inter-agency review of CEQ’s narrow greenhouse gas guide that is intended to replace the expansive Obama-era guidance it earlier repealed.
Ted Boling, who directs CEQ’s NEPA program, told a Feb. 8 American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education forum that the guide “will go through an inter-agency review process, and CEQ intends to publish it for public review,” dispelling rumors that the guide would be issued as final at the outset. However, Boling said he could not comment on the draft’s contents or any further action.
CEQ could not be reached for comment on the NEPA rule update, but a source following it says it is complete within the council and also ready to be sent to OIRA, the last step before being made public. The NEPA proposal would be subject to an additional round of public comment.
The pending release comes after CEQ Chair Mary Neumayr was confirmed by the Senate Jan. 2.
A CEQ spokesman said in December that it has been considering issuing its own GHG guidance “since the prior guidance was withdrawn for further consideration” in April 2017, as directed by an executive order. Trump blames NEPA reviews for delaying infrastructure projects.
The spokesman declined to say when a new GHG guide could be issued.
A replacement guidance is largely seen as a response to recent adverse court rulings requiring NEPA reviews to be redone because they lacked adequate consideration of climate change, including for the high-profile Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
However, a narrow NEPA climate guide and streamlined environmental reviews for infrastructure will both face certain opposition from Democratic attorneys general, environmentalists and other groups that urged CEQ to drop the planned rule in comments on the ANPR.
Impossible to Glean
Meanwhile, the year’s rocky start with the 35-day partial government shutdown over border wall funding and Trump’s lack of attention to infrastructure in his SOTU have considerably dampened prior high hopes for a major bipartisan infrastructure deal in Congress.
Wagner says it is unlikely that a plan the White House floated last year -- dramatically reducing the federal funding contribution for projects from 80 percent down to 20 percent, with state and local officials, private funding and tolls comprising the rest -- is still on the table.
Yet, it is impossible “to glean that from the two sentences in the speech.”
Prior to the address, Wagner said the administration had offered signals of movement, including comments from the National Economic Council on other options for infrastructure funding.
Now, there is “no sense if the White House is willing to cede ground, and that was the big thing everybody was waiting for.” Wagner notes it did not have to be explicit, such as offering support for a federal gas tax increase. “But [Trump] had to say something that there would be public sources of funding and to promote this as an important national initiative. And he didn’t even do that. So, my indication is there is not internal agreement in the White House on what is acceptable, and it is difficult to kick start the discussion unless and until there is a signal.”
During the SOTU, Trump said only: “Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America’s crumbling infrastructure. I know that Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill, and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting-edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.”
After the speech, the White House issued a fact sheet similarly scant on details, urging Congress to pass a bill delivering for building new and repairing infrastructure, as “key to improving the quality of life for all Americans.” He added there must also be permit streamlining “so a six-month project does not turn into a 10-year odyssey.”
However, both parties remain divided on how to fund new projects, and there even appears to be no agreement within the administration.
In mid-January, Trump held a three-hour meeting with top Cabinet officials to revive efforts for a major, 13-year infrastructure plan, according to Reuters.
The meeting included 20 officials such as Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, focusing on the plan’s specifics and whether to include the details in the SOTU. The lack of detail in the speech suggests no agreement on key issues, including whether to propose new funding options.
Congress largely ignored the administration’s plan last year to significantly cut project’s federal funding share.
‘Massive Effort’
After Trump’s speech, House transportation committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) said he agreed that investing in transportation infrastructure should be a bipartisan issue.
“None of this can happen, however, if we continue to ignore the looming crisis facing the Highway Trust Fund,” which has a $1 trillion investment gap over a decade, he said. “I will work to build bipartisan agreement around legislation, but I can’t do it alone. This will require massive effort from the White House, stakeholders, and supporters in Congress to get something real across the finish line.”
Senate Democrats have said addressing climate change is the “price” for their support for infrastructure funding, and environmentalists have also called for that.
“We would welcome the president to this policy conversation, but so far he has been not only resistant but counterproductive in the efforts to right climate change,” Elizabeth Gore of the Environmental Defense Fund told the Washington Examiner Feb. 6.
Energy industry groups applauded Trump’s infrastructure remarks, with the American Petroleum Institute saying it looks “forward to working with the House, Senate and the administration to develop a strong infrastructure package that addresses our country’s growing energy needs.”
Other industry groups also pledged to work toward a legislative solution, including the American Trucking Associations and the Portland Cement Association.
Meanwhile, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) is planning to introduce legislation to raise the gas tax to fund transportation infrastructure, what could be an opening salvo for real congressional debate on the issue. Blumenauer said Republicans are not vocal about backing a gas tax, but there has always been some private support.
DeFazio and others have also floated a pilot program to base funding on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of gasoline taxes, with some observers arguing that a fossil fuel-based funding formula is incompatible with efforts to significantly reduce transportation sector GHGs.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ceq-prepares-ease-nepa-rules-hill-struggles-infrastructure
-
Emissions Held Steady in First Year of Trump Admin — EPA
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
U.S. emissions held about even in the first year of the Trump administration, a draft EPA report finds.
The report also found that the transportation sector was the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in 2017, surpassing the electric power sector for the first time.
Total emissions from transportation reached 28.7 percent of overall emissions in 2017, just edging out the electric power sector (27.5 percent), which has historically been the leading emitter in the country.
The figures came out as part of EPA's draft "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017" published in the Federal Register today.
Overall, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions had gone down a slight 0.3 percent, to 6,472.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, from 2016.
But total greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.6 percent from 1990 to 2017.
The inventory tracks emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride from sources across the country. It also measures how much carbon is taken out of the atmosphere and stored in soils or in trees and other plant life, according to EPA.
The transportation sector saw a growth in emissions over the past five years as a result of drivers traveling more miles, as other sectors decreased their emissions.
The electric power sector saw declining emissions with the increased use of natural gas and a "rapid increase in use" of renewable energy since 2013, according to the draft report.
In other sectors of the economy, industrial emissions (22.4 percent) saw a slight increase over the previous year, largely undoing a reduction in emissions from 2015.
Agriculture accounted for 9 percent of emissions, mainly from nitrous oxide and methane from ruminant livestock.
Commercial and residential sectors accounted for 6.5 and 5.2 percent of emissions, while U.S. territories were just 0.7 percent of total emissions.
The draft report notes that emissions growth has averaged about 0.1 percent per year since 1990, a rate that has trailed total energy use and fossil fuel consumption and is "much slower than that for electricity use, overall gross domestic product (GDP), and national population."
David Lyon, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, noted there did not appear to be a lot of big changes in emissions levels from 2016 to 2017.
"We are not having the rapid reductions that are required," Lyon said.
The annual greenhouse gas inventory is mandated under international treaty. As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States must report its emissions and carbon "sinks" or removal on a regular basis to the international body.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/12/stories/1060120359
-
How to Cut U.S. Emissions Faster? Do What These Countries Are Doing.
Feb 13, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer and Blacki Migliozzi
The United States is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions far too slowly to help avert the worst effects of global warming. But what would happen if the country adopted seven of the most ambitious climate policies already in place around the world?
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are currently projected to stay fairly flat. Reducing them faster would require major advances in clean technology or big shifts in policy. Or both.
The U.S. made a pledge under the Paris climate agreement to cut emissions by 2025. It also laid out broad goals for 2050.
If the United States adopted an economy-wide carbon tax similar to British Columbia’s, which started small and is set to rise to $37.50 per ton, emissions would start to fall, according to modeling by Energy Innovation, an energy policy firm.
The nation could also require utilities to produce all their electricity from zero-carbon sources — like wind, solar or nuclear — by mid-century, following states like New York and California.
Because of Norway’s aggressive electric-vehicle incentives, plug-in cars are now half of all new sales there. A similar push in the United States would curb vehicle emissions, though it would take years for millions of older cars to be retired.
China has set efficiency targets for industries like cement, steel and petrochemicals. America’s industrial sector could also make further efficiency gains using technologies available today.
Since 1978, California has set energy efficiency standards for new homes and commercial buildings that tighten as technology improves. If those stricter standards were adopted nationally, emissions from heating and cooling would decline.
The United States and Canada laid out plans in 2016 to curb methane emissions from oil and gas operations. The Trump administration has since abandoned the effort, but following through could have a noticeable impact on overall emissions.
If the United States matched the European Union’s legislation to end the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases used in air-conditioners, refrigerators and foams, the reduction in future emissions could be significant. But we’re still only halfway to zero.
Together, these seven policies would slash greenhouse gas emissions in the United States roughly 29 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and roughly 50 percent by 2050, according to Energy Innovation’s climate policy modeling.
To put that in context, under the Paris climate agreement, the United States vowed to cut emissions at least 26 percent by 2025 and laid out a broad goal of reducing emissions 80 percent by midcentury. Assuming these policies worked as intended, they would take the country a big chunk of the way toward deep decarbonization.
These are not the only steps the United States could take to address global warming. Many of these policies would be politically tough to enact. But modeling their impact gives a sense of how far the country could, in theory, push down emissions by adopting some of the more forceful practices from around the world.
To cut emissions even more quickly and deeply, something the United Nations scientific panel has said is necessary to keep total global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the United States, along with countries like China and India, would have to go well beyond anything that has been tried to date. That could include a much higher carbon price, investing in advanced clean-energy technologies, retrofitting older buildings, tackling sectors like air travel and shipping, deploying carbon capture systems to further reduce steel and cement emissions, as well as strategies to revitalize forests and curb methane and nitrogen pollution from livestock and farming.
Energy Innovation has created an interactive policy simulator, based on their energy model, that lets you see the potential impacts of a wider array of climate policies and technological advances. One takeaway: There are no silver bullets. Pushing emissions to nearly zero would require a slew of actions to clean up nearly every corner of the American economy.
Methodology
The emissions effects from these seven climate policies were modeled by Robbie Orvis and Megan Mahajan of Energy Innovation, using the firm’s open-source energy model. A full description of the model and its assumptions can be found here.
Historical emissions include all major greenhouse gases as well as land use and forest sinks, based on national inventories submitted to the United Nations. “Current trend” emissions projections are based on the 2018 Annual Energy Outlook modified to include updated data on technology cost trends as well as projections on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, land use and forestry changes.
Here are the specific policies that were modeled for the United States:
Carbon tax: The tax on coal, oil and natural gas starts at $7.50 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2020 and reaches $37.50 per ton by 2033. This is based on the rates and schedule for British Columbia’s carbon tax, which began in 2008. (The province rebates most of the tax revenue back to its residents, but our policy makes no assumptions about how the money might be used.) Many of the earliest emissions cuts here come from utilities switching more rapidly away from coal.
Clean electricity standard: This policy is partly modeled after existing state-level standards. It requires utilities to increase the amount of electricity they produce from carbon-free sources — including wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal and biomass — until they reach 100 percent clean electricity in 2050. For comparison, California is steadily increasing its clean electricity requirements to 100 percent by 2045, while New York has announced a 2040 goal.
Electric vehicle push: Rather than model Norway’s specific set of electric vehicle tax incentives, this scenario assumes that the United States makes a push to match the rapid recent growth in Norway’s electric vehicle sales over the next eight years. (Between 2011 and 2018, electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids went from 1.6 percent of new sales in Norway to 49 percent.) After 2027, the electric vehicle share of new passenger car sales rises linearly until they account for nearly all of new sales by 2050. This policy does not affect trucks, buses, ships or airplanes.
Industrial efficiency standards: The industrial efficiency gains are based on a 2016 Department of Energy study that looked at the potential for the industrial sector to double its energy savings above expected improvements. Our scenario assumes that these industries achieve half of this potential. The model does not account for possible trade impacts from these rules.
Building codes: This policy reduces energy use in new homes and buildings. In 2016, the California Energy Commission calculated that the state’s stricter building codes would reduce energy-use intensity by 29 percent for residential buildings and 13 percent for commercial buildings, compared with existing national standards. Our scenario assumes that the United States could achieve similar reductions by 2050 by adopting a California-style standard nationwide. It does not affect energy use in existing buildings.
Methane standards: Canada’s methane rules aim to reduce emissions from oil and gas operations 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. The policy in our scenario aims to reduce U.S. methane emissions from oil and gas 40 percent below projected levels by 2030.
HFC phaseout: This policy reduces the use of hydrofluorocarbons in line with the requirements under the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, an agreement that the United States signed but has yet to ratify. In comparison with projections of HFC growth, this policy would reduce emissions from fluorinated gases by 96 percent by 2050.
The model also captures interactions between these policies. A push to promote electric cars is far more effective at reducing emissions if the grid charging these vehicles is getting cleaner at the same time. Conversely, industrial efficiency standards have a smaller impact if there is already a carbon tax in place spurring companies to find energy savings on their own.
There are some important limitations, however. The model assumes these policies all work as intended. But in the real world, utilities could find it prohibitively expensive to get to 100 percent clean electricity without the development of new technologies such as seasonal energy storage, advanced nuclear power or carbon capture. Similarly, even if the United States had Norwegian-style incentives in place for electric vehicles, Americans might not necessarily buy plug-in vehicles at the same rates as Norwegians do.
The model’s projections are also highly sensitive to assumptions about future economic growth and technology improvements that are hard to predict 40 years out. A major breakthrough in battery chemistry, for instance, could help speed up the pace of grid decarbonization or electric vehicle adoption.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/13/climate/cut-us-emissions-with-policies-from-other-countries.html
-
McConnell Plans Vote on Green New Deal as GOP Criticizes Measure
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Arit John
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Feb. 12 he plans to put the Democrats’ Green New Deal to a vote so “everyone can go on record and see how they feel about” the legislation designed to fight climate change.
Senate GOP leaders who joined McConnell at a news conference in Washington criticized the measure, saying it would increase energy costs.
“To me, this is just so extreme,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “It is a bad deal for the American public.”
The legislation (H.Res. 109) is a sweeping package of climate-change measures unveiled by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has drawn a tepid response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who didn’t explicitly throw her support behind the ideas. McConnell’s aim is to split Democrats between the left-leaning members vying for the passions of the party base and more moderate senators who view the proposal as radical and disruptive.
“What is their answer on climate change? What are they going to put forward?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after McConnell announced plans for a vote.
The proposals known as the Green New Deal were crafted in conjunction with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass). The Democrats’ plan envisions shifting away from fossil fuels and other sources of emissions that cause global warming within 10 years. It also includes non-environmental measures designed to address social injustices, like economic insecurity, affordable housing and universal health care.
Endorsing some form of a Green New Deal has become a litmus test for Democrats going into the 2020 campaign. Five of the declared candidates for the party’s presidential nomination have signed on as co-sponsors of the measure in the Senate: Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Other Democrats have expressed support for the general concept of accelerating a conversion to renewable energy and cutting carbon emissions, if not the specific proposals in the legislation.
—With assistance from Laura Litvan, Sahil Kapur and Ari Natter.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mcconnell-plans-vote-on-green-new-deal-as-gop-criticizes-measure
-
Race Is on to Define 'Green New Deal'
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring up the "Green New Deal" for a Senate vote is prompting a rush to define the terms of progressive Democrats' ambitious proposal to tackle climate change.
GOP lawmakers are scrambling to highlight the possible side effects of the deal, outlined last week by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), in some cases relying on a document distributed and later disavowed by the New York Democrat's office (Climatewire, Feb. 12).
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) took to the Senate floor yesterday to outline a host of ramifications of the plan, which he said would mean the end of ice cream.
"Livestock will be banned," Barrasso said. "Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms, to ranches."
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a supporter of renewable energy who faces a tough re-election in his purplish home state in 2020, told E&E News he had no qualms about the upcoming vote, which is expected after the Presidents Day recess next week.
"I'll vote against socialism every time," Gardner said in a brief interview yesterday echoing Republican talking points against the plan.
Asked if he welcomed the underlying debate on climate change, Gardner reiterated the point.
"I think a debate on socialism is incredibly important," he said. "The fact that they're going to remodel every home and house and building in America, they're guaranteeing jobs and benefits to every single American, paying the unwilling to work, income redistribution. I hope that we can have a vote on this, I hope that we can vote on it every day."
As he walked away, Gardner made sure the reporter heard him say the plan should be called "the green new steal."
Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, the top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, took to Twitter yesterday with his own nickname — the "Green New Disaster."
'Green 'aspiration'
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, saw McConnell's call for a vote as a way to push Democrats to take an early position on the ambitious proposal.
"He wants to take an idea or framework that is not fully vetted yet, and even some Democrats think is more expansive than they'd like, and force them to put them down for a vote sooner rather than later," Zelizer said.
The result of the vote could alternately embarrass Democrats who vote no, revealing them to proponents of the plan, or it could make proponents of the plan appear to be too radical.
Zelizer said McConnell and other Republicans recognized the proposal had been successful in generating debate about green policies. "It's his effort to try to kill it," he said.
Democrats largely shrugged off McConnell's gambit.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called the "Green New Deal" an "aspirational document" with goals he supports. But he added that the broad proposal might not easily translate into legislation that can pass Congress.
"It's an aspiration, I have an aspiration to be able to sing opera, you know; I don't think I am going to make it with this voice, but that is my aspiration," he added.
Durbin said he was not worried about the "Green New Deal" becoming an easy target for Republicans. Instead, he said Democrats should use their criticism to ask the GOP about its own climate plans.
"I hope they are going to bring the Republican approach to climate change as well. We'd like to see their approach," said Durbin, who like many Democrats has chided the GOP for taking no action on global warming in recent years.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) took to Twitter to highlight the Republicans' lack of a climate strategy.
"When I say that R's have no plan for climate change, I know it's twitter and people are prone to exaggeration, so I want to be super clear: Republicans actually have no plan to address this threat to the planet. This is why young people are abandoning the Republican Party," he tweeted.
Schatz went further later in the afternoon, telling reporters, "Republicans have no plan for climate change except to aggressively make it worse." He added, "They're the only major political party on the planet that is dedicated to making climate change worse."
Markey told E&E News, "We haven't had a debate on climate change in 10 years, so I think it's very important for us to have as large a debate about the issue as we can. It's obvious that the 'Green New Deal' has unleashed incredible enthusiasm."
'Bring it on'
House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said McConnell's move to vote on the resolution would simply be a messaging tactic for Republicans and an opportunity to rail about "creeping socialism."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) rejected the links between the "Green New Deal" and Ocasio-Cortez's socialist leanings.
"I hope all my colleagues read the actual resolution," he told reporters. "Why would we be against creating a whole bunch of jobs and saving the planet from destruction? You don't have to endorse everything the House author stands for economically by voting for the 'Green New Deal.'"
RL Miller, political director of Climate Hawks Vote, noted broad public support for a "Green New Deal."
She referenced a December poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication that found 81 percent of registered voters from both major parties either somewhat strongly or strongly supported the proposal's main objectives.
Miller also suggested that a no vote could instead hurt Republicans facing tough challenges for their seats in 2020.
"Bring it on. Seriously, if he wants to bring a nonbinding resolution to the floor that is backed by 80 percent of Americans, give the people of Colorado a reason to vote Cory Gardner out of office," Miller said.
Co-sponsors of the "Green New Deal" resolution include many Democratic 2020 hopefuls, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who may also run for president, is keeping a distance from the "Green New Deal" for now, defending his environmental record.
CCS and nuclear
Barrasso said he welcomed debate by Democrats on climate change, noting his bipartisan efforts on carbon capture and sequestration and advanced nuclear technology — two issues addressed by bills that have been signed into law by President Trump.
"Those are the only two things that are out there that actually deal with carbon on what Secretary Moniz called large-scale successes," he told E&E News, referencing testimony by former Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week (E&E Daily, Feb. 8).
"Everything else doesn't move the dial. If you're not doing one of those two, all you're doing is talking, and they're not really doing anything that is productive."
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who also expressed skepticism about the "Green New Deal" during last week's hearing, declined to offer an opinion on how he would vote on the proposal but reiterated his own skepticism of the plan.
"I just know that I've spent a lot of my life in renewable power, and I know what's realistic and what isn't," King told E&E News. "I don't think the proposal is very realistic, but we'll wait and see if it comes up for a vote."
'Wouldn't encourage it'
Speaking before McConnell's announcement, at least one Republican senator said yesterday he had reservations about a possible vote on the "Green New Deal."
"I wouldn't encourage it. I mean, it's just an opening salvo, frankly," Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told E&E News. "I'm rather enjoying the Democrats debating it themselves. From a political standpoint, the more it can get talked about the better the politics looks for our side. But I also want to maintain some opportunity to make deals."
Noting his own state's mix of fossil fuels and renewables, Cramer said he's anxious to explore some energy deals with Democrats.
"I want some of the tax credits to work better for coal, I want infrastructure permitting for oil and gas, particularly the gas," he said. "I haven't done a ledger yet of what could be traded for what, but there's lots of pieces on the table."
Reporters Niina Heikkinen, Kellie Lunney and George Cahlink contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/13/stories/1060120425
-
Now in Minority on Science Panel, GOP Sidelines Skepticism
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
For the first time in years, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hear from a full slate of researchers who accept climate science.
The panel's hearing today contrasts sharply to those that occurred during the last eight years, when Republicans often invited witnesses who expressed skepticism about mainstream climate science. Instead, experts in sea-level rise and Arctic impacts from global warming will brief the committee on the latest climate research.
Don't just thank Democrats.
Committee Republicans, who hosted dozens of climate skeptics in previous years, invited Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center. Majkut has a doctorate in atmospheric sciences from Princeton University, and he is a proponent of a carbon tax and other policies to address rising temperatures.
"The fact that they're willing to listen is really good, I also think the key lesson from science is that this is a difficult problem to manage and that the Science Committee can play a significant role in helping do that," Majkut said in an interview. "The science committee is a fair place to start righting the ship when it comes to climate, that's the place where Congress has close ties to the research community."
Democrats have made climate change a top priority for the 116th Congress, holding a series of hearings in multiple committees, including the Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce panels. Those hearings have largely played out along party lines, with Democrats using climate science to showcase what they say is GOP abstinence, while Republicans attacked the "Green New Deal."
Last week, Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee invited Judith Curry, a scientist who claims that climate policy would be more costly than doing nothing to address rising temperatures. Curry, a climate scientist who retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology, is a longtime favorite of congressional Republicans who want to build a narrative of uncertainty in climate science. She is among a small number of published researchers who hold such views.
But some observers think conservative views against climate change might be thawing.
Majkut's invitation and the questions from some Republicans in committee hearings last week show a new enthusiasm in the party for constructive engagement on climate change, said Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina and onetime Science Committee member. That could be the start of viable bipartisan solutions, he said. That the GOP is willing to invite guests who focus on practical ideas to mitigate global warming is a remarkable diversion from the direction of past hearings.
"I think we could be approaching a tipping point," Inglis said. "Republicans are focused on pragmatic solutions to climate change."
The committee's ranking GOP member, Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, invited Majkut to explain the current impacts of climate change, according to a committee spokeswoman.
"As a rancher who represents a large community of agricultural producers, Ranking Member Lucas wants to better understand the complex relationship between climate change and weather," the spokeswoman said in a statement. "He's interested in how we can help communities increase preparedness for weather events and help businesses benefit from better short-term weather prediction."
That's a departure from the way the Science Committee operated for the last eight years.
During the tenure of former Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee was wielded as a political weapon against climate science. It subpoenaed the emails of federal climate scientists and promoted conspiracy theories that scientists were exaggerating global warming. The committee's Twitter account, when run by Republicans, sometimes featured conservative media attacks on climate science.
Some committee members under Smith have transformed from climate skeptics to advocates for climate action. Former Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, who once demanded that former President Obama apologize for spending so much on climate science, is now the NASA administrator and a steward of climate research. Last year in a Senate hearing he acknowledged his views on climate science have "evolved" and that he no longer questions the research.
While it may be too early to say if Republicans are reacting to constituents' concerns, public polling shows that the nation is increasingly worried about climate change. An analysis released Tuesday by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication showed that the number of Americas who say they are "alarmed" by climate change has doubled in five years. Conversely, the number of Americans who doubt or dismiss climate change has dropped to under 20 percent.
"These trends indicate that the political climate of climate change is shifting toward action," Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale program, said in a statement.
To be sure, the partisan debate on climate change isn't over.
Republican members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus were decimated in the November elections, and their replacements have yet to be named by caucus leaders. GOP lawmakers, like Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, continue to mock the "Green New Deal." He called it a "socialist fairy tale."
What's more, the Science Committee itself still has a number of members who don't accept the consensus on climate science, including Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who blamed rising sea levels on rocks falling into the ocean.
Still, while it's not time to declare a sea change in Washington, the shift occurring on the Science Committee is notable, Majkut said. Even the most intransigent political opinions can transform relatively quickly, he said.
"We've been making progress on this for years," he said. "But the thing is it's tectonic plates. Tectonic plates shift and that's a slow process, every once in a while you get a slip and tremor, and I hope what we're seeing is some of that."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/02/13/stories/1060120401
-
Third Midwestern Democratic Governor Joins Climate Alliance
Feb 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) became the third Midwest governor this year to join the U.S. Climate Alliance Feb. 12, adding to the ranks of Democratic leaders in the region committing to addressing climate change in the face of Trump administration inaction on the issue.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) said during his Jan. 14 inaugural address he would join the alliance along with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) who announced her membership Feb. 4.
Alliance members agree to lead their states to fulfill commitments contained in the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, even though the Trump administration plans to withdraw the U.S. from the pact.
All told, 20 U.S. governors representing about half the country’s population have joined since 2017.
Pritzker, Whitmer, and Evers are Democrats who defeated Republicans in this past November’s elections, and joining the alliance illustrates the region’s change in climate policy and outlook.
‘Embrace Science’
Under the administration of former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), for instance, websites of at least two state agencies were either scrubbed clean of any mention of climate change or were edited to de-emphasize the role that human activity plays as a cause of climate change.
Some of the substitute language posted on the websites says the causes of climate change are “being debated and researched by academic entities.” Evers defeated Walker by fewer than 2 percentage points.
“It’s a new day in Wisconsin and it’s time to lead our state in a new direction where we embrace science, where we discuss the very real implications of climate change, where we work to find solutions, and where we invest in renewable energy,” Evers said in a Feb. 12 statement.
“By joining the U.S. Climate Alliance, we will have support in demonstrating that we can take climate action while growing our economy at the same time,” he said.
Alliance members agree to reduce greenhouse gas emission by at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, implement policies intended to reduce carbon pollution, promote clean energy deployment, and track their progress.
The alliance is bipartisan, but most members are Democrats. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, and Vermont Gov. Phil Scott are the only Republicans.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/third-midwestern-democratic-governor-joins-climate-alliance
-
California, Environmentalists Defend Suit over Scrapped ‘Once in’ Air Policy
Feb 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
California and environmentalists are seeking to preserve their lawsuit challenging EPA’s memo scrapping a longstanding policy that held air toxics sources cannot escape strict Clean Air Act regulation as “major sources,” arguing that the memo amounts to “a binding final action” subject to judicial review.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suit California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA, et al., California and environmental groups are contesting EPA air chief Bill Wehrum’s Jan. 15, 2018, memo than ended the so-called once in, always in air policy.
First issued in 1995, the policy had mandated that industrial sources of air toxics always be subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions reduction mandates, regardless of whether they lowered emissions below the air law’s threshold for major sources.
Major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are defined as those emitting 10 tons per year (tpy) of one HAP or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs. As a result of Wehrum’s memo, sources can now remove MACT controls by reducing their emissions to below the major source thresholds.
Some industry groups say this is logical and fair, but environmental opponents say it will allow for emissions increases, contravening the Clean Air Act’s mandate to reduce pollution.
EPA is seeking to dismiss the case because it targets non-binding guidance, not a “final agency action” subject to judicial review. The agency is working toward a regulation that would codify the new policy, however.
California in a Feb. 8 reply brief says, “With the stroke of a pen, the Wehrum Memo effected a binding final action that is ripe for review.”
The memo “bears the hallmarks of a final agency action: it is ‘effective immediately’ and binds the agency, in this instance, to a definitive reversal of a legal determination it applied for twenty-three years. The possibility of a future formal rulemaking does not alter the finality of EPA’s action. Review of EPA’s action is ripe because it presents a presumptively reviewable legal question under the Clean Air Act.”
California rejects EPA’s argument that the memo could not be challenged until the new policy is applied to a specific permit decision on a MACT-eligible source.
The Wehrum policy “must be vacated in its entirety” because it violated Administrative Procedure Act requirements for public notice-and-comment; it conflicts with the purpose of the air law to cut pollution; and it “is an arbitrary and capricious reversal of EPA’s prior policy without reasoned explanation,” California says.
A coalition of environmental groups in its Feb. 8 reply brief makes many of the same points as California. The coalition argues that “EPA has arbitrarily failed to address critical consequences of its decision” on the environment and public health.
Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the case.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-environmentalists-defend-suit-over-scrapped-%E2%80%98once-%E2%80%99-air-policy
-
A Grieving Mother Wants to Put a Face on Air Pollution
Feb 13, 2019 | New York Times
By Beth Gardiner
Dirty air kills millions of people around the world every year, but it can be hard to put a face on a danger so vast. Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is fighting to do just that. The face she has in mind is her daughter’s.
Ella Kissi-Debrah was 9 when she died in 2013, after three years of asthma attacks so bad, they sometimes triggered seizures. In photos, her smile is broad and bright, her hair braided. She loved music and swimming, and dreamed of becoming a pilot.
Ella lived with her family just off London’s South Circular Road, a major thoroughfare that is clouded by the diesel fumes that make London’s air — like much of Europe’s — thick and foul-smelling. A scientist’s analysis found that many of her hospitalizations coincided with local pollution spikes.
Now Ms. Adoo-Kissi-Debrah wants to put air pollution on Ella’s death certificate. On Jan. 11, the top legal adviser for England and Wales, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, backed her application for a new inquest, and this week, her lawyer plans to petition the High Court to authorize it.
The coroner who originally investigated Ella’s death ruled she had died of acute respiratory failure, but made no mention of pollution. Ms. Adoo-Kissi-Debrah did not know then what diesel fumes can do to young lungs. It was more than a year after Ella’s death that she first learned dirty air is a known asthma trigger. “It was like putting a picture together” as it finally began to make sense, she told me.
Air pollution has never appeared on a British death certificate, said Ms. Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s lawyer, Jocelyn Cockburn. If a new coroner amends Ella’s to note its role, he or she could also demand that the government take action to prevent future deaths. And the moral and political repercussions could be even wider.
This grieving mother’s fight holds a power far greater than its potential to clarify the cause of one family’s tragedy. It’s bigger than just London and Britain, too. In demanding that dirty air be written into the official record as having contributed to her loss, Ms. Adoo-Kissi-Debrah wants to force us all to recognize a danger that is all around us, but which we have long chosen to ignore.
This danger is truly global, and it is a consequence of our decisions to remain dependent on dirty, deadly fossil fuels and our failure to force polluters — like Volkswagen and the other auto manufacturers whose brazen shattering of pollution limits has left so many Europeans breathing toxic fumes — to follow the rules.
It is not just that air pollution itself can be invisible. Its links to all manner of health woes — heart attacks and strokes, premature birth and dementia, among many others — while very real, are hard to make out. That is why getting it on a legal document as a contributing factor in the death of one child matters so much. The message would be unmistakable: This is not an abstraction.
The numbers are chilling. Globally, air pollution cuts short seven million lives every year: about 40,000 in Britain, some 100,000 in the United States, and upward of a million each for China and India.
Europe’s air is significantly worse than America’s. That is in part because of Europe’s embrace of diesel cars, whose fumes are more noxious than gasoline’s. But the bigger reason is the failure of its governments to effectively enforce pollution rules. Instead, they have looked the other way while manufacturers sell diesels that emit six or more times legal nitrogen oxide limits.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has been a more powerful policeman, turning rules on paper into air quality improvements that have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollarssince 1970. Of course, the E.P.A. and the regulations it enforces are under assault by the Trump administration and so decades of progress are at risk, and dirtier air and more ill health are the predictable consequences.
Few understand that better than Ms. Adoo-Kissi-Debra, who was a secondary school teacher before Ella died. For a long time, she says, “I felt her death like a physical pain.” Now, she wonders how many other children London’s dirty air has killed since her own loss.
It does not have to be this way. Effective regulation can significantly reduce pollution levels. Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is taking some meaningful steps, including charging the oldest and most polluting cars to enter the city’s center and retrofitting buses with filters.
But there’s only so much a mayor can do. The problem is much bigger than one city. Real progress requires action at the national, and European levels, to get the dirtiest diesels off roads, force carmakers to comply with the law and crack down on less obvious pollution sources, like household wood-burning. Ultimately, the real answer, in Europe and beyond, is eliminating fossil fuels altogether — andreducing the number of cars on our roads by providing better alternatives, such as strengthened public transportation and denser development that makes biking and walking easier.
And the science is clear. Cleaner air brings better health, and fewer deaths.
Only governmental power can fix this. So now Ms. Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is running for London Assembly. And she hopes official acknowledgment, on a death certificate, of what pollution did to her daughter will make the need for action harder to ignore. “It’s not going to bring her back, obviously. But at least the real reason why she’s not here will be on there.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/opinion/ella-kissi-debrah-pollution-london.html
-
Carbon Removal Technologies to Help Tackle Climate Change? Here’s What It’ll Take.
Feb 12, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nat Keohane
This is a summary of an essay published in Foreign Affairs.
A wave of destructive hurricanes, heat spells and wildfires has ravaged communities across the United States over the past year – bringing new urgency to the need for climate action, as both scientists and citizens are able to connect these extreme events to a warming Earth.
Time is of the essence, but it’s not too late to solve the global climate crisis. A decade of extraordinary innovation has made a greening of the global economy not just feasible, but likely. Now a whole new arsenal is emerging in the fight against climate change: negative emission technologies.
Alongside aggressive action to cut emissions, these technologies will be crucial to reaching “net zero” carbon emissions – the point where any climate pollution we add to the atmosphere is balanced by what we take out. The U.S. must reach this goal by 2050, with the world as a whole reaching net zero as soon as possible thereafter, if we are to stabilize our atmosphere.
$1 billion – just to research it
NETs are different from conventional approaches to climate mitigation because rather than seeking to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we’ve emitted into the atmosphere, they focus on removing carbon dioxide that’s already there.
Some NETs are ready to be deployed today, including land management practices that store more carbon in agricultural soils and forests. Others are at the pilot stage – like direct air capture machines that suck carbon out of the sky and store it underground. And then there are some on the horizon, such as technologies that mimic natural rock weathering practices on a vastly accelerated time scale.
A key challenge is getting to scale. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recently estimated that to meet its climate targets, the world will need to remove as much as 10 gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year by mid-century – nearly twice the current annual emissions in the U.S. from burning fossil fuels.
The report recommends as much as $1 billion annually in U.S. government funding for research on NETs.
Airlines could pave the way for NETs
We’ve long known that pricing emissions through a carbon tax or an emissions trading system creates an economic incentive for cheaper, faster ways to cut pollution. Valuing negative emissions – through tax rebates or tradeable credits for removal – would spur countless more entrepreneurs to join the hunt for NETs.
Standing in the way of those incentives is the lack of a global market for carbon credits. But progress on that front is coming from an unlikely place: aviation.
Airlines, which account for about 2 percent of global carbon emissions today and are set to triple or quadruple such pollution by mid-century, have agreed to cap the CO2 emissions from international flights at 2020 levels with the help of a global carbon credit program.
Done right, this program – the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or “CORSIA” – could catalyze a global carbon market that drives investment in low-carbon fuels and technologies such as NETs.
Over the first 15 years of CORSIA, demand for aviation credits is estimated to reach between 2.5 billion and 3 billion tons – roughly equal to the greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. power and manufacturing sectors release annually.
With this new demand, there is a good possibility that a pot of gold will await companies that develop technologies to cut or remove aviation carbon emissions. CORSIA could also spur investment in NETs to make cleaner jet fuel, for example by producing fuel from waste or biomass through processes that, on balance, absorb more carbon than they emit.
Carbon removal must be part of Plan A
Scientists and activists have historically tended to regard negative emission technologies as a fallback option, to be held in reserve in case other efforts fail. Many fear that jumping ahead and spending billions to suck carbon from the sky or to develop massive forest carbon sinks will distract from the critical need to cut pollution.
But the world no longer has the luxury of waiting for emission reduction strategies to do the job alone. Far from being a Plan B, NETs must be a critical part of Plan A, and embracing them sooner rather than later makes economic sense.
Because the marginal costs of emission reductions rise as more emissions are cut, it will be cheaper to deploy NETs at the same time as emission reduction technologies rather than waiting to exhaust those options first.
Many NETs are ready to be deployed at scale today, and they could help make the difference between limiting warming to bearable levels, and failing to do so. Thanks to the emerging global carbon market for aviation, we may soon be on our way.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2019/02/12/carbon-removal-technologies-hekp-tackle-climate-change-heres-what-itll-take
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested